HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-27 R,��NoTATroyosi COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
Or:�• e9a
`' OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
`d a P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
RANGE COVE
(714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411
June 21, 1985
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS . 1, 21 31 51 61 71 11 & 13
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1985 - 7 : 00 P .M.
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of June 12 , 1985 ,
the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 1, 2,
31 5 , 6, 7, 11 and 13 of Orange County, California will meet in
an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date for a
joint study session with the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority (SAWPA) .
Sdtretary
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif.,- 92708
Telephones:
Area Code
JOINT BOARDS 962-9411 14
IIAGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
TNURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1985 - 7:00 P.M.
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
(2)• Roll call
(3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary
(4) Consideration of motion to receive and minute excerpts, if any
(5) Study session re history and background of regional sewerage service in the
management and protection of the upper (Riverside/San Bernardino Counties)
and lower (Orange County) underground fresh water supplies:
(a) Presentation by Santa Ana Watershed Project authority (SAWPA) -
Andrew Schlange, General Manager
(b) Regional Water Quality Control Board Perspective -
James Anderson, Executive Officer
(c) Discussion
(6) Other business and communications, if any
(7) Consideration of motion to adjourn
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT Post Office Box 8127
10844 Ellis Avenue
County Sanitation Districts Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708
of Orange County, California Telephones:
Area Code 714
540-2910
JOINT BOARDS 962-2411
MEETING DATE
JUNE 27, 1985 - 7:00 P.M.
In the late 1960' s and early 1970' s water and wastewater officials in Orange and
Riverside/San Bernardino Counties cooperated closely in initiating a plan to
manage the Santa Ana River underground fresh water supplies for the three-county
area.
The backbone of this groundwater protection plan is the Santa Ana River
Interceptor (SARI) system. In 1972 the Sanitation Districts entered into
agreements with the .Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) to provide a
means whereby wastewater from Upper Santa Ana River Basin dischargers that would
be harmful to the groundwater supply of both the upper (Riverside/San Bernardino
Counties) and lower (Orange County) basin can be transported, through a closed
system, to the Sanitation Districts' treatment and disposal facilities. The
agreements provide for 30 MGD capacity rights for the Santa Ana River Basin
interests in the District No. 2 Santa Ana River Interceptor and the now existing
and future treatment and disposal facilities of the Joint Sanitation Districts.
The Directors of the Joint Boards have been discussing the possible formation of
an advisory committee of upper and lower Santa Ana River Basin officials to
encourage an on-going dialogue and to enable SAWPA to keep citizens and
officials in Orange County informed of the progress that is being made at the
Stringfellow waste disposal site, as well as other on-going projects and
proposed plans to improve water quality in the entire Santa Ana River Basin.
The Executive Committee has recommended that before such a committee is formed,
and its goals and objectives developed, that a joint study session with SAWPA be
conducted to review the history and background information on the role of
regional sewerage service in the management and protection of the Santa Ana
River underground fresh water supplies.
Enclosed is a summary of the Santa Ana River Watershed management program that
has been prepared by SAWPA. Andy Schlange, SAWPA General Manager, will give a
formal presentation at the meeting. Mr. James Anderson, Executive Officer of
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, which exercises regulatory
authority over water and wastewater matters in the Santa Ana River Basin, has
also been invited to attend the study session to give the Regional Board' s
perspective on the issues.
June 27, 1985
SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY
( SAWPA )
SAWPA, THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AND WATER MANAGEMENT
The Santa Ana River begins its journey to the sea in the
mountains above the City of San Bernardino at Big Bear Lake. The
river rapidly descends from an elevation of 6, 000 feet above sea
level to the valley floor approximately 1, 500+ feet above sea
level east of the community of Highland, San Bernardino County.
Water from the river is used for many purposes, such as
power generation, groundwater recharge, agriculture, and
domestic-municipal and industrial uses. The first such use
ocqurs in the San Bernardino/Redlands area. After each use the
water is returned to the river for the next downstream demand,
either as surface flow or treated wastewater. The process of use
�d and return to the river is repeated at Riverside, and the
Norco/Corona area. Each use of the water increases the salt
concentration of the water (ie: a domestic use adds 250 mgl of
TDS) .
Just below Norco the river enters Prado Flood Control
Basin and becomes a part of the water supply to Orange County.
Once the water passes Prado Dam, the Orange County Water District
spreads it for recharge of Anaheim Forebay. Water for use by
consumers is pumped from the basin by various water entities for
domestic-municipal and industrial uses.
After final use of the river flow in Orange County, the
water is either returned to the river as surface flow and ocean
discharge at Huntington Beach, or to the treatment facilities of
the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County.
r i
In addition to the increase in salinity after each use,
many other factors impact the quality and quantity of the river
as it traverses portions of the three counties: San Bernardino,
Riverside, and Orange. Examples are flood water which carry
large quantities of silt, high groundwater problems in the San
Bernardino/Riverside area where surface contamination occurs,
landfill operations, dairy operation in the Chino/Riverside area,
septic tank leachate in the Norco area, treated wastewater from
areas tributary to the river, quarry operations, recreational
uses such as fishing and swimming, and finally, overflow from
Lake Elsinore, which occurs approximately every seventy (70)
years.
The increased demands on stream flow over the years have
resulted in a long history of water rights litigation within the
Santa Ana River System. Early judgments and agreements prior to
1960 were primarily concerned with quantity of water.
During the mid 19601s, Orange County Water District filed
a lawsuit entitled, "Orange County Water District vs. City of
Chino, et al" . This complaint involved several thousand
defendants in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and hundreds
of cross-defendants in Orange County. The defendants and
cross-defendants included substantially all water users within
the Santa Ana Watershed.
Defense of the litigation in the Riverside/San Bernardino
County areas was coordinated through the Chino Basin Municipal-
Water District, Western Municipal Water District, and San \,r/
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, public agencies
-2-
overlying substantially all of the major areas of water use
within the upper basin.
On April 17, 1969, a stipulated judgment was entered in
the case which provided a physical solution by allocation of
obligation and rights to serve the best interest of all water
users in the watershed. Orange County Water District, Chino
Basin Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District
and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District were deemed to
have the power and financial resources to implement the physical
solution. The stipulated judgment provided for dismissal of all
defendants and cross-defendants except for the four districts
providing certain parties stipulated to cooperate and support the
physical solution.
The physical solution provided that water users in the
Orange County area have rights, as against all upper basin users,
to receive an annual average supply of 42, 000 acre feet of base
flow at Prado, together with the right to all storm flow reaching
Prado Dam. Lower basin users may make full conservation use of
Prado Dam and reservoir subject to flood control use. Water
users in the upper basin have the right to pump, extract,
conserve, store and use all surface and groundwater supplies
within the upper area, providing lower area entitlement is met.
The judgment further provided for adjustment to base flow
(that portion of total surface flow passing a point of
measurement, which remains after deduction of storm flow) based
on water quality considerations.
-3-
As a result of the litigation, but prior to its
settlement, the four major water districts on the river, Chino
Basin Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District,
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and orange County
Water District, created the Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency
to develop a comprehensive management plan for use of available
water supplies. These districts formed SAWPA because they
foresaw a threat to the water supply that is larger than any one
of the districts could cope with alone - the threat of pollution.
They foresaw the possibility that pollution by mineral
salts and other pollutants could pose a greater danger to the
basin than even overdraft. If programs and projects were not
implemented to control these problems, there could be a gradual
accumulation of pollutants in the basin that would be almost
impossible to clean up, causing a total loss of the usefulness
and value of the basins.
SAWPA' s first task was to characterize the problem and
make projections of what the future might hold if nothing were
done. To aid in this effort, sophisticated mathematical models
of the basin were used. The projections supported the fears of
the water districts. It was clear that something had to be done.
As a next step, SAWPA, in the early 1970 's, developed a
long-range plan for the entire Santa Ana Watershed. The plan
included both regulatory programs and projects. The regulatory
portion was recommended to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and has largely been adopted in the form of standards by
that agency. The projects include some to be implemented by the
-4-
individual districts, some by the State of California, some by
the Metropolitan Water District and some by SAWPA. In total,
they will result in a much safer water supply in the long term.
The plan was subjected to extensive public hearings and
subsequently, was supported by a majority of water and wastewater
operators in the watershed. It identified twelve (12) major
project areas of need. Of the identified areas, four (4) were
such that their impact overlapped more than one member district.
The four project areas are:
1. Mineral and Toxicant Control - Export to the Ocean.
Construction of a pipeline facility (Santa Ana Regional
Interceptor - SARI) from the Pacific Ocean to upper watershed
districts for the removal of poor quality wastewater. This
facility is the single most crucial element in achieving
water quality management in the watershed. Primary uses of
the SARI are:
a. Removal of poor quality rising water in the Chino III,
Temescal and Arlington Basins,
b. Removal of Desalter brine,
c. Removal of agricultural return water from areas tributary
to the Arlington basin and dairy areas of Chino/
Riverside,
-5-
d. Removal of municipal and industrial wastewater high in
TDS.
2 . Reduction of Salt Added by Agriculture.
The preparation of specific plans and facilities for limiting
salt added by agriculture are to be determined by future
feasibility level studies.
3 . Provision of Good Quality Water to Corona, Norco and Home
Gardens.
The provision of water for domestic use meeting the delivered
(3-c plan) quality objective designed to reduce quality
related consumer cost and wastewater disposal. This program
includes construction of facilities to serve treated State
Water Project water and water from the Bunker Hill Basin.
4 . Prevention of Poor Quality Rising Water from Commingling with
Good Quality Water in the Santa Ana River.
This project was envisioned to provide an economically
feasible method of exporting salt from the upper watershed
groundwater basins and thereby improving the mineral quality
of the river water used for replenishment in the lower
watershed.
-5-
i
In 1974, upon completion of the Planning Agency work
program, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority was created
and empowered to develop, plan, finance, construct and operate
programs and projects related to water quality-quantity control
and management, resulting in pollution abatement and protection
of the Santa Ana Watershed. The original member districts were
Chino Basin Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water
District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and
Orange County Water District. Eastern Municipal Water District
subsequently joined in 1984 .
Implementation of these projects required that SAWPA
contract with other public agencies. In the case of SARI in
1972, SAWPA contracted with the County Sanitation Districts of
'w-" Orange County for Interceptor Treatment and Disposal Capacity in
their system. Construction of SARI, again the most critical
element of the water quality management plan, was completed to
Riverside and Chino in 1983 .
In addition to implementing the four specific project
areas, SAWPA has a coordination role to assure that all of the
various parts of the plan are moving ahead. SAWPA's role is
recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State
Water Resources Control Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and other agencies.
In general, it can be accurately said that the Basin Plan
for the Santa Ana Basin is the most comprehensive water quality
protection program of any river basin in the world, largely
because of the active, ongoing interest and participation by the
-6-
member water districts and SAWPA' s affiliation with other
agencies such as the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County.
Since its formation in 1974, SAWPA has undertaken projects
and programs to achieve the goals of the projects already
described. The status of these projects as of May, 1985 is as
follows:
1. Mineral and Toxicant Control - Export to the Ocean.
(a) Projects Contructed:
SARI Reaches I thru IV, IV-A and IV-B are complete and
in operation.
Average daily flow to the system is 2 .50 mgd.
Capacity Use Rights of 7. 068 mgd have been sold
consisting of 6.978 mgd of temporary domestic, 0. 090 mgd
industrial.
SAWPA has issued 22 trucked waste permits which provide
for the discharge of approximately 10, 000 gpd of water
softener brine.
Average water quality presently delivered to SARI is in
excess of 900 mgl TDS.
-7-
(b) Project Remaining to be Constructed - SARI Reaches IV-D
& E.
SARI Reaches IV-D & E involve construction of
approximately 147,000 linear feet of pipeline between
the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Pomona Rincon Road
in the Chino area and the City of San Bernardino
Wastewater Treatment Plant in the San Bernardino area.
The project is estimated to cost 25 million dollars.
Preliminary alignment and environmental impact reports
have been completed.
SARI Reaches IV-D & E will provide facilities that will
help alleviate pressure for tertiary treatment in the
San Bernardino area, and provide for disposal of present
and future industrial wastewater and dairy brine waste
along the route of the proposed pipeline.
Studies to determine financing alternatives for the
project are complete. Redlands Linen, the Agua Mansa
Industrial Group, and the East Valley Corridor interests
are participating in the selection of the best
alternative.
�.d
-8-
2 . Reduction of Salt Added by Agriculture
(a) Studies:
Studies have been completed to determine the dairy
industry impact on water quality in the watershed.
Recommendations for a facilities plan have been
discussed, but no agreement has been reached.
(b) Facilities Program:
Construction of SARI Reaches IV-D & E could result in
some dairy waste being removed from the watershed.
However, additional studies should be undertaken to
update previous work and to seek new solutions, such as
possible salinity offset programs similar to the
SAWPA/Southern California Edison program in the
Arlington Basin.
3 . Provision of Good Quality Water to Corona, Norco and Home
Gardens
Three projects are currently under consideration to improve
water quality in the Corona, Norco and Home Gardens area.
They are:
-9-
(a) Woodcrest Water Transfer System:
SAWPA has successfully processed an application under
the P.L. 84-984 Small Project Loan Program (USBR) to
construct a water conveyance system which, when
completed, modifies the water supply to the Woodcrest
area by substituting State Project water for Colorado
River water. The loan application report was signed by
the Secretary of the Interior in October, 1983 .
Contracts were executed on February 11, 1985, with the
USBR. These contracts are subject to validation.
Preliminary estimates indicate that this project will
reduce imported salt into the watershed by 12, 000 tons
annually.
Total cost of the system is estimated at $20, 000, 000.
(b) Arlington Desalter:
Agricultural return flow to the Arlington Basin from the
Woodcrest area has increased nitrates and salinity to
unacceptable levels. Groundwater levels have been
rising due to reduced pumping from the Basin,
endangering downstream water supplies.
Studies by SAWPA recommend that extraction of poor
-10-
quality Arlington Basin water is necessary to prevent
further damage to these downstream water supplies. The
planned program envisions extraction facilities,
desalter, water distribution system and use of SARI
Reach IV-B for disposal of desalter brine. This system,
combined with the Woodcrest project, will provide high
quality water to consumers in Home Gardens, Norco and
Corona.
Long-term benefits may be the recovery of the
Arlington Basin for domestic water supply without
the need of desalinization.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California has executed a letter of understanding
to purchase the product water.
Financing utilizing privatization is being arranged
for construction of the various elements required.
Total estimated cost is $14, 000, 000.
(c) Bunker Hill Basin Water:
The original planning concept (3-C Program) envisioned
the movement of high quality Bunker Hill Basin water L„rJ
into the Arlington area.
-11-
High groundwater problems near the City of San
Bernardino and along portions of the Santa Ana River
require that a water management program be implemented
which provides for the removal and transfer of Bunker
Hill water. During recent years, substantial quantities
of Santa Ana River water have been lost to the ocean,
due to the inability to regulate flow along the river to
maximize groundwater recharge potential, and establish a
regulated storage program at Prado Dam.
SAWPA supports programs to assure that maximum capture
of local water and river flow for beneficial use is
achieved. This concept could embody conjunctive use in
Chino Basin, moving supplies to areas of need in the
watershed, including Eastern Municipal Water District or
exchange programs with Metropolitan Water District or
Department of Water Resources for future supplies from
their system when needed.
