HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-28 .,.,.., ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
March 21, 2001
,hone:
1714)962-2411
mailing address: NOTICE OF MEETING
PO Box 8127
Fountain vanes,CA
92728-8127 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1o84e44Eisn�e ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Fountain Valley,CA
92708-7018
AND
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Member ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Agencies
•
Miss WEDNESDAY, March 28. 2001 — 6:30 P.M.
Anaheim
Brae
Buena Perk
Lypress
Foantem W.y DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
wllerton
Geroen craw. 10844 Ellis Avenue
HandngWn Beach elite Fountain Valley, California 92708
La Habra
Le Palma
Los Alamitos A Joint Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District
Newnan Bach and Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District will be held at the
Orange
Plac.nd. above location, time and date.
Bents An.
Beal Beach
S Tustin
Tustin
✓+
Vlll. Perk
4orba Linda
Coney o1 orange BO rd Secr
ryk
genieary Districts
Conte Mesa
Midway City
Water Districts
Irvine Ranch
'To Protect Ma Public Health and Me Environment Mrough Excellence in Mcco,water Systems"
ROLL CALL mt ?o
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
MEETING DATE: 3/28/01 TIME: 6:30 p.m.
l r 4�-- 03
(SIMONIAN) .....................ANDERSON...................y -1/ A/
(FLORY) .......................... BANKHEAD................... A/ = _� ✓
(LARSON) ........................ BOYD............................�_ Al ✓ ✓ ✓
(CRANDALL) ...................CARR07-ZO................. �L d Yi ✓
(ESTRADA) ..................... DONAHUE..................... ./ W 1/_ ✓
(UNDERHILL)................... ECKENRODE.............
(SCHAFER)...................... FERRYMAN................... w ✓
(GAROFALO) ...................GREEN............................. AC_ �L r
(DUVALL) .........................GULLIXSON...................�LY Al
�_ ✓
(DEBOLT).........................JEMPSA...................... _iL �L ✓
(WORLEY)........................KAWASHIMA............... i �_ �L ✓
(WARD)............................KROM........................ i/ ✓ ✓
(BROADWATER).............. LEYES..........................�L Y i ✓ °N`y`'pP°e.�
(DALY)..............................MC CRACKEN...............�L d ✓ r
(CHRISTY)........................ MC GUIGAN.................. A/ �L v
(SIMONOFF).................... MOORE........................ �L At ✓ ✓
(COONTZ)........................MURPHY...................... _L ./ Al ✓ ✓
(EPPERSON)...................NEUGEBAUER.............. �L _A/ Y' �L
(FRESCHI)........................PATTERSON................. Al --y— / ✓
(KEENAN)......................... PIERCY........................_ �L � �L ✓
(ADAMS) ..........................RIDGEWAY...................�L dL ✓
(DOW)...............................SIGLER........................._,G W _Y / ✓
(SMITH. CHUCK) ............. SILVA...........................
(MILLER) .......................... SWAN...........................
�L ✓ ,f� M°0"(
(BLAKE)............................WALKER.......................
�L N ✓
m-7 IR b
STAFF: �pw�aWa`°7a" \
Anderson
Ghirelll
Kyle ✓ �irwNA�{
Lawson
Ludwin ✓
Miles
Ooten ✓
Tomko ✓
Streed ✓
OTHERS:
W druff <20�✓ y ' a ��
And /S4v j QNGc� "
Nixon 1 cakr w` d 6C
aug
02/23/01
G:\wp.tlte\OdminlBuIDIRECTOR\Olreclofs Rail CHl.dwI.Ox
,q t'A�/ REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
LL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: I'Csm �O AGENDA ITEM NO. y �J k-
X
NAME: (please print) ,� ofn
HOME ADDRESS:
(number/street) /
(city/zip code)
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: s2K '6`
(self/name of organization)
\11eaMdatal\wp.dta\admin\BS\FORMS\Request to Speak.doc
/ REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. —�
NAME: (please print) " 4-0C�j i�
HOME ADDRESS: 2 W A y Q+ .1� �1 D
(number/street)
(city/zip code)
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: 9-1
(self/name of organization)
1 / REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAYBE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: 'J �Z�'��� AGENDA ITEM NO. v
NAME: (please print)
HOME ADDRESS: (number/street)
viv C/g- 9z-2 Z) g
(city/zip c de)
TELEPHONE: �7/�4 — 7 7 S- Y °/ / 5
REPRESENTING:
(self/ ame of organization) 446 �/.��
/ REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMITTHIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: "�� AGENDA ITEM NO.
