Loading...
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-