4 . Prevention of Poor Quality "Rising" Water from Co-Mingling
with Good Quality Water in the Santa Ana River
(a) Studies:
Studies have been conducted to determine the location of
�.d poor quality water in the watershed. Locations
identified include lower Temescal, Arlington and Chino
-12-
III. Recommendations for a facilities plan have been
included in the Step 1 Report for SARI Reaches IV-A, B,
D, and E.
(b) Facilities Program:
The current facilities program has been limited to
development of a small scale pollution offset program in
the Arlington Basin, and development of the Arlington
Desalter. Successful operation of the Arlington (SCE)
Offset Program .suggests that similar programs developed
in locations of poor quality rising water may be an
economic method of solving this problem. Coupled with
recovery of water supply by desalinization and disposal
of brine in the SARI system, clean-up of poor quality
water may be feasible at little cost to SAWPA, its
members, and affiliates such as CSDOC.
(c) Connection of CRC to SARI.
The California Rehabilitation Facility at Norco
currently supplies its water from wells pumping in an
area of poor quality groundwater. Continued pumping of
this water supply used by CRC and disposed of as
wastewater to SARI prevents it from co-mingling with
good quality water in the Santa Ana River. This �.rJ
connection allows for closure of an antiquated treatment
-13-
plant which currently discharges highly saline water
directly into Prado Basin.
(d) Interim Connection, City of Norco to SARI.
The City of Norco. which currently requires two (2) mgd
of treatment plant capacity, discharges one (1) mgd to
the City of Corona Treatment Plant, while the remainder
is disposed of in septic tanks and leach fields.
However, as discussed earlier, failures of septic tank
systems has caused health problems. SAWPA was requested
by Norco, Western Municipal Water District, and local
legislators to assist in resolving these problems.
After approval by the State Water Resources and
Environmental Protection Agency, SAWPA agreed to make
available SARI capacity to alleviate the health risk.
This program will provide an opportunity for SAWPA, as
the lead agency and Western Municipal Water District to
construct the necessary regional facilities.
(e) Present Water Supply
Considering that the Santa Ana Watershed imports
expensive supplemental water supply, it is extremely
important to assure its maximum utility by protecting
vd its quality.
-14-
Water supplied to the watershed comes from various
sources. We have already discussed the Santa Ana
River. The Metropolitan Water District has constructed
and operates the Colorado River Aqueduct system which
terminates at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. This
water supply is used by Eastern Municipal Water
District, Western Municipal Water District, Orange
County Water District and Chino Basin Municipal Water
District.
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and
Metropolitan Water District are both importers of State
Project Water which enters the watershed at Devil
Canyon with terminal storage at Lake Perris. Chino
Basin Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Orange County Water District and San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District now have
access to this system. Completion of the Woodcrest
Project will provide WMWD access.
Good water management practice dictates that state water
(220 mgl TDS) which is of better quality than Colorado
River water (750 mgl TDS) be used wherever possible in
the water supply system. Maximum use of State Project
water will assist in achieving objectives established at
critical points along the Santa Ana and if maintained,
will help in providing high quality water to consumers
-15-
in the watershed.
Despite all of the programs, projects and the delivery
of high quality State Project water, water and
wastewater management agencies must develop cooperative
programs to prevent further contamination of the water
supply by toxic substances and mineral salts. The
recent joint effort by SAWPA and CSDOC regarding the
Stringfellow site demonstrates that government can
implement clean-up strategies which accomplish
environmentally safe treatment and disposal of
contaminated water. This type of problem (Stringfellow)
presents the greatest challenge to our agencies in
d✓ protecting the very precious water supplies.
SAWPA was created to handle the problems and concerns
just mentioned. It is our intent to meet our
obligations by planning, developing, financing, and
constructing the facilities and features necessary to
assure that all consumers within our boundaries are
provided with the best possible water.
Failure to complete the watershed protection plan could
result in degradation and loss of the river supply to
Orange County, or at the very least, cause Orange County
-16-
water users to pay excessive consumer-related costs for
plumbing, detergents, water softeners, costly imported
supplies, etc. and reduce the ability to recycle such
water.
-17-
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 195
DATE: June 11, 1985
TO: SAWPA Commission
SUBJECT: Draft of SAWPA Status Report
It is timely to review SAWPA's purposes and programs. _
There have been dramatic changes in the watershed since 1967
when the Planning Agency formed as an adjunct to the end of
litigation. At that time, Southern California was still
suffering from a prolonged drought that lasted thirty years,
ending in 1969 with the first of a series of normal or above
normal rainfall years. In 1967, the four original Districts
were contemplating a continuation of the drought conditions and
all its potential impacts on water management. In fact, water
supply planning in Southern California still is drought-
oriented.
Since 1969, however, there has been sufficient
precipitation coupled with management of imported supplies, to
meet most water demands in the watershed. At times the water
managers have not been able to capture all the run-off, and
water has wasted to the sea that would be of great value in the
future if it could be stored. Flooding problems have generally
outweighed shortage of supply problems. Nonetheless, the water
management institutions that were put in place prior to 1969
still exert a major impact on decision-making to the point that
the problems of surplus have not been adequately addressed.
Discussed in the attached report is the status of
existing work programs and proposed areas which Staff suggests
the need for consideration. It is Staff's intent to discuss
this draft fully at the June 11, 1985 Commission Meeting. Your
comments and suggestions are appreciated.
Very truly yours,
J. Andrew Schlange
Manager
l� T
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Summary and Recommendations _
III. Agency Purpose, Powers and
Membership
IV. Initial Work Plan
V. Project Status
VI. Proposed Programs
VII. Agency Financing
VIII. Project Agreements
IX. Contracts with Others
r. 3
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. SAWPA's Origin
Litigation of water use and rights has a long history
within the Santa Ana River system. Early judgments and
agreements preceding 1960 were primarily concerned with quantity
of water.
During the mid 1960's, Orange County Water District filed
a lawsuit entitled, "Orange County Water District vs. City of _
Chino, et al". This complaint involved several thousand
defendants in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and hundreds
of cross-defendants in Orange County. The defendants and
cross-defendants included substantially all water users within
the Santa Ana Watershed.
Defense of the litigation in the Riverside/San Bernardino
County areas was coordinated through the Chino Basin Municipal
Water District, Western Municipal Water District, and San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, public agencies
overlying substantially all of the major areas of water use
within the upper basin.
On April 17, 1969, a stipulated judgment was entered in
the case which provided a physical solution by allocation of
obligation and rights to serve the best interest of all water
users in the watershed. Orange County Water District, Chino
Basin Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District
and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District were deemed to
have the power and financial resources to implement the physical
solution. The stipulated judgment provided for dismissal of all
defendants and cross-defendants except for the four districts
providing certain parties stipulated to cooperate and support the
physical solution.
The physical solution provided that water users in the
Orange County area have rights, as against all upper basin users,
to receive an annual average supply of 42,000 acre feet of base
flow at Prado, together with the right to all storm flow reaching
Prado Dam. Lower basin users may make full conservation use of
Prado Dam and reservoir subject to flood control use. Water
users in the upper basin have the right to pump, extract,
conserve, store and use all surface and groundwater supplies
within the upper area, providing lower area entitlement is met.
The judgment further provided for adjustment to base flow
(that portion of total surface flow passing a point of
.measurement, which remains after deduction of storm flow) based
on water quality considerations.
As a result of the litigation and stipulated judgment to
ensure the supply of good quality water to Orange County, the
four remaining defendants and cross-defendants (CBMWD, WMWD,
SBVMWD and OCWD) determined that planning the use of water
�✓ supplies in the watershed would be beneficial to all users.
SAWPA, the Planning Agency, was formed in 1968 as a joint
exercise of powers agency. Its members were the four water
districts who have the primary responsibility of managing,
j
preserving and protecting the groundwater supplies in the Santa
Ana Basin. These districts formed SAWPA because they foresaw a
threat to the water supplies that is larger than any one of the
districts could cope with alone - the threat of pollution.
They foresaw the possibility that pollution by mineral
salts and other pollutants could pose a greater danger to the
basin than even overdraft. They suspected that if programs and
projects were not implemented to control this problem, there
could be a gradual accumulation of pollutants in the basins that
would be almost impossible to clean up, causing a total loss of
the usefulness and value of the basins.
SAWPA's first task was to characterize the problem and _
make projections of what the future might hold if nothing were
done. To aid in this effort, sophisticated mathematical models
of the basins were used. The projections supported the fears of
the water districts. It was clear that something had to be done.
As a next step, SAWPA, in the early 1970's, developed a
long-range plan for the entire Santa Ana Watershed. The plan
included both regulatory programs and projects. The regulatory
portion was recommended to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and has largely been adopted in the form of standards by
that agency. The projects include some to be implemented by the
individual districts, some by the State of California, some by
the Metropolitan Water District and some by SAWPA. In total,
they will result in a much safer water supply in the long term.
llftd That plan, completed in 1972, identified twelve major
project areas of need. Of the identified areas, four were such
that their impact overlapped more than one member district.
Those four projects are discussed in greater detail in Chapter
IV.
in 1974, upon completion of the Planning Agency work
program, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority was created _
and empowered to develop, plan, finance, construct and operate
programs and projects related to water quality-quantity control
and management, resulting in pollution abatement and protection
of the Santa Ana Watershed. The original member districts were
Chino Basin Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water
District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and
Orange County Water District. Eastern Municipal Water District
subsequently joined in 1984.
Implementation of some projects such as SARI required that
SAWPA contract with other public agencies. In the case of SARI
in 1972, SAWPA contracted with the County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County for Interceptor Treatment and Disposal Capacity in
their system.
In addition to implementing the specific projects
discussed in Chapter IV, SAWPA has a coordination role to assure
that all of the various parts of the plan are moving ahead.
SAWPA's role is recognized by the Regional Board, the State Water
Resources Control Board, the U.S. EPA and other agencies.
In general, it can be accurately said that the Basin Plan
d.✓ for the Santa Ana Basin is the most comprehensive water quality
protection program of any river basin in the world, largely
because of the active, ongoing interest and participation by the
member water districts.
r. T
�..d CHAPTER II
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Summary
SAWPA was created in the early 1970's to implement
projects recommended in planning reports, which were designed to
protect and enhance water supplies to all users in the watershed.
Management of water use, disposal and reuse by the agency and its
members will hopefully minimize the need for future litigation.
Chapter V discusses the status of the initial work plan
assigned to SAWPA. The development of new financing capability
for SAWPA has provided the impetus to allow systematic completion
of the various projects assigned.
Chapter VI sets forth new programs that the Commission
should consider assigning to SAWPA. These proposals complement
and enhance SAWPA's goals and objectives. Curtailment of
Colorado River water supplies and failure to approve transfer
facilities around or through the Delta make it imperative that
available water supplies be utilized to achieve maximum use and
benefit.
SAWPA's involvement at Stringfellow indicates the need for
local water agency involvement with the regulatory agencies,
having responsibility for strategies designed to clean-up and
dispose of toxic contamination which affects groundwater
supplies.
Tighter restrictions and pretreatment requirements on
industrial dischargers to SARI suggest that a regional
pretreatment facility - paid for by industry, owned and operated
by SAWPA through its members - may be a more efficient, more cost
effective method of handling such waste.
The Commission should give serious consideration to `
include new unit fees and consumer cost savings as part of
SAWPA's financing authority. Each new unit of development
increases the cost of maintaining water quality objectives.
Water quality has been determined to have an indirect cost to
consumers for water heaters, increased use of detergent, etc. It
should be determined whether the consumer is willing to pay for
improved water quality which would result in savings.
2. Recommendations
Staff recommends that the Commission:
(a) Continue with completion of the initial work plan,
(b) Authorize the proposed programs outlined in Chapter
VI.
(c) Give serious consideration to enacting legislation
forming the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
as an independent agency as opposed to a joint
exercise of powers.
II-1
r ?
CHAPTER III
AGENCY PURPOSE, POWERS AND MEMBERSHIP
1. Purpose and Powers
SAWPA was created in the early 1970's as a public agency
empowered to develop, plan, finance, construct and operate
programs and projects related to water quality-quantity control
and management, resulting in pollution abatement and the
protection of the Santa Ana Watershed.
SAWPA activities and responsibilities include, but are not
limited to the following:
(a) Water quality control.
(b) Protection and pollution abatement in the Santa Ana
Watershed, including development of waste treatment
management plans for the area within the watershed.
(c) The construction, operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation of works and facilities for the
collection, transmission, treatment, disposal and/or
reclamation of sewage, wastes, wastewaters, poor
quality groundwaters and stormwaters.
(d) The construction, operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation of projects for irrigation, municipal
and industrial supplies.
(e) Projects for aquifer rehabilitation.
(f) Projects for reclamation, recycling and desalting of
water supplies for irrigation, municipal and
industrial purposes.
The determination to utilize a Joint Exercise of Powers as
the operating authority for the agency, included the recognition
that at some future date, SAWPA should become an independent
agency. �t was felt by those involved that the Joint Exercise of
Powers afforded an opportunity to establish the agency, make
modification, if necessary, at the local level and once the
Authority proved acceptable and capable of performing its
functions and duties, a bill would be submitted to the
legislature to implement the program as an independent
self-governing Authority.
Under its enabling contract documents, SAWPA has authority
to exercise the common powers of its member agencies. Some of
these powers are:
(a) To make and enter contracts.
(b) To employ staff and consultants.
(c) To acquire, construct, manage, maintain
and operate building, work or improvements.
(d) To incur debt, liabilities or obligations.
(e) To issue bonds, notes, warrants or other
evidence of indebtedness to finance cost and
expenses incidental to agency projects.
III-1
2. Membership
The public agencies eligible to become members of SAWPA
are:
(a) Orange County Water District
(b) Chino Basin Municipal Water District
(c) Western Municipal Water District
(d) San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
(e) Eastern Municipal Water District
III-2
CHAPTER IV
INITIAL WORK PLAN
As a result of the settlement in 1967 of "Orange County
Water District vs. the City of Chino et al", the Chino Basin
Municipal Water District, Orange County Water District, San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and Western Municipal
Water District formed the Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency.
The Planning Agency's purpose was to develop a comprehensive _
water quality management plan for the Santa Ana Watershed.
That plan, completed in 1972, and later incorporated into
the State Water Resources Control Board Basin Plan, identified
twelve major project areas of need. Of the twelve, four impacted
the service area of more than one of the original four
districts. In order to implement a program to develop, finance
and construct the projects identified, the Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority was created in 1972. The four project areas to
be developed by SAWPA were:
1. Mineral and Toxicant Control - Export to Ocean.
Construction of a pipeline facility (SARI) from the Pacific
Ocean to upper watershed districts for the removal of high
saline wastewater, including:
(a) Poor quality rising water in Chino III, Temescal and
Arlington Basins.
(b) Desalter brine.
(c) Agriculture return water from areas tributary to
Arlington Basin.
(d) High TDS municipal and industrial wastewater.
2 . Reduction of Salt Added by Agriculture.
The preparation of specific plans and facilities for
limiting salt added by agriculture, to be determined by
future feasibility level study.
3 . Provision of Good 4uality Water to Corona. Norco and Home
Gardens
The provision of water for domestic use meeting the delivered
(3-C Plan) quality objective designed to reduce quality
related consumer cost and wastewater disposal. This program
includes construction of facilities to serve treated State
Water Project water and water from the Bunker Hill Basin.