NAME: (please print)
HOME ADDRESS:
(number/street)
�( ±moo
(city/zip code) '
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING:
(self/name of organization)
\Veadldetal\wp.dtaWdmin\BS\FORMS\Request to Speak.doc
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: ;3 Lf/n AGENDA ITEM NO.
r + r + r +�+-
NAME: (please print) ,L�
HOME ADDRESS: D I — g
(number/st.m )
# x�/
�
(city/zip code)
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING:
(self/name of organization)
\\lead\datal\wp.dta\admin\BS\FORMS\Requestto Speak.doc
/ REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TOFIVE MINUTES.
DATE: J ZO AGENDA ITEM NO. I -
NAME: (please print) Sos2D`/1 RaGC�JY�.�
HOME ADDRESS: 3� 5= S
(number/street)
Nw� n'a�n d3cl�_ C � - 92bYe
(ciit7ylzip�c(oodde u �^�
TELEPHONE: �/ 1n/ I IlL /I VL� - 1� �p
REPRESENTING: C - tT . W • ` C t l'Z�$ 49a'iyof EGG. tjdi Vim()
(self/name of organization) .
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: / AGENDA ITEM NO. ��
NAME: (please print) f O
HOME ADDRESS: R.
(numb r/stree ■ _
G
(city/zip co e)
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: _1lf4'k
(self/name of organization)
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: Z e �� AGENDA ITEM NO.
NAME: (please print) G�t,LL, I
HOME ADDRESS: Ir9/r7 Z A-IOAIIe j!57I/IX
(number/street)
CosTAi
—�
cit�y//ziipp�code)
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: (self/name off tion)
\\leatlldatal\wp.dtaladmin\BS\FORMS\Request to Speak.doc
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
LL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: * 2 O AGENDA ITEM NO.* ; { = t ' * e I µ
NAME: (please print) 1 V0, � V-\ s
HOME ADDRESS: l ' Y'T` a"A Z
(number/street)
(city/zip code) q
TELEPHONE: `- - I _I s1� 3�Z��
REPRESENTING: M-f 5(A- OAA & D 1I (fie
(self/name of organization)
\\IeadWatal\wp.dta dmin\BS\FORMS\Request to Speak.doc
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
"ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: b)' a' C) AGENDA ITEM NO.
NAME�(ple
eQK.tiQL
HOME ADDRESS: I411�1U, V,.2.UQs \�Atvs
(number/street)
(city/zip code)
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING:
(self/name of organization)
Wead\data t\wp.dta\admNBST0RMS\Request to Speak.doc
./ REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: 3 - 2g-6a AGENDA ITEM NO.
NAME: (please print) RON4U .
HOME ADDRESS: .15 9 R Z U l A. V t y t..Jrn
(number/street)
0-kiSSID 0 9 (
(city/zip code)
TELEPHONE: (149) -* -10- 2-32
REPRESENTING:
(self/name of organization)
\llead\datat\ p.dtatadmin\BS\FORMS\Request to Speak.doc
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: B : I • « ' « « « « AGENDA ITEM NO. + �v R
. . . . . .
NAME: (please print) Wcgf k .r
HOME ADDRESS:
(number/street)
(city/zip code)
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: OCAN65 �.'utjS-I �iu5�at55 (nwic ,
(self/name of organi lion)
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: `3 Z.S Q / AGENDA ITEM NO.
NAME: (please print) /✓I La O la. cL a- `I Ld(4 Gie 6 u3
HOME ADDRESS: 97// &A)a �1 orj L ra e.
Cris I�z E�es a
(number/street)
(:;Oxden Grove CA
(city/zip code))'//
TELEPHONE: 7/ ' ' 53 2 I 3
REPRESENTING: O C• �— e a a u g- of WO YNen VQ
(self/name of o anization)
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: 3 2b AGENDA ITEM NO.