IV-1
4. Prevention of Poor Quality Rising Water from Commingling With
Good Quality Water in the Santa Ana River
This project was envisioned to provide an economically
feasible method of exporting salt from the upper watershed
groundwater basins and thereby improving the mineral quality
of Santa Ana River water used for replenishment in the lower
watershed.
IV-2
V CHAPTER V
PROJECT STATUS
Since its formation in 1975, SAWPA has undertaken projects
and programs to achieve the goals of the four project areas
described in Chapter IV. Summarized here is the status of the
initial projects:
1. Mineral and Toxicant Control - Export to Ocean, as
Implemented in Project Agreements 1, 6 _and 7
(a) Projects Contructed:
As of May 1985, SARI Reaches I thru IV, IV-A and IV-B
were complete and in operation (Figure I: Map) .
Average daily flow to the system is 2.50 mgd.
Capacity Use Rights of 7. 068 mgd have been sold
consisting of 6.978 mgd of temporary domestic, 0. 090 mgd
industrial.
SAWPA has issued 22 trucked waste permits which provide
for the discharge of approximately 0.25 MG per month of
water softener brine.
Average water quality presently delivered to SARI is in
excess' of 900 mgl TDS.
(b) Project Remaining to be Constructed - SARI Reaches IV-D
& E, as Implemented in Project Agreement 8
SARI Reaches IV-D & E involve construction of
approximately 147, 000 linear feet of pipeline between
the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Pomona Rincon Road
in the Chino area and the City of San Bernardino
Wastewater Treatment Plant in the San Bernardino area.
The project is estimated to cost 25 million dollars.
Preliminary alignment and environmental impact reports
have been completed.
SARI Reaches IV-D & E will provide facilities that will
help alleviate pressure for tertiary treatment in the
San Bernardino area, and provide for disposal of present
and future industrial wastewater and dairy brine waste
along the route of the proposed pipeline
Studies to determine financing alternatives for the
project are complete. Redlands Linen, the Agua Mansa
Industrial Group, and the East Valley Corridor interests
are participating in the selection of the best
alternative. One concept being studied for financing
includes the use of one or more assessment districts
„ 1
that would underwrite the construction costs. Bond debt
service would be paid with capacity sales income to the
extent it is available. Landowners in the assessment
districts would gain equity in SARI capacity as
contributions are made. In the early years it may be
possible to lease capacity to cities in the San
Bernardino Valley area for a limited term, to assist in
solving their immediate problems while producing cash
flow to pay for construction of D & E. Alternative
financing utilizing Public Purpose Investment Bonds is
being explored.
2 . Reduction of Salt Added by Agriculture
(a) Studies:
Studies have been completed to determine the dairy
industry impact on water quality in the watershed.
Recommendations for a facilities plan have been
discussed, but no agreement has been reached.
(b) Facilities Program:
Construction of SARI Reaches IV-D & E could result in
some dairy waste being removed from the watershed.
However, additional studies should be undertaken to
update previous work and to seek new solutions, such as
possible salinity offset programs similar to the
Southern California Edison program in the Arlington
Basin.
3. Provision of Good Ouality Water to Corona, Norco and Home
Gardens
Two projects are currently under consideration to improve
water quality in the Corona, Norco and Home Gardens area.
They are:
(a) Woodcrest Water Transfer System:
SAWPA has successfully processed an application under
the P.L. 84-984 Small Project Loan Program (USBR) to
construct a water conveyance system which, when
completed, modifies the water supply to the Woodcrest
area by substituting State Project water for Colorado
River water. The loan application report was signed by
the Secretary of the Interior in October, 1983.
Contracts were executed on February 11, 1985, with the
USBR. These contracts are subject to validation.
Project completion is subject to approved financial
planning by Western Municipal Water District.
Preliminary estimates indicate that this project will
reduce imported salt into the watershed by 12,000 tons
annually. Improvement of agricultural runoff water
quality to the Arlington Basin area is expected to
�..d provide an opportunity to collect such runoff for bypass
around the Arlington Basin to the Santa Ana River
through a gravity collector. The gravity collector will
be the subject of future study and evaluation.
(b) Arlington Desalter:
Agricultural return flow to the Arlington Basin has
increased nitrates and salinity to unacceptable levels.
Groundwater levels have been rising due to reduced
pumping from the Basin, endangering downstream water
supplies. _
Studies by SAWPA recommend that extraction of poor _
quality Arlington Basin water is necessary to prevent
further damage to these downstream water supplies. The
planned program envisions extraction facilities,
desalter, water distribution system and use of SARI
Reach IV-B for disposal of desalter brine. This system,
combined with the Woodcrest project, will provide high
quality water to consumers in Home Gardens, Norco and
Corona.
Long-term benefits may be the recovery of the
Arlington Basin for domestic water supply without
the need of desalinization.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California has executed a letter of understanding
to purchase the product water.
Financing utilizing privatization is being arranged _
for construction of the various elements required.
(c) Bunker Hill Basin Water:
The original planning concept (3-C Program) envisioned
the movement of high quality Bunker Hill Basin water
into the Arlington area.
High groundwater problems near the City of San
Bernardino and along portions of the Santa Ana River
require that a water management program be implemented
which provides for the removal and transfer of Bunker
Hill water. During recent years, substantial quantities
of Santa Ana River water have been lost to the ocean,
due to the inability of local agencies to regulate flow
along the river to maximize groundwater recharge
potential, and establish a regulated storage program at
Prado Dam.
SAWPA supports programs to assure that maximum capture
of local water and river flow for beneficial use is
achieved. This concept could embody conjunctive use
V-3
7
in Chino Basin, moving supplies to areas of need in the
watershed, including Eastern Municipal Water District or
exchange programs with Metropolitan Water District or
Department of Water Resources for future supplies from
their system when needed.
(d) Gravity Interceptor Agricultural Return Flow
(Arlington)_:
Improvement of agricultural return water quality from
the Mockingbird Canyon/El Sobrante area, by the delivery
of high quality State Project water or Bunker Hill _
water, may in the future require construction of an
agriculture tail water interceptor for collection .of
high quality water to prevent it from co-mingling with
poor quality Arlington Basin water. Once collected, the
water could be transported to local points of use or
directly to the Santa Ana River.
4. Prevention of Poor Ouality "Rising" Water from Co-Mingling
with Good Quality Water in the Santa Ana River
(a) Studies:
Studies have been conducted to determine the location of
poor quality water in the watershed. Locations
identified include lower Temescal, Arlington and Chino
III. Recommendations for a facilities plan have been
included in the Step 1 Report (auxiliary) for SARI
Reaches IV-A, B, D, and E.
(b) Facilities Program: _
The current facilities program has been limited to
development of a small scale pollution offset program in
the Arlington Basin, and developmnt of the Arlington
Desalter. Successful operation of the Arlington (SCE)
Offset Program suggests that similar programs developed
in locations of poor quality rising water may be an
economic method of solving this problem. Coupled with
recovery of water supply by desalinization and disposal
of brine in the SARI system, clean-up of poor quality
water may be feasible at little cost to SAWPA or its
members.
V-4
`..' CHAPTER VI
PROPOSED PROGRAMS
Chapters III and IV set forth the initial purposes and
programs of SAWPA. In conjunction, the Commission should
consider other projects which complement and enhance SAWPA's
goals. Outlined herein for your consideration are programs which
staff considers worthy of your evaluation:
1. Basin Planning.
The approval of Project Agreement No. 10 places SAWPA as the
responsible agency to assure that members' strategies and
concepts are incorporated in the Basin Plan Update. Working
in cooporation with the Regional Board, alternatives can be
formulated and evaluated to assure that innovative and
flexible management plans are implemented.
SAWPA should be encouraged to continue this responsibility in
future plan updates including, if necessary, contributing
financial assistance so that total planning can be achieved.
2. Development of Artificial Assimilative Capacity in the
Watershed.
Improvement of water quality in the watershed to the
recommended Basin Plan objectives should be accomplished upon
completion of the twelve projects discussed in Chapter IV.
Orderly development of the area's water resources requires
flexibility in planning concepts. Rigid rules, regulations
and guidelines for solving problems can deter needed
development of industry, housing, etc. The Southern
California Edison Offset Program demonstrated that innovative
programs can be as effective as construction of major
projects. Implementation of programs which improve water
quality to levels beyond Regional Board objectives provides
SAWPA with the opportunity to utilize and market such
additional assimilative capacity to users where other
economic solutions may not be available.
Revenue from such sales could be utilized by SAWPA, or its
members, to develop alternate solutions which accomplish
water quality improvement in the watershed. _
3 . Energy Development.
Within the watershed, opportunities exist for development of _ . _..
electrical energy from waste heat, trash, and .hydro.- : This_:. :-,,-c. Z nI s
energy identified and developed by SAWPA should be dedicated
`w,l to water quality management and/or could be sold or exchanged
with SCE. Revenue from such sales will be used to offset
development costs.
VI-1
4. Water Transfer and Management.
The Santa Ana Watershed relies on imported water to meet
consumer demands. In recent years, due to greater than
normal precipitation, some areas of the watershed have become
waterlogged such as the Bunker Hill Basin in the San
Bernardino Area. This results in property damage, potential
for liquefaction in the event of an earthquake, perennial
flow in the river and costly tertiary treatment of
wastewater. Lack of regulated storage prevents capture of
storm flows resulting in substantial loss of local water to
the ocean. _
SAWPA should assist local agencies in developing solutions
and management plans which assure maximum retention of water
in the watershed while minimizing damage to property.
Conjunctive storage programs in the Chino and San Jacinto
Basins, surface storage at Lake Perris and Prado Reservoir,
and exchange agreements with MWD, DWR or others in the_.
watershed are opportunities which should be evaluated and
developed. Equity to water purveyors should be demonstrated
so that implementation plans are acceptable.
SAWPA's role could be coordinator, plan developer, or
watermaster (accountant) .
5. Wastewater Transfer and Management
Treatment and disposal of wastewater in the Santa Ana
Watershed has been responded to by local agencies and member
districts. This has resulted in the availability of
substantial quantities of highly treated wastewater. Current
practice along the Santa Ana River is to return most water to `
the river for additional downstream use. In some instances,
such as EMWD land disposal, this is the method used to
dispose of treatment effluent.
Failure to provide transfer facilities for the State Aqueduct
around the Delta warrants that an evaluation be made to
maximize the use of available water supplies. A study should
be undertaken within the watershed that evaluates and
determines the feasibility of using imported water only for M
& I purposes and the use of treated wastewater for industrial
process water, indirect and direct groundwater recharge, and
direct delivery to agriculture for irrigation purposes.
The implementation of such a concept would allow development
of a two-tiered pricing formula with the most expensive water
used to meet the highest and best use (M & I) and less costly
water to meet secondary demands (agriculture) .
6. Toxic Waste Sites.
SAWPA's involvement in the Stringfellow Toxic Waste Site
points out the need for local water agency involvement in
`..� clean-up of toxic waste sites. As a regional agency, SAWPA
should, in cooporation with the Department of Health Services
and the EPA, -identify all known waste sites in the watershed'
and determine their impact on local water supplies.
Strategies should be developed to assist the regulatory
agencies in their clean-up programs. Toxic contamination
potentially represents the single most destructive element to
our water supplies.
7. Toxic Waste Treatment and Disposal System.
SAWPA should evaluate the potential for locating and _
developing a waste treatment system in the watershed where
toxic/hazardous waste can be neutralized and disposed of in a
safe manner. Whether development and operation of such a
system should be publically or privately owned would be
determined as part of the study.
8. Regional Pretreatment System - SARI.
Pretreatment requirements for use of SARI by CSDOC are
becoming more rigid in order to meet ocean discharge
requirements. Pretreatment facilities necessary to treat
such waste at each discharge location may not be the most
cost effective method. SAWPA should, at discharger's
�..d expense, evaluate the possibility of a regional treatment
plant on the SARI system prior to discharge to the CSDOC
system.
1..d
VI-3
`..� CHAPTER VII
AGENCY FINANCING
The original financing concept for SAWPA was to utilize
member contributions and grants to fund operations and
construction. This concept was successful during construction of
SARI Reaches I-IV. Changes in grant conditions and passage of
tax limitation initiatives compelled the members of SAWPA to
reconsider financing methods for capital improvements.
Discussed herein are existing and proposed methods by which
the agency can continue to provide its financial resource: _
1. Existing Charges
A. Member Contribution
(i) General Budget:
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that
upon adoption of the general budget, each member
agency is required to contribute their pro-rata
share of the budget, currently 20% each. Due to
innovative financing, SAWPA in recent years has
only required a membership fee.
(ii) Project Budget:
Project budgets are initiated by project agreements
which set forth scope of work, budget and contract
conditions. The project agreements outline the
amount of manpower and financial resources each
member agency is required to contribute. `
B. Capacity Use Rights
(i) Sales:
SAWPA markets capacity use rights in SARI which
recover total cost of construction adjusted annually
by ENR CCI LA.
(ii) Lease:
SAWPA will lease capacity in its facilities if the
capacity made available is utilized to provide time
to develop regional solutions for handling
wastewater. The interim solution provided by lease
of SARI capacity allows the continued orderly
development and growth of a community which
otherwise may be limited by moratorium.
VII-1
(iii) Operations and Maintenance Fees:
(a) Volumetric - SAWPA has established a volume
charge for flow to SARI, designed to cover
SAWPA's operation and maintenance cost,
including administration, CSDOC treatment
cost, and SARI replacement. The volume fee
is adjusted annually, taking into consideration
credits and debits in the preceding year.
(b) Surcharge - Within the SARI system, SAWPA has
the ability to dilute some excess BOD/COD
demand and suspended solids. A fee schedule
has been established for this service. Funds
earned are accrued to the SAWPA general fund.
(c) Trucked Waste - SAWPA has provided discharge
facilities for trucked waste to the SARI
system. SAWPA collects $0. 01 per gallon of
wastewater delivered. This fee after payment
of volume fees to CSDOC, plus a one-time permit
fee of $200.00 are accrued to the SAWPA general
fund.
`mod (iv) Offset Fees:
Dischargers who have need for SARI capacity,
but are located prohibitive distances from the
pipeline, may be eligible for offset programs
similar to that provided for SCE. Under this
arrangement, SAWPA intervenes with the Regional
Board to develop solutions which reduce a
pollution source having greater impact on the
watershed.
Fees charged for such services are utilized
by SAWPA to construct and operate the offset
system.
(v) Contract Services:
SAWPA contracts with member districts to assist
in water, wastewater development, financing and
construction. A management fee is included for
such services. Revenue earned is used to
offset SAWPA general budget costs.
2. Proposed Charges
A. New Unit Fees
Each new unit of development in the watershed
increases the cost of maintaining water quality
objectives. SAWPA staff proposes that an
i
evaluation be made as to such cost and develop
a fee schedule which would generate the
necessary funds to construct and operate
facilities for removal of such increase in
salinity. This type of fee may require
legislative approval.
B. Consumer Cost Savings
Water quality has a direct impact on consumer
costs, such as plumbing, water heaters, cost of
detergent, etc. Such costs should be _
quantified and a determination made as to
whether consumers are willing to pay such fees
as part of their monthly water bill. The funds
derived could be used to provide improved
water supplies and develop facilities to
maintain or improve water quality within the
watershed.
VII-3
CHAPTER VIII
PROJECT AGREEMENTS
The Joint Exercise of Powers stipulates that projects other
than general budget activities be undertaken by Project
Agreement. The agreement to set forth scope of work, budget,
participation and resources to be contributed by each member
district. Outlined herein are active project agreements, their
purpose and participating members:
Project Agreement Members Purpose _
1 CBMWD, SBVMWD, Construction and
OCWD & WMWD Operation of SARI
Reaches I-IV.
1 CBMWD, SBVMWD, Changes Method of
(amended) OCWD & WMWD Compensation to
SAWPA for Operations
and Maintenance
Charges.
2 CBMWD & OCWD Voided
�+✓ 3 Incomplete
4 Voided
5 CBMWD, SBVMWD, Provides for
OCWD & WMWD Reimbursement of
Member Contri-
butions in SARI,
Reaches I-IV.
Agreement has not
been completed.
6 OCWD & WMWD Provides for
Financing, Const-
ruction and Opera-
tion of SARI, Reach
IV-B. Woodcrest
Water Conveyance
System. Norco
Regional Sewer
System.
7 CBMWD & WMWD Provides for
Financing, Const-
ruction and opera-
tion of SARI, Reach
IV-A.
8 OCWD, SBVMWD Provides for
& WMWD Financing,
8 cont. OCWD, SBVMWD, Studies, Construction
& WMWD and Operation of SARI
Reaches IV-D&E. The
Stringfellow Toxic
Waste Treatment Plant
was Constructed under
the Authority of this
Agreement.
9 OCWD & WMWD Provides Financing
for Studies and Con-
struction of a _
Groundwater Desalter
in the Arlington
Basin.
10 OCWD, EMWD, WMWD, Provides Financing to
SBVMWD & CBMWD Develop Scope of Work
for Basin Plan Update.
10 OCWD, EMWD, WMWD, Provides for
(amended) SBVMWD & CBMWD Implementation, Fi-
nancing, and Scope of
Work for Basin Plan
Update and 205J Study.
�.d
VIII-2
,I 4
CHAPTER IX
CONTRACTS WITH OTHERS
In order for SAWPA to complete its work program, it is
necessary that contracts with other agencies be entered. These
contracts may provide joint use of facilities, finance or
construction programs for needed facilities in the watershed.
Outlined herein are such contracts:
(1) CSDOC Treatment and Disposal - This contract
provides the method by which SAWPA has access to _
the CSDOC system.
(2) CSDOC Interceptor - This contract authorizes
SAWPA's acquisition of 30 mgd of interceptor
capacity in SARI, Reaches I-III.
(3) State Department of Public Health - provides for
SAWPA's building of the Stringfellow Toxic Waste
Treatment Plant.
(4) State Water Resources Control Board, Santa Ana
Region - provides for SAWPA to develop studies,
findings and recommendations for the Basin Plan
`.d Update, both San Jacinto and Santa Ana Basins.
(5) City of -Norco Sets--forth a proposal for a
regional sewer system in west Riverside. Provides
for lease of SARI capacity.
IX-1
4 r June 27 1985 7:00 m. 1 2
MEETING JA?� TIME p• DISTRICTS ,3,5,6,7,11 & 13_
DISTR1f-T 1 JOINT BOARD'S
(CRANK) . . . . . . . .HANSON. . . . . . (THOMAS/MANDIC)„BAILc-Y. . . . . .
(SALTARELLI) . . .HOESTEREY, , . ('WISNER) . . . . . . . . .BEV RAGE. . . ,
(LUXEMBOURGER) ,GRISET. . . . , , (RISNER) . . . . . . . . .BROWNELL. . . .
(WIEDER). . . . . . .STANTON. . . . ..�i (ZIEGLER) . . . . . . . .BUCK. . . . . . . .
(NORBY) . . . . . . . . . .CATLIN. . . . . .
DISTRICT 2 (NELSON) . . . . . . . . .COOPER. . . . . .
(NORBY), , . . . . . SPERRY). . , . , . . , ,CULVER, , . . , ,
CATLIN. . . . . . ✓ SALTARELLIS, . . , .EDGAR, . , . , . ,
(ZIEGLER) . . . . . . BUCK. . . . . . . . C2L (JARRELL). . . . . . . .GRIFFIN. . . . .
(NELSON). . . . . . .COOPER. . . . . . v (LUXEMBOURGER). . .GRISET. . . . . .
(LUXEMBOURGER) .GRISET. . . . . ._ (CRANK) . . . . . . . . . .HANSON. . . . . .
(SILZEL) . . . . . . .KAWANAMI . . . . +i (COX) . . . . . . . . . . . .HART. . . . . . . .
(WEDEL). . . . . . . .MAHONEY. . . . . (SALTARELLI ). . . . .HOESTEREY. . .
(SCOTT)ii, . . . . . .NEAL. , , . . . . ✓ (SILZEL) . . . . . . . . .KAWANAMI . . . .
(CULVERI. . . . , . .PERRY, , . . . . . (WEDEL) . . . . . . . . . .MAHONEY. . . . .
(OVERHOLT. . . . . .ROTH. . . . . . . . (COX). . . . . . . . . . . .MAURER. . . . . .
(BEYER), . . . . . . .SMITH, , , . . , .� (SCOTT) . . . . . . . . . .NEAL. . . . . . . .
(WIEDER)„ . . . .STANTON, . , ; (COOPER). . . . . . . . .NELSON. . . . . .
(BEVERAGE) . . . . .WISNER. . . . , , ✓ (FINLAYSON) . . . . . .OLSON. . . . . . .
DISTRICT 3 SKANEL) . , . . , . . . ,PARTIN- , . . ,
(CULVERS. , . . . , , . .PERRY. . . . . . .
SCOX). , , , , . , , , , ,PLUMMER. . . . .
(OVERHOLT). . . . .ROTH. . . . . . . . v IISEIDEL� . , . . . , , . ,POLIS. . . . , , .
(COOPER). . . . . . .NELSON. . . . . . (OVERHOLT) . . . . . . .ROTH. . . . . . . .
� , 9
( E - -- (SIRIANI), , . , , . . ,SAPIEN. ,., ; ,,., .... ,,.. . . . . . .BAIL
RISNE, . . . . . . t (MILLER). . , , . . . . .SILLS.
, . . . . . .CATLIN. . . . . . (BEYER). . . . . . . . . .SMITH.
(PRRY) . CULVER. . . . . . (WIEDER). . . . . . . . .STANTON,
(JAERRELL . , , , .GRIFFIN. . . . , ,v (SELVAGGI). . . . . . .SYLVIA. . . . . .
}� (LUXEMBOURGER) .GRISET. . . . . . v -- (FINLEY). . . . . . . . .THOMAS. . . . . .
C ('WEDEL) . . . . . . . .
MAHONEY. . . . .- (GREEN/GALLACHER)WAHNER. . . . . .
(SCOTT) , . 4 , NEAL. . . . . . . .J� (BEVERAGE). . . . . . .WISNER. . . . . .
(FINLAYH . . . ., , ,OLSON. . . . . . .�G
(KANEL) . . . . . . . .PARTIN. . . . . . t:
(SEIDEL). . . , . . .POLIS . . . . . , Cam,
(SIRIANI ) . . . . : .SAPIEN. . . . . .C-
'4=/ (WIEDER). . . . . . .STANTON, . . . ,
(SELVAGGI ) . . . . .SYLVIA. . . . . ._
STAFF:
DISTRICT 5 SYLVESTER. . .
CLARKE. . . . . .
(COX) . . . . . . . . . .PART. . . . . . . . (/ DAWES. . . . . . a
(COX). . . . . . . . . .MAURER. . . . . , ANDERSON. . . ,
(WIEDER) . . . . . . .STANTON. . . . . BUTLER, . . , . .
BROWN, . . . . . .
DISTRICT 6 BAKER, , . . . . .
KYLE. , . . . .
4GALLACHER). . .WAHNER. . . . . . li- YOUNG. . . . . . .
((COX)) „ tt, , , . . . .PLUMMER. . . . .�� VON LANGEN
(WIEDERI. , . . . . .STANTON. . . . ._�_ WINSOR. . . .
STREED. . . .
DISTRICT 7 CLAWSON. . . . ,
SBEYER) , . . . . . .SMITH. . , . ; . , OTHERS: WOODRUFF. . .
(MILLER). . . . . . .SILLS. . , .SILLS. . : : : : :-CE7 ATKINS. . . . . .
(SALTARELLI) . . .EDGAR. . . . . . ._ HOHENER. . . . .
(LUXEMBOURGER) .GRISET. . . . . . v HOWARD. . . . . .. _
(COX). . . , , , , . , ,MAURER. . . . . .�c HUNT. . . . . . .
('WIEDER). , , . . , .STANTON. . . . . CL- KEITH. . . . . . . _
(GREEN). . . . . . . .WAHNER. . . . . . KNOPF. . . . . . .
LE BLANC. . . .
DISTRICT 11 LINDSTROM. . ._-_
LYNCH. , . , . . .
SMANDIC�. . .. .BAILEY, . . , , . MARTINSON, . .__
IIWIEDER , . .STANTON. . , . , PEARCE, . . . . .
(FINLEY). . . . . . THOMAS. . . . . .�C
DISTRICT 13
'-m/ (BEYER) , . . . . . .SMITH, . , . . . .
(NELSONS. . . . . . .000PER. . . . . .
(WISNER). . . . . . . BEVERAGE. . . .
_�
�OVERHO�T) . . . . .ROTH. . . . .
i . , ✓
WIEDER . . .STANTON. .
5/29/85
Q / ��C�i
r
s
PLEASE SIGN IN
,.WWI
NAME AGENCY
layrel CkooN k4o- �llaw(
IQ-// AEA /1 � ,d� A<w c
44 1; �4c—
'Toe- P' Y"or—, SA-WM
Rob ce Go 4.,Zw CSt)o C
D oC-
AoG
'e, Z
�uIle V- «
*Wow
TRANSCRIPT
JOINT BOARD MEETING OF
CSDOC AND SAWPA
t
June 27, 1985
Joint Chairman Edgar:
I don' t want to take very much time on some of the initial intro-
ductions. The purpose of this meeting is very simple. And that
is that over the last few months simply because of the controversy
that we' ve encountered with our Stringfellow treatment water, there
has been a great deal of apprehension of what is the role of SAWPA.
What are the things that need to be done?
And we have thought of such things in terms of newspapers articles,
in relation to Norco, relating to other kinds of things. And the
dialogue that I have had• with Mr. Clark, (SAWPA President) who couldn' t
be here, and Mr. Schlange, it became very apparent to me that a very
positive thing that we can and should do is to at least get educated.
And the education is to understand in a far more specific detail
exactly what SAWPA is, exactly why it exists, what it' s doing, and
then as some of these things are presented there is going to be a lot
of opportunity for questions and answers and through that exercise I
think we' re going to end this evening far better informed than we have
been before. Do you want to add something to that Mr. Holcomb?
Wayne H. Holcomb, SAWPA Commissioner:
No, I would just echo your remarks, and I am delighted to be here.
In fact I didn' t know I was going to be here, ,I wanted to sit back
there and see this too. But I think it is so important that we live
in a basin, and for you people to know what we do upstream. It' s a
heavily used basin and we are trying, not only trying but we are
cleaning up the basin as I 'm sure you' ll see in the presentation
tonight. Because we know where the water flows to and what it' s to be
used for and I know on the Stringfellow issue I wasn' t here and wish I
would have come to that meeting. I didn' t think it was going to be
that kind of meeting because we know what we' re doing up there.
Certainly you would trust us up there. But anyhow, it was a good
meeting and I think this will be very educational for all of us.
Andy Schlange, SAWPA Manager:
I would like to introduce two additional members of my board.
Mr. Theo Nowak from Chino Basin Municipal Water District, with us this
evening, and Mr. Howard Hicks from Western Municipal Water District.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity of coming in and
appearing before you and to try to define the purposes and programs of
the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. How those programs relate
to Orange County, the Orange County water supply, how they relate to
the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. I have tried to
break my discussion into three or four different areas. First of all
I would like to go through what is the Santa Ana River and what
happened to the Santa Ana River. The second phase is a short summary
of the litigation that has occurred regarding the. water rights of the
Santa Ana River over the years, the number of studies that have been
produced, the projects old and new which are required in order for us
to maintain the integrity in the water quality to all of our consumers
both in the upper basin, and that area above Prado Flood Control
Basin, and that area in Orange County. As Mr. Holcomb indicated this
water supply is all of our water supply.
SAWPA, THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AND WATER MANAGEMENT
To .begin with, the Santa Ana River begins its journey to the
sea, high in the mountains above the city of San Bernardino and Big Bear
Lake. As you can see by these slides that' s a picture of it both in
the winter time and then the lake during the summer . The water
quality was very good at that point in time. The river rapidly
descends from an elevation of about 6, 000 feet above sea level to the
valley floor approximately 1, 500 feet above sea level east of the
community of Highland, in the San Bernardino County area.
Water from the river is used for many purposes, such as power
generation, groundwater recharge (the picture that you see here is the
location north of San Bernardino where state project water is actually
recharged into the system) , agriculture, many orchards, citrus and
other type crops are grown in the upper basin, and it' s also used a
great deal for domestic, municipal and industrial uses. And most of
that water supply is produced from the underground basin by wells such
as those you see here. The first such use of the water supply
actually occurs in the San Bernardino/Redlands area. After each use
the water is returned to the river for the next downstream demand.
The picture that you see here is. surface water, it. is actually
Artesian water. The water actually comes to the surface under
pressure and is flowing in storm drains back into the river at this
particular location and/or it is used for human consumption and then
put back through domestic wastewater treatment plants. Some are the
plants that you operate in Orange County.
1
The process, and this diagram shows how, the various
water flows return or contribute to tributaries to the Santa Ana River .
(The river itself is shown in the blue line, and the upper portion,
the first set of arrows is the San Bernardino/Redlands community and
the water ultimately drains back to the river in that area. ) The long
arrows coming down from the top of the slide represent outflow and
flow through Chino Basin Municipal Water District. You have some flow
in from the bottom side which is Temescal Canyon and the Arlington
Basin with the arrow coming around in the loop. Once through Prado
Dam, you then see the flow of water in Orange County.
This process of use and return to the river is repeated at
Riverside, where the water is again taken out and used (this is just
above the MWD aqueduct in the background. It' s used for recreational
purposes there. ) It' s put through the Riverside Treatment Plant and
returned to the river above Norco. (This is the Millican Avenue Bridge,
if you' re familiar with that location) . Each time that process is
repeated the salt/salinity content of the water from each domestic use
increases by about 250 parts per million. So if you start out with a
water supply of 200 parts per million at the foot of the mountains, by
the time it gets to the Norco area or roughly in the vicinity of Prado
Dam it' s likely to have a salinity value of about 700 or 800 parts per
million.
Just below Norco the river enters the Prado Flood Control Basin
and it' s at this point that it becomes a real part of the Orange
County Water Supply. Once the water passes Prado Dam, and here you
2
see the outlet structure from the dam, (the next slide will show it in
the vicinity of Featherly Park) , the Orange County Water Districts
spread the river water to recharge into the groundwater system in the
Anaheim Forebay.
Water for use by consumers in the Orange County area is pumped
from the basin by various water entities for domestic, municipal and
industrial uses within Orange County. And at that point the water
will have then been used approximately four times.
After use in Orange County some of the water returns to the river
as surface drainage along streets, curbs, and gutters. It' s made
from washing down lawns and it is discharged into the ocean at
Huntington Beach, or more likely, the water 'is delivered to the
treatment facilities of County 'Sanitation Districts of Orange County
for additional treatment prior to ocean disposal.
Now in addition to the increase in salinity after each use, many
other factors impact the quantity and the quality of the water supplies
of the river as it traverses across the boundaries of the three
counties: San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange. Examples of such
impacts are flood waters, which carry large quantities of silt, high
groundwater problems in the San Bernardino/Riverside area where
surface contamination can occur. Then you have landfill operations
which are adjacent to the river (this happens to be in the Riverside
vicinity) , dairy operations in the Chino/Riverside community (we have
200,000+ dairy cows in that location) , septic tanks 'in the Norco area
which are having problems (that happens to be leachate from septic
tanks that have failed in some areas of Norco) , treated wastewater
3
(this happens to be a discharge point from the Chino Basin Municipal
Water District) (incidentally this water does have tertiary treatment
and it' s one of the most advanced treatments given the water from that
area) .
We have the Corona Rehabilitation Treatment Plant, a very
antiquated plant that' s overloaded at this point in time, we have the
Corona Treatment Plant which discharges not exactly to the river but
into spreading ponds which are adjacent to the Prado Flood Control
Basin. Those are the impacts in the upper basin.
Below Prado Dam we have sand & gravel operations, recreational
uses such as fishing and swimming, outflows from Lake Elsinore, which
occurs approximately every 70 years. You wonder why we are concerned
about the outflow from Lake Elsinore. This particular lake, when it
comes to the overflow point carries a salinity value of about 1200
milligrams per liter discharged to the Santa Ana River at Corona
where, after if flows down through Temescal Canyon, it becomes
immediately part of the water supply for Orange County.
Over the years the increased demands -from river flow have
resulted in the long history of water rights litigation within the
Santa Ana River System. Early judgments and agreements prior to 1960
were primarily concerned not with the quality of water, but "Could we
get any water at all?"
During the mid 19601s, Orange County Water District filed a
lawsuit entitled, "Orange County Water District vs. Chino Basin et al" .
(I believe there is a slide there if I am not mistaken) This
complaint involved several thousand defendants in the Riverside/
\..i
4
San Bernardino County, and hundreds of cross-defendants in Orange
County. It lasted many years and cost the various water interests
gar/
tremendous sums of money in legal and engineering fees. The
defendants and cross-defendants included substantially all of the
water users within the watershed, both in Orange County, and Riverside/
San Bernardino Basin areas.
Defense of the litigation in Riverside/San Bernardino County
areas was coordinated through the Chino Basin Municipal Water
District for the area served by that agency, Western Municipal Water
District, and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District,
public agencies overlying substantially all the major areas of water
use within the watershed.
On April 17, 1969, a stipulated judgment was entered in the case
which provided a physical solution by allocation of obligation and
rights to serve the best interest of all water users both in the upper
basin or lower basin in the watershed.
Orange County Water District, Chino Basin Municipal Water District,
Western Municipal Water District, and the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District were deemed to have the power and financial
resources to implement the physical solution. In addition, the
stipulated judgment provided for dismissal of all defendants and
cross-defendants except for the four districts, providing, however ,
certain parties stipulated to cooperate and support the physical
solution.
�.d
5
The physical solution provided that water users in the Orange
County area have rights, as against all upper basin users, to receive
an annual average supply of 42,000 acre feet of water through Prado
Dam each year. That' s based on a water quality of 800 milligrams per
liter TDS at Prado Dam. The physical solution agreed to by the Upper
Basin was that San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District would
deliver to the Prado Flood Control area or the Riverside Narrows,
which is an area which is just above Prado, approximately 15,000 acre
feet of the 700 milligrams per liter TDS.
The Chino Basin Municipal Water District and Western Municipal
Water District each agreed to contribute 16,875 acre feet of water to
the pool in order to assure that there would be 42,000 acre feet of
water per year available at Prado. There was something else that was
unique in this particular judgment, if you improve the water quality
v..i ie. you go down say 600 milligrams per liter, the outflow of Prado
Dam, the other basin agencies could reduce the amount of water that
they deliver to Orange County. If ' they go over 800 milligrams per
liter in TDS then they have to add water to compensate for the
overage. The unique factor in this particular program was that Orange
County Water District agreed that the delivery of the 42, 000 acre feet
could be made up of reclaimed wastewater. So Orange County receives
42,000 acre feet of base flow of Prado together with the right to -all
storm-flow reaching Prado.
The lower basin users may make full conservation use of Prado Dam
and Reservoir subject to flood control use. Water users in the upper
' 6
basin on the other hand have the right to pump, extract, conserve,
store, and use all surface and groundwater supplies within the upper
area providing the lower area or the Orange County interest is met.
.The judgment further provided for adjustment to the base flow (that
portion of total surface flow passing a point of measurement, which
remains after deduction of storm flow) based on the water quality
considerations that I have enumerated.
As a result of the litigation, but prior to its settlement, the
four major water districts that we talked about: Chino Basin
Municipal, Western Municipal, San Bernardino, and the Orange County
Water District, created the Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency (not
to be confused with the Project Authority that' s now in existence)
whose purpose was to develop a comprehensive management plan for use of
available water supply. There was a great deal of concern expressed
that on litigation, we could spend millions of dollars on litigation,
but very few dollars on water planning. As a result of this litigation
we did start to plan the use of the water supplies within the
watershed.
These four districts then formed SAWPA, and they formed it
because they foresaw the threat to water supply that is larger than
any one of the districts could cope with alone - .the threat of water
pollution.
They foresaw the possibility that pollution by mineral salts as
shown on this particular diagram. The pie diagram indicates the
various sources of salt added to the water supply as you can see
dairy solid wastes of about 27 percent, groundwater, point sources,
7
dairy sewage, citrus or agriculture and the other elements. These are
the contributors to the salinity in the system. 33. 9 percent of that
flow should be regulated or controlled by actions of regulatory bodies
or by changing water supply or other elements in that regard.
66 percent however, needed to be bypassed or moved away from those
water supplies, segregated, and that' s where the Santa Ana Regional
Interceptor was developed. And thanks to Orange County Sanitation
Districts in 1972, we were able in the upper basin to acquire capacity
in that system.
These pollutants that we' re talking about could pose a greater
danger to the basin and our water supplies than overdraft of the
basin. We can always replace water if we can find supplemental water
at the bottom. But once a basin is damaged with salt pollution or
contamination it' s very difficult to correct that situation.
If the programs and projects were not implemented to control
these problems, there could be a gradual accumulation of pollutants in
the basin that would be almost impossible to clean up, causing a total
loss. of the usefulness and value of the basins and the quality of the
Santa Ana River.
SAWPA' s first task was to characterize the problem and make
projections - (and this is the planning agency we' re talking about now)
of what the future might hold if nothing were done. To aid in this
effort, sophisticated mathematical models of the basin were used.
The four agencies spent over 1.5 million dollars in this area to
develop a work program. The projections supported the fears of the
. water districts. It was clear that something had to' be done.
8
As a next step, in the early 1970 ' s, SAWPA developed a long-range
plan for the entire Santa Ana Watershed. This plan was funded under a
3-c grant by the Environmental Protection Agency and contributions
from the four water districts. The plan included both regulatory
programs and projects. The regulatory portion was recommended to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and has been largely adopted in
the form of standards by that agency as shown at the Basin Plan which
most of you are probably familiar with. This comes out of the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and from this they set the
standards for discharges into the river system.
The projects included some to be implemented by the individual
districts that we talked about, some by the State of California,
some by the Metropolitan Water District, and some by SAWPA. In total,
when complete (and they are not complete by any means yet) , they will
result in a much safer water supply to our water consumers.
The plan was subjected to extensive public hearings (we are
talking now about the plan on my side of the screen here - the Water
Quality Plan) , and it was subjected to extensive public hearing and
was subsequently supported by a majority of water and wastewater
operators in the watershed including your agency, the Sanitation
Districts. It identified twelve (12) major project areas of need.
They covered the categories of mineral and toxicant control projects
(part of that was exportation of high TDS water into the ocean) ,
reduction of salt added to fresh water resources by agricultural
users, reduction of salt added to fresh water resources by municipal
and industrial water users, segregation at the source and safe disposal
9
of toxic materials. Under water supply projects, provision of good
quality water, domestic water to the Corona, Norco, and Home Gardens
�d
area, modification of the groundwater extraction pattern in the Chino
Groundwater Sub Basin, improvement of mineral quality in domestic
water in the lower watershed.
Under wastewater treatment and disposal projects, this calls for
the provision of additional degrees of wastewater treatment and
modification of points of discharge to meet water quality objectives.
Groundwater basin replenishment projects; replenishment of the upper
watershed groundwater sub basin with imported State Project water,
replenishment of the lower watershed groundwater sub basins with a
blend of Santa Ana River water, MWD lower feeder water which comes
from the Colorado River, State Project water from Northern California,
desalted water and reclaimed wastewater.
dd
And finally ground water quality control projects which included
prevention of poor quality rising water from commingling with good
quality water in the Santa Ana, provision for protection against sea
water intrusion of the lower watershed groundwater basin. Now many of
the projects that we' ve just talked about were to be completed and
implemented by local agencies such as the sanitation districts and the
water districts upstream. However, there were four categories in this
program that overlapped and impacted more than one member district.
The four project areas which became the responsibility of SAWPA were:
1. Mineral and Toxicant Control - Export to the Ocean.
Required construction of a pipeline facility (Santa Ana Regional
Interceptor - SARI) from the Pacific Ocean to the upper watershed
10
districts for the removal of poor quality wastewater. This
facility is the single most crucial element in achieving water
quality management in the watershed. Primary uses of the SARI
were:
a. Removal of poor quality rising water in the Chino III (or the
lower Chino Basin) , the Temescal Basin, and the Arlington
Basin,
b. Removal of Desalter brine,
c. Removal of agricultural return water from areas tributary to
the Arlington Basin and dairy areas of Chino/Riverside Counties,
d. Removal of municipal and industrial wastewaters high in TDS .
To remove wastewaters, we look at that as being both domestic
and/or industrial. If the quality of the water is bad enough,
it doesn' t make any difference what' s in it as long as you
remove it, segregate it, and separate it from the good water
supply.
2. Reduction of Salt Added bT_Agriculture.
This requires additional thinking. We really don' t know what to
do with it actually, but we have to do that someday and that is
supposed to be determined by future feasibility level studies that
have not been undertaken at this time.
11
l
3. Provision of Good Quality Water to Corona, Norco and Home Gardens.
This particular program is designed to change the water quality
being delivered to these areas to better quality water so that
the water, once treated, can be returned to the river itself for
additional use by the Orange County consumers.
4. Prevention of Poor Quality Rising Water from Commingling with Good
Quality Water in the Santa Ana River .
This project was envisioned to provide an economically feasible
method of exporting salt from the upper watershed groundwater
basins and thereby improving the mineral quality of the river
water used for replenishment in the lower watershed.
So the four projects that we just talked about all rely on one
tool or one device; the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor. Without it
these programs cannot be implemented or continued.
In 1974, upon completion of the Planning Agency' s program, the
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority was created and empowered to
develop, plan, finance, construct and operate programs and projects
related to water quality/quantity control and management, resulting in
pollution abatement and protection of the upper Santa Ana Watershed.
The original member districts were Chino Basin Municipal Water
District, Western Municipal Water District, San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, Orange County Water District, and then in
1984, Eastern Municipal Water District.
12
The agency is a joint exercise of power. It is answerable to a
Board of Directors, with two (2) members from each district
representing that Board of Directors. It covers approximately 95
percent of the useable watershed or about 2, 000 square miles.
Implementation of the projects requires a SAWPA contract with
other public agencies. In the case of SARI in 1972 (this was before
the formation that I just talked about) , Chino MWD Basin, on behalf
of the Orange County Water District and others who would ultimately
join SAWPA, entered into a contract to purchase capacity use rights
in the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor of Orange County Sanitation
Districts, capacity of 30 MGD. And in addition entered into a
contract to purchase 30 million gallons of treatment capacity in the
County Sanitation Districts treatment facilities. The choice of where
that water is to be treated is left with the Orange County Sanitation
Districts.
Subsequently in 1974, when the project authority was created, the
Chino Basin Municipal Water District transferred those contracts, with
the approval of the County Sanitation Districts, to SAWPA.
The construction of SARI (and again I can' t stress this enough) ,
the most critical element of the water quality management plan,
was completed to Riverside and Chino in 1983. Even though we start
the construction in the lower area or in the Orange County area which
is off to the left on this particular map, in 1976 the portions from
Orange County to Prado Flood Control Dam were financed in a
combination of grants from the Environmental Protection Agency' s Clean
13
Water Program, with the matching funds being contributed by the four
water districts. In 1976 when the pipeline had entered the upper
basin and was on the north side of the Prado Flood Control Dam, the
Environmental Protection Agency decided to take a second look at
whether these funds could be contributed from their clean water
program and they decided that they would contribute no additional
money. So we had a 20 million dollar investment between Sanitation
Districts and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority that was not
useable because there were no connectors on the upper end.
In 1980 we developed a new financing concept with the support of
Sanitation Districts which envisioned the sale of capacity of 7.5
million gallons of the capacity of domestic use, providing the cost or
the purchase price of that capacity would be a full replacement value
to the consumer . This allowed us to recapture the grants that had
been given to us by the Environmental Protection Agency early on and
we turned that money around and used that money to construct the two
reaches above Prado Dam (one reach going into Chino Basin Municipal
Water District and the other reach going into the Arlington Basin) .
Those projects were completed in four years, or in 1983.
In addition to implementing the four projects that we talked
about, SAWPA has a coordination role to assure that all the various
parts of the plan are moving ahead. SAWPA' s role is recognized by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources
Control Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and a number
of other agencies. In that regard SAWPA, through its member districts,
(recognize that SAWPA' s authority comes from the member districts) ,
14
just entered into an agreement with the Regional Board to participate
in developing the information necessary for the new basin plan
update which will be out in about two years.
In general, it can be accurately said that the Basin Plan, which
was adopted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and which is the guideline for SAWPA' s policies and those that we
follow to achieve water quality benefits for the Santa Ana Basin is
the most comprehensive water quality protection program of any river
basin in the world, largely because of the active ongoing interest
and participation of our member districts and SAWPA' s affiliation with
other agencies such as the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Since its
formation SAWPA has undertaken projects and programs to achieve the
goals of projects already described.
I would .like to spend a couple of minutes bringing you up to date
on the status of those projects as of May, 1985.
Mineral and Toxicant Control (SARI System) shown in black, the
solid portion being completed, the dashed portions being incomplete.
Again, this system was identified in the basin plan and in our 3-c
plan as the backbone system necessary for water quality management in
this watershed. And when I talk about the watershed I started from
the Pacific Ocean on the left, and terminate that discussion at Big
• Bear Lake and the San Bernardino mountains. We have completed
jointly, since 3 reaches of the system were constructed by the County
Sanitation District, and placed into operation the system to Chino and
to Riverside.
dd .
15
Our average daily flow to the system is currently about 2. 5 mgd.
Capacity Use Rights that have been sold are 7.068 mgd (and in your
statement you will see the breakdown on that) and we have recently
sold and additional 1. 3 MGD effective as of tomorrow.
In addition, we have issued 22 trucked waste permits to provide
for the discharge of approximately 10, 000 gpd of water softener brine.
The average water quality presently delivered to SARI is in excess of
900 mgl TDS.
We' re not finished with that system. We still have to complete
the pipeline construction to San Bernardino and that involves
approximately 147,000 feet of pipeline which will begin at an
intersection of Euclid and Pomona Rincon Road (on the left of your
map) and terminate in the vicinity of the San Bernardino Treatment
Plant in the City of San Bernardino. That project is estimated to
cost 25 million dollars.
Preliminary alignment and environmental impact reports have been
completed. SARI Reaches IV-D & E will provide facilities that will
help alleviate pressure for treatment plant facilities in the San
Bernardino area, provide for disposal of present and future industrial
wastewaters, and will have the capacity for dairy brine waste along
the route of the proposed pipeline. (I don' t know whether you' re
aware of it or not but within the Chino/Riverside area we have
residing approximately 200,000 dairy cattle. They contribute 55,000
tons of salt per year to the groundwater system and to the flow into
16
the Santa Ana River. Keep that number in mind because the numbers
that I - am going to give you for the rest of our project are
substantially below that level.
Studies to determine financing alternatives for the project are
complete. Redlands Linen, an existing discharger into the local
treatment plant, a group called the Altamont Industrial Group and the
East Valley Corridor Interests are participating in -selecting the best
alternative for financing that particular system.
Reduction of Salt Added by Agriculture
Studies have been completed to determine the dairy industry impact on
water quality in the watershed. Recommendations for a facilities plan
have been discussed, but no agreement has been reached. Years ago
when that plan was completed (and this was about 1975, I believe) , the
estimated cost of building that facilities plan was approximately 32
million dollars. In today' s dollars you are probably talking, if you
used that same type of a program, somewhere in the area of 80 or 90
million dollars.
However, construction of SARI Reaches IV-D & E could result in some
dairy waste being removed from the watershed. What we' re looking at
here is primarily barn wash water which is high in salt. It must be
understood however, that additional studies should be undertaken to
update previous work and to seek new solutions such as possible
salinity offset programs similar to the program that the SAWPA and
Southern California Edison has adopted in the Arlington Basin.
`MMP� 17
Provision of Good Quality Water to Corona, Norco and Home Gardens
Currently, SAWPA is undertaking three projects to improve water
quality in the Corona, Norco and Home Gardens area. They are:
The Woodcrest Water Transfer System:
This project, near March Air Force Base, estimated to cost 20 million
dollars, is designed to change the water supply to this agricultural
area from Colorado River water, which has TDS of 750 milligrams per
liter, to State Project water. which has a water quality of 200
milligrams per liter TDS, resulting in the reduction of 12, 000 tons of
imported salt per year into the watershed. So, in this program alone,
and by implementing this type of a strategy, changing water supply we
can reduce salt from entering the system substantially. We have
successfully processed an application under P.L. 84-984 with the
Bureau of Reclamation to construct this system, and as I said when it
is complete it modifies the water supply to the Woodcrest area by
substituting State Project water for Colorado' River water . But it
does one thing else - just off of the crown of the hill here is the
Arlington Basin. And presently, the water quality that' s going into
the Arlington Basin from draining off of these citrus areas, has
caused the Arlington Basin to be not useable for domestic water
supply. The total dissolved salts in that particular area are about
1, 100 milligrams per liter with nitrates of 110 milligrams per liter.
Q. Is that where they grow water cress?
A. I'm not sure, it probably is.
18
So the second project, when it is tied to this first one, ultimately,
which will help us get State Project water for Corona and Norco, is
the Arlington Desalter. The map, (I apologize for this slide as we
had a great deal of difficulty in getting one to come out, but if I
may, ) this is the City of Riverside up here, Lake Matthews is roughly
here, the project that we were just looking at comes down across
through here like so.
As I indicated, agricultural return flow to the Arlington Basin from
the Woodcrest area has increased nitrates and salinity to unacceptable
levels. Now what we' re proposing to do with this system (and the red
tape that you see on the map, that' s the extraction system) is go in
and pump the water table down so that it is not migrating out of this
particular basin through Home Gardens and down into Temescal Basin,
demineralize the water so that it will have a salinity value of 500
�✓ milligrams per liter TDS, build a connecting pipeline up to- Lake
Matthews so that we can have the delivery facility that we can rely on
to dispose of the water. We will put the brine into the Orange
system, which is the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor. The program is
designed like I say to pull the water table down and put the water
back to beneficial use.
What makes it feasible, is that we entered into a letter of
understanding with the Metropolitan Water District where they will buy
all the water that we can produce for a value that is similar to that
of the avoided cost of bringing in new State Project water. And that
value is somewhere in the magnitude of about $350 an acre foot.
19
MWD will then blend this water with all of their other water supplies,
and they will sell it to their customers: Chino Basin, Western
Municipal, Orange County Water District, at the same price that they
are selling water to them right now. And the reason they can do that
is they have low-cost Colorado River water supplies, and they have the
first increment of State Project water which is also less costly than
the new increment they would have to bring in from Northern California.
The long-term benefits of this project, hopefully, will be the recovery
of the Arlington Basin for domestic water supplies. And incidentally
what this is - this shows where the water level actually exists in the
Arlington Basin. This is the Arlington Channel as it goes south out
of the Arlington Basin to the next basin down towards Corona and
Temescal. This is Temescal Creek that it enters into just as it
enters into Prado Flood Control Basin. The water table is about 10-12
gad feet deep. It' s high -enough now that if we have an ongoing surface
flow from this area through these channels on a continuous basis.
We are asking our Board of Directors on the 9th of July, to allow us
to enter into contract negotiations with the firm of Engineering
Science/Parsons to build the treatment plant, estimated to cost 14
million dollars, under the privatization concept. And what we will
then do with the Engineering Science/Parsons Consortium, we would buy
the water from them as MWD has agreed to buy the water from us. ' This
map shows the result of a study that was done back in 1980. And what
you see here, again, this is the lower Arlington Basin and that
represents regions where the TDS, nitrate, and depth of water limits are
d.d
20
exceeded. In this area, the TDS is about 1, 100 parts per million and
nitrates are 110. There is also an area, down in this area, which is
the Home Gardens area, and all the way down through the lower, I guess
it' s a part of the Temescal Basin, that also has that problem, and
then over here is Norco, this is called Chino III down in this area
and then the Norco area, there is another pool of poor quality water.
All- of these are in excess of 900 milligrams per liter TDS.
Our concern is, the reason we' re putting the Arlington Desalter
together is, that this water is now flowing from here and we are trying
to prevent that from coming on down and commingling with the Santa Ana
River flow. The estimated cost of this project is 14 million dollars.
Bunker Hill Basin Water:
The original planning concept envisioned the movement of high quality
Bunker Hill water into the Arlington area. ' High groundwater problems ,
near the City of San Bernardino and along portions of the Santa Ana
River require that a water management program be implemented which
provides for the removal and transfer of Bunker Hill water. During
recent years, substantial quantities of Santa Ana River water have
been lost to the ocean, this is free water we are talking about now,
due to the inability to regulate the flow along the river to maximize
groundwater recharge potential, and establish a regulated storage
program, possibly at Prado Flood Control Dam.
21
SAWPA is not necessarily involved in this project but we support
programs to assure the maximum capture of local water and river flow
v
for beneficial use and hope that that will be achieved. This concept
could embody conjunctive use in the Chino Basin, or taking the
surplus water and storing it in Mr. Nowak' s area for later extraction
or reuse. It could ultimately include transfer of the water to
Eastern Municipal Water District or exchange programs with
Metropolitan Water District and Department of Water Resources for
future supplies from their system when needed. Now these problems are
being worked on and they are being worked on by the local agencies.
And so SAWPA' s position at this point is to assist or support the
efforts by the local agencies.
Prevention of Poor Quality "Rising" Water from Commingling
with Good Quality Water in the Santa Ana River
To present the poor quality rising water, as we call it, from
commingling with good quality water in the Santa Ana River, studies
have been conducted to determine that location, and that was the map
that you saw just a few seconds ago. Locations included lower
Temescal, Arlington and the Chino III Sub Basin and recommendation for
a facilities plan have been included in the Step 1 Report to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Facilities Program:
That program has currently been limited to development of a small
scale pollution offset program in the Arlington Basin. If you
22
look very closely, (this happens to be one of our truck waste disposal
locations) you see a white pipe sticking up in about the middle of it.
What happened was that Edison cannot have access to our pipeline
because it' s not in their vicinity. So arrangements and an
accommodation was made where they could go ahead and continue to
operate their system in the manner that they were, and SAWPA, through
a contract with Edison and with the concurrence with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, would extract a similar amount of salt,
at a location where we could put it into the outf all system which is
in the Arlington Basin. So this system normally operates at about
80,000 gpd. And it is that water, once entering into the Santa Ana
Regional Interceptor that is brought the Sanitation Districts for
treatment and disposal.
(Now we get into the goodies)
�.d
Connection of CRC (Corona Rehabilitation Center) to SARI .
The California Rehabilitation Facility at Norco currently supplies its
water needs from wells pumping in an area of poor quality groundwater.
That was the area on the left of that chart that I was showing you
with the TDS somewhere in the area 900 parts per million or millgrams
per liter. We want them to continue to pump that water and serve it
to their prisoners, but we don' t want them to put it back into the
river because once it' s used it has a TDS of about 1250 milligrams per
liter and the unfortunate thing is right now it' s being treated and
disposed of as wastewater directly into the Prado Flood Control Basin,
from an antiquated treatment plant. So what this project will provide
for is the closure of this particular plant. And one of the problems
23
that is occurring is that they really don' t have places to put the
number of prisoners that they now have and so this whole system was
overloaded. This happens to be a natural program for the SARI system
in that it does two things: It allows somebody else to pump the poor
quality water out of the basin, or out of the system, use it and
dispose of it down the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor, thereby
preventing us and others from making decisions about cost. So it is a
program that is designed to assist in water quality management of that
area.
Interim Connection, City of Norco to SARI .
We' re also working on an interim connection to SARI for the City of
Norco. The City of Norco currently requires about two (2) MGD of
treatment capacity, discharges one (1) MGD to the City of Corona
Treatment Plant, while the remainder is disposed of in septic tanks
and leach fields. However, as discussed earlier, failures of septic
tank systems have caused health problems. SAWPA was requested by
Norco, Western Municipal Water District, and local legislators, this
includes State Senator Presley, to assist in resolving these problems.
After approval by the State Water Resources Control Board and the
Environmental Protection Agency, SAWPA agreed to make available SARI
capacity to alleviate the health risk. This program will provide an
opportunity for SAWPA, as the lead agency and Western Municipal Water
District to construct the necessary regional facilities to allow the
ultimate return of this water back to the Santa Ana River for reuse.
I would like to go through some of the conditions that are attached.
24
The capacity will be leased to Norco in half a million gallons per day
increments. To get the first half million gallons they must pay the
lease fee, obviously; pay for the connection; agree to the
establishment of a revenue program which will set aside under Western,
SAWPA, and Norco' s control, monies with which a treatment plant can be
constructed in the future, support unqualifiedly a regionalized
solution to the problem, and to put up $120, 000 a year in cash, to be
received at that time. That gets us the first half million gallons of
capacity. In order to get the second half a million gallons of
capacity, they must agree to contribute an amount, $10,000 to help us
to pay for the studies, and in that regard we now have two other
agencies; the Jurupa Community Services District has agreed to put up
$10, 000 for this program and the Home Gardens area has agreed to put
up $3, 000 to create a task force to allow for the implementation of
regional concept.
�d
The initial goals that they must accomplish under this second half a
million gallons of capacity is the formulation of a management plan to
negotiate all necessary contracts to implement that program, to
establish Western Municipal Water District as the regional program
administrator and obtain the appropriate
If all these things come to pass, and we are at construction of the
regional facilities, they may then have, during that construction
period, if it' s necessary the third half a million gallon increment.
dd 25
But only in those stages. If they don' t complete any more than the
first phase they get exactly one-half million gallons of capacity
which was part of the original allocation that we got years ago when
we expanded the SARI system.
We think we have tried to control that so we are not in the business
of ascertaining growth, no growth, or whatever, but rather providing a
medium by which people with these problems can come to seeking
solutions, using our system of leverage to accomplish the development
of necessary treatment work so that these things can be put together
in a manner that will allow for maximum reuse of the wastewater that' s
generated in that basin.
Present Water Supply
Considering that the Santa Ana Watershed imports expensive
supplemental water, it is extremely important to assure its maximum
utility by protecting its quality. Water supplied to the watershed
comes from various sources. We have discussed the Santa Ana River.
It is also brought in by the Colorado River Aqueduct system which
travels about 200 miles across the desert and that supply is currently
used by Eastern Municipal, Western, Orange County Water District and
Chino Basin Municipal Water District. San Bernardino Valley
Municipal, our fifth agency, and the Metropolitan Water District, both .
import State Project Water which enters the watershed at Devil' s
Canyon and it goes to terminal storage at Lake Perris (which is the
blue dot on this side of the map) . Chino Basin, Eastern Municipal,
Orange County Water District and San Bernardino Valley Municipal
26
Water District now have access to that system. And with completion of
the Woodcrest Project Western Municipal will also have access for
agricultural community that it serves.
Good water management practice dictates that state water (220 mgl TDS)
which is of better quality than Colorado River water which is 750 mgl
TDS be used wherever possible in the water supply system. Maximum use
of State Project Water will assist in achieving objectives
established at critical points along the Santa Ana River and if
maintained will help and provide high quality water to consumers and
the watershed.
Despite all of the programs, projects, and delivery of high quality
State Project water, water and wastewater management agencies
must develop cooperative programs to prevent further contamination of
water supplies by toxic substances and mineral salts. The recent
joint effort by SAWPA (I think you've seen this picture someplace
before; the Stringfellow as it was a number of years ago) by SAWPA and
the Sanitation Districts of Orange County regarding the Stringfellow
site (this was after the Regional Board finished its work of
encapsulation) demonstrates that the government implement payment
strategies that accomplish environmentally safe treatment and disposal
of contaminated water. If you've got just a minute I would like to
talk about Stringfellow for just a second. About four months ago, we
were before this board under some different circumstances. We would
like you to see what we have constructed since that time.
�°"� 27
This is the pre-treatment facility at Stringfellow as it is now
completed. It' s been hydraulically tested, and released to see that
the pumps turn in the right direction, and we hope to have access to
the contaminated water to begin the testing procedures of this system
next week. There will be a 45 day shake-down period during which the
plant will be modified if necessary or set up to standards as
required. And then there will be a transition period to turn it over
to the Environmental Protection Agency, which will become the ultimate
operator under both your direction and our direction. For those of
you that are not familiar with the program, what it envisions, you
will recall the Stringfellow Acid Pits are leaking underground. This
program is an interim program designed for 3-5 years of operation to
extract contaminated groundwater, to treat the groundwater with lime
precipitation and granulated carbon absorption to remove heavy metals
on one hand and organic compounds on the other. Currently this water
is being transported 250 miles to the Casmailia disposal site in Santa
Barbara County. We will then transport this water after having been
checked for water quality requirements that have been set by both your.
agency and our agency to the truck waste disposal stations, one of
which you saw earlier, where it will be checked again for compliance
with discharge requirements and entered into the outfall sewer to the
Orange County system where it will commingle I 'm sorry about this -
this slide shows Fountain Valley. Since the time when this slide was
prepared, your agency has modified the delivery point of the SARI
pipeline to Huntington Beach. I understand that' s in operation
�d 28
1
already and so the water will be bypassed to Huntington Beach for
ultimate treatment and ocean disposal. We think that we' ve
accomplished something that very few people have been able to
accomplish in a similar period of time when you look at the actual
development of this system, the completion of it and the cooperation
that we' ve received from not only yourselves under some very adverse
circumstances, but also some very adverse circumstances dealing with
regulatory - not regulatory agencies, Jim Anderson' s been great with
them I ' ll tell you that, but in dealing with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Health Services. Again, I
would like to say that SAWPA through this type of program,
Stringfellow, presents the greatest challenge to our agencies, both of
them, in protecting the very precious water supplies that we have
available to us.
SAWPA was created by our member districts as a joint exercise of
powers to handle problems and concerns that we' ve outlined. It is our
intent to meet our obligations by planning, developing, financing and
constructing the facilities and features necessary and to support
those that we are not involved in to assure that all consumers within
our boundaries are provided with the best possible water supplies for
agriculture or domestic use. (And I have to tell you that I had to pay
a fee to my secretary for modeling her hand in this slide. )
�../ 29
Failure to complete the watershed protection plan could result in
degradation and loss of the river supply to Orange County, and to
ourselves as well, or at the very least, cause Orange County and
other water users to pay excessive consumer-related costs for
plumbing that wears out early that gets salted-up, corroded, for
detergents, water softeners, costly imported supplies for blending
or •other purposes, and it also reduces the ability to recycle the
water that we have. The program and projects discussed are
necessary to implement the total water supply management plan. In
order to achieve the completion thereof, SAWPA needs continued
support and cooperation which has been in the past generously
given by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. And I.
appreciate the opportunity for being here this evening.
fir✓ Joint Chairman Edgar:
We also are privileged tonight to have Jim Anderson from the State
Water Control Board and let' s have Jim talk to us for a minute and
then maybe we can have a short break. I think both of these men are
prepared to answer any questions.
Jim Anderson:
I can sum up what Andy says fairly quickly. Water runs downhill.
Those people up there dump it and Orange County gets it and it' s our
job to make sure that when we get it, it' s safe to use. But thank you
very much. Just a couple of quick things; our Basin Plan picked up
from the planning report from the Santa Ana Watershed
`mod •
30
Planning Agency as part of the requirements under the Federal Clean
Water Act. We have a plan in place that has been updated one time and
must be updated every third year . Objectives for the water throughout
the Santa Ana region, not only what is in the Santa Ana River , but in
the Santa Ana River Watershed and the San Jacinto Watershed. Our
program primarily started out as a concern with salt. The basin plan
as it was prepared by SAWPA and implemented by the Regional Board
indicated that in a four year period, approximately 14 billion dollars
would be saved if we spent 13 billion dollars. So that' s a cost
effective analysis for saving a billion dollars in the process by
improving the salinity of water within the Santa Ana region. It' s
indicated that water used of over 500 parts per million TDS cost the
consumer about $100 a year . If we could cut that cost some way, we
have a cost effective process. We just worked on a 301 (h) waiver for
the Sanitation Districts that allows discharge with less than
secondary treatment to the ocean. Everybody upstream at El Prado Dam
must achieve tertiary treatment for their wastewater , as it goes back
into the river , direct discharge. That' s because the Regional Board
policy is to get the river safe for body contact recreation. And the
river now is about 80 percent sewage. The Cities of Riverside, Chino,
Ontario, Upland, Rubideaux and Jurupa, and soon San Bernardino, Colton
and Rialto and Redlands, all will need to have tertiary treatment
systems in place. Those are in place now in every place but San
Bernardino, Colton, and Rialto. The Regional Board regulatory
authority will cause those to be put into place. That' s going to
allow the river to be even cleaner than it is.
31
1 h
L
And as you saw in one of the slides there is a fishery in the Santa
Ana River that' s been re-established in the last ten years. Andy
showed you a slide that said only about 30 percent of the waste, the
salinity, can be controlled. There' s an exception with that, I think
we' re working at a 60-70 percent of the salinity within the basin
comes from sources that the Regional Board directly or indirectly
controls. The dairy waste control program caused 70 percent of the
manure from the dairy cattle to be removed from the basin last year.
That' s a tremendous amount of .salt load that doesn' t come into Orange
County any longer. Now we have a little different focus than SAWPA in
that we are a regulatory agency. And we do have the authority to
issue severe monetary penalties for people who violate. discharge
requirements. We do have authority as delegated by the Environmental
Protection Agency to implement the Federal Clean Water Act. And that
authority assists in implementing the program that SAWPA has indicated
needs to be implemented within the state. Because water does flow
downhill, we have implemented regulatory programs throughout the
watershed including Big Bear who exports their sewage out of the basin
for reclamation in the Lucerne Valley. We implemented that in the
southern part of Orange County for use by the E1 Toro Water District
to export their waste to the AWMA line and discharge to the ocean.
My fellow Executive Officers said my idea of water quality control is
to export it to somebody else. So far we' ve accomplished some of that
by causing the central part of the basin to export their water to the
ocean where it doesn' t meet the standards.
�.✓ 32
Try and explain sometime to a citizen in Yucaipa why they should get
off their septic tank and get onto a sewer system because the water in
Orange county needs to be improved and you come up with some
impossible permutations. We have achieved that, but at rare costs
sometimes.
The Regional Board, just to back up, Mayor Maurer of course knows
about this because he is Chairman of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The nine members are appointed by the Governor and
serve for a four year term. I work for that state agency; the state
agency that is locally managed and locally controlled. It isn' t
controlled from Sacramento. It' s an independent state agency of a
system that was set up in the 1940 ' s to regulate water pollution
throughout the State of California. And I think it has probably
accomplished that. One thing that' s coming up lately, just to touch
on this, is toxic pollutants we' r-e finding in .the groundwater basin.
And fortunately, Orange County, although they are concerned about
this, they are fortunate we haven' t found a lot of toxic pollutants in
the Orange County groundwater. And as far as I know, only one well in
the City of Anaheim has been shut down because of potential pollution
and that well has recently cleared up because of the gasoline spill.
We' re finding in the upper basin, in the San Bernardino area in
particular, 25 percent of the City of San Bernardino' s water supply
has been lost because of underground contaminants of TCB and PCB.
They are the common solvents in dry cleaning solvents used many years
ago and disposed of inappropriately that caused that pollution.
33
We don' t know from where it came but we are trying to find out. In
the Orange County area we are finding we have about forty (40) cases
of leaking gasoline tanks. The most common hazardous substance we
deal with all the time. And I would judge that if a gasoline tank has
been in the ground for more than ten years, it' s leaking. Many of the
oil companies are replacing those on a planned program. And we' re
just finding an enormous amount of gasoline in the shallow zones in
Orange County. The greatest source of the problem is through the
phone company. Their vaults, they collect gasoline and gasoline is a
great solvent on phone lines, so they' re the first ones to notice the
leaking gasoline tanks. Those are clean up processes all through the
County and we' re running into little problems with the Sanitation
Districts and the Water District and the Regional Board. I was
telling Wayne the other day I felt like a ping-pong ball. The Water
District says, "Clean up the gasoline" , and we' ll say, "Okay, fine,
pump it on the ground." The guy says "Where do I put it?" "Well,
treat it and put it in the sewer" . "No, you don' t want clean water in
the sewer. " "Well, then treat it and put it on the ground. " The
Water District says, "No, we don' t want that percolating back to the
water table. " So the Regional Board is trying to figure out
alternatives for getting that water out of the ground, cleaned up,
redistributed
That' s our program, it' s our problem, and we will continue to work on
that problem to solve it. I think we' re getting a better handle on it
than we've ever had in the past. And these kinds of forums where we
have an opportunity with both SAWPA and the Regional Board to discuss
the problems are very advantageous to us. Thanks again.
bd
34
Q & A Q: Where does the 42, 000 acre feet figure come from and
`••' how does that work?
A. That was an agreed upon number in the stipulation to
the lawsuit. I think that was an arbitrary number
considered as base flow or historical average flow.
Right now the river is running about 80 ,000 acre feet
a year, right today.
Q. Does that have some relationship to the ultimate
amount of water that we can expect?
A. I think 42,000 acre feet on a long-range basis.
Q. What I 'm getting at is, is that some kind of growth
limitation?
A. No. In the process of developing the upper basin,
wastewater treatment plants are expanding at a much
, greater rate than had been anticipated back in 1967,
and now wastewater flow easily surpasses the 42,000
acre feet per year so that the judgments made are
just on wastewater. But as the treatment plants have
to treat much better, obviously, the cost, the service
performed by us, increases to treat that waste to
Orange County standards.
Q. I want to clarify one point. You said that San
Bernardino has lost about 25 percent of their wells
through contamination from landfills, and other
activities.
35
A. They have had approximately four of the best producing
wells shut down because the TCB levels exceed the
State Action levels that are required. And with the
closing of those wells they have to rely on State
Project water or other alternatives to make up their
demand. They' re trying to treat that water_, and
remove the solvents. Some wells are as high as 100
parts per billion, their action level is 5. They have
to remove that chemical in order to use the water.
Q. I 've heard the same thing happening in certain areas
of Los Angeles County. It' s the first time I ' ve heard
of it in San Bernardino. It certainly should be an
excellent - lesson to we in Orange County here,
particularly when they' re looking at sites for
landfills like Coal Canyon and Gypsum Canyon right
along the river. That should be a good lesson
particularly when we know that about 650 million
gallons of water run off those canyons into the river
itself. But that' s not the question I had.
A. More than likely that came from industrial operations
that caused that rather than just a landfill.
36
Q. Well, I 'm concerned about the underground basin period,
due to the fact I am in Anaheim and have observed what
has happened between Ball Road and Tustin Avenue on a
daily basis is depleting the underground basin how
important it is to everybody sitting in this room right
here." But the thing that is really concerning me is
the value of the water that is backed up behind Prado
Dam. And I think that what we' re talking about today,
we' re going to see an expansion in the program and
certainly my city of Anaheim wholeheartedly agrees
with the concept of using some conservation idea along
with flood control. I think one of Andy' s slides
though is particularly interesting to me. The one
slide has indicated that 27. 3 percent of the problem
areas were dairy solid wastes and another 14. 6 percent
was dairy sewage, for 41.9 percent. Now that' s an
alarming rate and we know with the activities of
dairies and the effect it has and yet all of us that
drive out the 71 and 91 can observe behind, today,
behind Prado Dam herds of cattle grazing and feeding
in that area. It seems to me that that is just
aggravating and particularly adding to the already
very serious problem that we know we've got now.
37
Whb controls the activity behind Prado Dam and who the
heck permits the grazing cattle behind the Dam which
`MV,
eventually this winter will be that area that will be
inundated with water? It doesn' t make much sense to
me but I would like to have somebody respond to it.
A. I would, if I can again, Jim informed me that my slide
is somewhat outdated and that it isn' t, with solid
waste removal, as bad as it used to be. There are
still 200,000 dairy animals there and the people who
are responsible for seeing the regulations, that have
the statutory authority are the planning divisions of
the various counties. But they have been there for an
awful long time.
Q. But that doesn' t make it right. You see the problem
with this thing is that it is almost like they' re buck
passing propositions, and I 'm not criticizing you guys
but everybody says it' s already under somebody else' s
jurisdiction and I think that today, in realizing the
importance of water quality and what the effects of
this is that we need to get off the dime and get
everybody together in concert and particularly when
these are the easy items that we should be attacking
right now. Not the 25 million and 14 million and 80
million dollar projects. You know we ought to do the
easy ones first..
38
4 �
A. Just a primary comment. All of the dairy animals are
housed above the present flood control basin. There
would be about 35 dairies that would be inundated with
the raising of Prado and those would be taken out.
But the Corps of Engineers doesn' t allow a dairy to be
within a flood control basin.
Q. Well, maybe those cows broke through the fence.
A. Some of the cows, you may see grazing animals in there,
but the waste from those animals are a minor part of
the dairy, but the volume of waste produced by the
dairy. About 200,000 cows are milked daily in the
Chino area. It' s the largest concentration of dairy
animals in the world. Each cow is washed twice a day
with approximately 25 gallons per cow. Regional Board
regulations prohibit that water from leaving the
dairy. The dairymen must then maintain all the rain
water on his property and all the rainwater that comes
into contact with any of the manure must be maintained
on the dairyman' s property. And most are able to
comply with that; some 400 dairies within the watershed.
The manure is required to be removed from the dairy
and it is removed twice a year, usually spring and
fall. The composting operation, they bag it and take
about 70 percent of it is removed from the watershed
. along with the salts and the waste manure.
39
S a
So the Regional Board, I 'm not blaming it off on any
other agency, the Regional Board by regulating each
individual dairyman is causing a tremendous amount of
waste to be removed. There' s no longer a sludge bank
of manure along the river as there has been in the
past. And that' s a clean-up program that is ongoing.
Now when the Dam is raised some of the dairymen will
have to move out.
Q. Is there any standard in quality of the water being
put into the SARI line?
A. With our program, we try to take out the worst quality
water and at the present time it' s about 900
milligrams per liter. Definitely, we do not want to
put water in there that' s less .than say 600 milligrams
d.d
per liter TDS. That water can be recycled back to the
system and we try to avoid any of that type of water
getting into our system.
Q. Really, what I interpret you saying is that the SARI
line deliberately has high TDS water so that it
doesn' t go anyplace else. That is the plan of
operation with the concept that the high TDS water as
it comes to plant, hopefully goes to the ocean.
40
6
Q. Mr. Anderson, you indicated that there was a problem
with oil leaking into the underground basins and so
forth from areas and I mean gas stations and so forth,
primarily gas stations. Are you a regulatory agency
that on an annual basis checks that? And also, cities
have holding tanks, and I know that I ' ve heard from
some cities that it' s going to be very expensive '
because they are. getting very old, to replace those
holding tanks.
Q. About the City of Cypress, they have a leak and they
are cleaning it up?
Q. Did they check? Did you check that? That is what I
want to know.
�d A. The new Sheer legislation, Assemblyman Sheer ' s
legislation for underground tanks requires that local
agencies be the permitting agent for all underground
tanks within the state. The local agency in Orange
County is the Orange County Health Care Agency. And
they are preparing and gearing up on a program to
first, all of the tanks were to be registered with the
State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento;
that registration was to be completed last January.
The Orange County Health Agency will get a print-out
of all gasoline or any underground storage tank in
Orange County. And they will be required to issue a
�.d
41
- d e
permit for that tank and have a monitoring system put
in place. Either wells to determine if any material
leaks out and pressure testing or other testing
devices to make sure that neither the tank or the
piping system for that tank is leaking. That will
take probably a year to get in place.
Q. Also, I just wanted to make a statement, in regards
to what Don Roth said, and that is: I 'm also on the
Solid Waste Management Commission and we are looking-
at some type of landfill expansion or development of a
new landfill and Coal and Gypsum Canyon are being
considered and a preliminary EIR was done but the
implementation that would have to be made to make sure
that any leachate didn' t go into the Santa Ana River ,
�+d and it sounds like it' s almost cost prohibitive to do
those kinds of dams and so forth to keep any leachate
out of the Santa Ana River, so it may be that that
will not be an alternative that will be selected or
recommended by the commission.
A. Any new landfill, any brand new landfill, must have a
leachate collection system installed, going in. We
have found that practically every landfill that I 'm
aware of, once it' s checked, is leaking and Orange
County is no different. They have leaks in the
landfill. Coal and Gypsum Canyon may be advantageous
if the leachate collection system is installed. The
SARI line is just downhill.
42
h. e
Q. The problem with the Gypsum Canyon area, too, is that
it' s one of the most unstable land areas in Southern
California. And particularly with the fault and the
landfill. I 'm very interested in seeing how they' re
going to solve that problem. It would be over our
dead bodies in Anaheim.
Q. Andy, what is SAWPA' s position in regard to the timing
and placement of funds set aside for treatment
facilities? I believe I heard you say that Norco for
example, have closed down their facilities and are now
tied into the line, and you' re going to set dollars
aside for a new treatment facility. What kind of
timing are we looking at and are you setting aside
sufficient funds for that?
A. We have reached an agreement that is for a period of
ten years maximum. The Board definitely made that
determination date so that they cannot lease capacity
or use the system after a period of ten years.
The current discharge is continuing, one million
gallon to be treated at the Corona Treatment Plant and
the other million gallons are going to dry sewers or
to septic tanks and leach fields. That' s really the
area that we' re looking at right now. Yes there will
be an adequate financing program in place in order to
make absolutely certain that that wastewater will be
back out of SARI no later than 10 years hence.
�.d
43
♦ a �
a
• Q. How many similar cases are like that in the upper
basin?
A. Norco' s kind of unique because it sits right over the
top of a very poor quality water supply. That water
supply comes from a number of sources, but the
groundwater in that location is not too good. There
may be one or two others; we' re looking at the
potential of maybe helping the City of San Bernardino
in the future to solve the problem but that' s some
time in the future.
Q. one other question I have, if I remember correctly, in
regard to the agreement between the Sanitation
Districts and SAWPA, there is a time certain, isn' t
there on that agreement, it isn' t in perpetuity?
A. The agreement, when it was executed in 1972, had a
fifty year life, however, there is a provision for
paying capital recovery charges to allow it to
continue past that. As I recall at that time the
reason the agreement was fifty years was that we
couldn' t legally go fora longer period.
Q. I guess the essence of what I'm looking at are not the
short-range issues but what about the long-range
issues and are we cooperatively dealing with those or
have we got plans to deal with them?.
44
A. At this point in time I have not. really discussed that
with anyone, to be honest about it. We' ve still got
Vd
thirty-eight years to go and have some immediate
concern but that will be something we' ll have to look
at in the future.
Q. One of the things that' s been clear in some of the
dialogue tonight and some of the conversation I ' ve had
with you before Andy, is that part of what SAWPA has
done in the last decade is that you' ve made sort of an
inventory of water quality from all basins so that you
can recognize those areas which have the poorest
quality water from the standpoint of high TDS ,
perhaps naturally, without any help from any manmade
source. And so those are the areas that you' re giving
the maximum attention to because poor quality water,
regardless of why it is poor quality, has the same
ultimate bad effects.
A I don't want to disagree with what you' re saying,
however, it is a joint venture and tight cooperation
thing with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
We' re working against the Basin Plans which were
produced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
We have in the past, through our studies and Regional
Board's studies identified areas that need action, and
we are embarking on a program that will allow us as we
can finance the solutions to those problems, undertake
the solutions to make sure we can get that under some
type of control.
45
:S1 8/7/85
COUNTY SANITATION
`-' DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 21 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, AND 13
OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ON
JUNE 271 1935
OJTAT10N
U
'Srace 195� �
NGE C&�'S
ADbDNISTRA= OFFICES
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
l
ROLL CALL
An adjourned regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of Orange County, California, was held on June 27, 1985 at 7:00
p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and
invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13 as follows:
ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS
DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chairman Orma Crank
x Ronald B. Hoesterey, Chairman pro tem Donald J. Saltarelli
x Dan Griset Robert Luxembourger
a , Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder
DISTRICT NO. 2: x Buck Catlin, Chairman Chris Norby
a Richard Buck, Chairman pro tem George Ziegler
x Sam Cooper Carrey Nelson
x Dan Griset Robert Luxembourger
x Carol Kawanami Wayne Silzel
a William D. Mahoney Dorothy Wedel
x James Neal George Scott
x Bob Perry Norman Culver
x Don Roth E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr.
x Don Smith Gene Beyer
a Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder
x Gene Wisner Michael J. Beverage
DISTRICT NO. 3: x Don Roth, Chairman H. Llewellyn Overholt
x Carrey Nelson, Chairman pro tem Sam Cooper
Ruth Bailey x John Thomas
Oscar Brownell x Joyce Risner
x Buck Catlin Chris Norby
x Norman Culver Bob Perry '
x Don Griffin James T. Jarrell
x Dan Griset Robert Luxembourger
a William D. Mahoney Dorothy Wedel
x James Neal George Scott
x Richard Olson Bruce Finlayson
x Richard Partin John Kanel
a Richard Polis Norma Seidel
a Sal Sapien Jean Siriani
a Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder
x Charles Sylvia Anthony Selvaggi
DISTRICT NO. 5: x Evelyn Hart, Chairman John Cox, Jr.
x Philip Maurer, Chairman pro -tem John Cox, Jr.
a Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder
DISTRICT NO. 6: x James Wahner, Chairman James B. Gallacher
x Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tem John Cox, Jr.
a Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder
DISTRICT NO. 7: x Don Smith, Chairman Gene Beyer
a David Sills, Chairman pro tem Sally Anne Miller
x Richard Edgar Donald J. Saltarelli
x Dan Griset Robert Luxembourger
x Philip Maurer John Cox, Jr.
a Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder
x James Wahner Harry Green
DISTRICT NO. 11: a Ruth Bailey, Chairman Robert P. Mandic, Jr.
a Roger Stanton, Chairman pro tem Harriett Wieder
x John Thomas Ruth Finley
+� DISTRICT NO. 13: x Don Smith, Chairman Gene Beyer
x Sam Cooper, Chairman pro tem Carrey Nelson
x Michael J. Beverage Gene Wisner
x Don Roth H. Llewellyn Overholt
--2.--Roger Stanton Harriet Wieder
-2-
6/27/85
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita
Brown, Board Secretary, William N. Clarke,
Thomas M. Dawes, Blake Anderson, Bill
Butler, Penny Kyle, Richard von Langen, Gazes
Streed, Corinne Clawson, Bob Ooten 1�.0)
SAWPA REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Joe Aklufi, Howard A. Hicks, Wayne H.
Holcomb, Theo Nowak, Dwight French,
J. Andrew Schlange, Jennifer Ducleth
OTHERS PRESENT: Suzanne Atkins, General Counsel, Ray Lewis,
Scott Morgan, Darrel Cohoon, Bill Dendy, Don
Martinson, Dennis M. Reid, James Anderson
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
DISTRICT 11 This being the 27th day of June, 1985,
Adjournment of meeting by Secretary at 7:00 p.m., being the time and place
for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of
County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, and there not
being a quorum of said Board present, the meeting of District No. 11 was thereupon
adjourned by the Secretary.
DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 13 The Joint Chairman stated that the
Review of history and background of purpose of this joint workshop with the
regional Santa Ana River Inter- Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
ceptor (SARI) sewerage system in (SAWPA) was to review the history
the management and protection of and background information on the role
the upper and lower underground of regional sewerage service in the
basin fresh water supplies management and protection of the Santa
Ana River underground fresh water
supplies. He introduced Mr. Andrew Schlange, SAWPA General Manager, and Mr. James
Anderson, Executive Officer of the Santa Ana Region of the California Water
Quality Control Board who presented an overview as summarized below.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's water and wastewater officials in Orange and
Riverside/San Bernardino Counties cooperated closely in initiating a plan to
manage the Santa Ana River underground fresh water supplies for the three-county
area.
The backbone of this groundwater protection plan is the Santa Ana River
Interceptor (SARI) system. In i972 the Sanitation Districts entered into
agreements with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) to provide a
means whereby wastewater from Upper Santa Ana River Basin dischargers that would
be harmful to the groundwater supply of both the upper (Riverside/San Bernardino
Counties) and lower (Orange County) basin can be transported, through a closed
system, to the Sanitation Districts' treatment and disposal facilities. The
agreements provide for 30 MGD capacity rights for the upper Santa Ana River Basin
interests in the District No. 2 Santa Ana River Interceptor and the now existing
and future treatment and disposal facilities of the Joint Sanitation Districts.
Litigation of water use and rights has a long history within the Santa Ana River
system. Early judgments and agreements preceding 1960 were primarily concerned
with quantity of water.
-3-
6/27/85
During the mid 19601s, Orange County Water District filed a lawsuit entitled,
"Orange County Water District vs. City of Chino, et al". This complaint involved
several thousand defendants in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and hundreds
of cross-defendents in Orange County. The defendants and cross-defendants
included substantially all water users within the Santa Ana Watershed.
In 1969 a stipulated judgment was entered in the case which provided a physical
solution by allocation of obligation and rights to serve the best interests of all
water users in the watershed. Orange County Water District, Chino Basin Municipal
Water District, Western Municipal Water District and San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District were deemed to have the power and financial resources to
implement the physical solution. The stipulated judgment provided for dismissal
of all defendants and cross-defendants except for the four districts, providing
certain parties stipulated to cooperate and support the physical solution.
The physical solution provided that water users in the Orange County area have
rights, as against all upper basin users, to receive an annual average supply of
42,000 acre feet of base flow at Prado Dam, together with the right to all storm
flow reaching the dam. Lower basin users may make full conservation use of Prado
Dam and reservoir subject to flood control use. Water users in the upper basin
have the right to pump, extract, conserve, store and use all surface and
groundwater supplies within the upper area, providing lower area entitlement is
met.
The judgment further provided for adjustment to base flow (that portion of total
surface flow passing a point of measurement, which remains after deduction of
storm flow) based on water quality considerations.
As a result of the litigation and stipulated judgment to ensure the supply of good
quality water to Orange County, the fou; remaining defendants and cross-defendants
(CBMWD, WMWD, SBVMWD and OCWD) determined that planning the use of water supplies
in the watershed would be beneficial to all users.
SAWPA, the Planning Agency, was formed in 1968 as a joint exercise of powers
agency. Its members were the four water districts who have the primary
responsibility of managing, preserving and protecting the groundwater supplies in
the Santa Ana Basin. These districts formed SAWPA because they foresaw a threat
to the water supplies that is larger than any one of the districts could cope with
alone - the threat of pollution.
They foresaw the possibility that pollution by mineral salts and other pollutants
could pose a greater danger to the basin than even overdraft. They suspected that
if programs and projects were not implemented to control this problem, there could
be a gradual accumulation of pollutants in the basins that would be almost
impossible to clean up, causing a total loss of the usefulness and value of the
basins.
SAWPA's first task was to characterize the problem and make projections of what
the future might hold if nothing were done. To aid in this effort, sophisticated
mathematical models of the basins were used. The projections supported the fears
of the water districts. It was clear that something had to be done.
As a next step, SAWPA, in the early 19701s, developed a long-range plan for the
entire Santa Ana Watershed. The plan included both regulatory programs and
`✓ projects. The regulatory portion was recommended to the Regional Water Quality
-4-
6/27/85
Control Board and has largely been adopted in the form of standards by that
agency. The projects include some to be implemented by the individual districts,
some by the State of California, some by the Metropolitan Water District and some
by SAWPA. In total, they will result in a much safer water supply in the long
term. llv�
That plan, completed in 1972, identified twelve major project areas of need. Of
the identified areas, four were such that their impact overlapped more than one
member district. Those four projects are:
1. Mineral and Toxicant Control - Export to the Ocean.
Construction of a pipeline facility (Santa Ana River Interceptor - SARI) from
the Pacific Ocean to upper watershed districts for the removal of poor
quality wastewater. This facility is the single most crucial element in
achieving water quality management in the watershed. Primary uses of the
SARI are:
a. Removal of poor quality rising water in the Chino III, Temescal and
Arlington Basins
b. Removal of Desalter brine
c. Removal of agricultural return water from areas tributary to the
Arlington basin and dairy areas of Chino/Riverside
d. Removal of municipal and industrial wastewater high in TDS
2. Reduction of Salt added by Agriculture.
�d
The preparation of specific plans and facilities for limiting salt added by
agriculture are to be determined by future feasibility level studies.
3. Provision of Good Quality Water to Corona, Norco and Home Gardens.
The provision of water for domestic use meeting the delivered (3-c plan)
quality objective designed to reduce quality related consumer cost and
wastewater disposal. This program includes construction of facilities to
serve treated State Water Project water and water from the Bunker Hill Basin.
4. Prevention of Poor Quality Rising Water from Comingling with Good Quality
Water in the Santa Ana River.
This project was envisioned to provide an economically feasible method of
exporting salt from the upper watershed groundwater basins thereby improving
the mineral quality of the river water used for replenishment in the lower,
watershed.
In 1974, upon completion of the Planning Agency work program, the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority was created and empowered to develop, plan, finance,
construct and operate programs and projects related to water quality-control and
management, resulting in pollution abatement and protection of the Santa Ana
Watershed. The original member districts were Chino Basin Municipal Water
District, Western Municipal Water District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District and Orange County Water District. Eastern Municipal Water District ,.,/
subsequently joined in 1984.
-5-
6/27/85
Implementation of these projects required that SAWPA contract with other public
agencies. In the case of SARI, in 1972 SAWPA contracted with the County
Sanitation Districts of Orange County for Interceptor Treatment and Disposal
Capacity in their system. Construction of SARI, again the most critical element
�d of the water quality management plan, was completed to Riverside and Chino in
1983.
In addition to implementing the four specific project areas, SAWPA has a
coordination role to assure that all of the various parts of the plan are moving
ahead. SAWPA's role is recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
the State Water Resources Control Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and other agencies.
In general, it can be accurately said that the Basin Plan for the Santa Ana Basin
is the most comprehensive water quality protection program of any river basin in
the world, largely because of the active, ongoing interest and participation by `
the member water districts and SAWPA's affiliation with other agencies such as the
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County.
Following a review of the projects completed to date by SAWPA toward the overall
program objectives and the proposed projects including the Stringfellow
pretreatment facility and the interim City of Norco plan and the connection of the
California Rehabilitation Center in Corona, the Directors entered into a general
discussion with Mr. Schlange and Mr. Anderson of the overall program aimed at
protecting the underground basins in both the lower (Orange County) and upper (San
Bernardino/Riverside Counties) Santa Ana River Watershed.
DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Joint Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m. , June 27, 1985.
DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Joint Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m. , June 27, 1985.
DISTRICT 3 _ _ Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Joint Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m. , June 27, 1985:
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Joint Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m. , June 27, 1985.
DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
�..� Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Joint Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m. , June 27, 1985.
-6-
6/27/85
DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Joint Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m. , June 27, 1985.
DISTRICT 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 13 be adjourned. The Joint Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m. , June 27, 1985.
Secretary, Boar as of Directors
County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3,
5, 6, 7, 11 and 13
-7-