NAME: (please print) 11 o
HOME ADDRESS: ?7D Y/e-Cli l'� JCR
(number/street)
s 4dJ j'(JXN C�el57�,41Q q 26 7�-
(city/ziip code)
TELEPHONE: 17 z I - 2-W 2Z( '/
REPRESENTING: �WA460 CxoTr:QA11'1L
(self/name of organization)
L11 REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION. REMARKS
MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: 3/�C�/ AGENDA ITEM NO. �
(t�
NAME: (please print) /Pi 7�i! r�C- cJ c-"
HOME ADDRESS: 3 7lJ - / ';c. . ( - --
(number/street)
Zip. 2
(city/zip/code) 7
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING:
(self/name of organization)
SIGN-IN SHEET
� ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
vy
nQ,AL o20G ( BOARD MEETING
NAME ORGANIZATION/FIRM
lease print leaseprint)
i
T- /� OG
✓firtLID Oz kv y Cw
Gf Up vY�
Uc w
✓1is Q P2. 25o✓S
a $/
C' n
m
LL"e c1 rzerl/
4 A
wI
Qf„ i"/ r� C c✓ v
A �
rti
fur rn C DM
oy c ` P t
Le�6 A 1,6,4Ao&ka e Fd- ¢ SLS
H:1WP.DTA\ADMIN\W\F�S GH- �6 M.DOC
SIGN-IN SHEET
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
3 �c Sll V BOARD MEETING
NAME ORGANIZATION/FIRM
leaseprint) leaseprint)
�M. oGUD
14
6l
0�5
3
STG _ n
`4 nil /q C>1 v
G J
-I's CMG I,,l
/ ✓ Ak)4 c-
A4W0 6
OQ, uce J (Y Iwo CCwl�
HAWRDTAUOMINMTORMMSIGNAN FORM.DM
SIGN-IN SHEET
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING
NAME ORGANIZATION/FIRM
lease rint leaseprint)
t7oi� — v o
v / -e c L
dE9 s r
ncw �
Am ECS Q Q w
J ,sl 'N Y"I�CuSkpY Rv,NC,e Ar- �u5 n S, t,,&,
vrn�� �FNGt,S '�J OGw 1�
jk)arj44 S¢ U ,106�- o c S o
t . S
tt^"So,� VA C tJ Zj
rl 4h rti
C�,'z-M ,&c
HAWR.DTA,ADMINISSIFORMSISION-IN FORKDOC
SIGN-IN SHEET
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING
NAME ORGANIZATION/FIRM
lease tint leaseprint)
� L
tlisa� irf' of A 01
J
-2),we 14aS .J �vro u �•a. r s ,a�uf
u
eX
HAWRDTAIADMI W WWORMMIGWIN FORKDOC
0
Script for March 28 Joint Board Meeting
Norm:
1. Welcome, everyone, to the joint board meeting of the Orange County
Sanitation District and the Orange County Water District.
2. 1 call this meeting to order.
3. 1 give the floor to Jerry King, president of the Orange County Water
District, to conduct a roll call of his board members.
Jerry:
1. Thank you, Norm.
2. Janice, will you please call the roll.
Norm:
1. Penny, will you please call the roll for Orange County Sanitation
District?
2. For those of you in the audience wishing to address the Board on items
of general interest, there will be a general public comment period.
When specific agenda items come up for discussion, there will be an
opportunity for you to comment on that item.
3. (Read your opening remarks.)
4. I'd like to give you an update from a meeting held yesterday. The
Anaheim City Council unanimously endorsed the Groundwater
Replenishment System and supported formation of the Groundwater
Producers Advisory Group. This is great news, indeed.
5. We are now going to receive and file written communications on the
Groundwater Replenishment System. They include correspondence
from:
• The Orange County Groundwater Producers.
• Orange Coast Watch.
• Mesa Consolidated Water District.
• Irvine Ranch Water District.
• Alicia K. De Frezna of Newport Coast.
• Philip J. Stevens of Newport Beach.
• The National Water Research Institute.
6. I'd like to point out that the staff is recommending an additional
condition for Action Item No. 1. The condition is written on the green
sheet of paper included in your agenda packet.
7. 1 now turn the floor back to Jerry King for his verbal report.
Jerry:
(Read your opening remarks.)
4
Norm:
1. 1 now give the floor to the chair of the Joint Groundwater Replenishment
System Cooperative Committee, Iry Pickier, for his verbal report.
Irv:
(Read your opening remarks.)
Norm:
1. 1 now give the floor to Bill Mills, general manager of the Water District,
for his verbal report.
Bill:
(Read your opening remarks.)
Norm:
1. 1 now give the floor to the general manager of the Sanitation District,
Blake Anderson, for his verbal report.
Blake:
(Give your opening remarks.)
Norm:
It is now the time for public comments.
This is an opportunity for members of the audience to make general
comments on items of interest, including the agenda items that we will be
considering this evening. There will also be an additional opportunity for
public comment on each of the specific agenda items when we consider
individual agenda items.
I will ask, however, that you refrain from repetitive or redundant comments.
I will also ask that comments be limited to that specific agenda item.
Comments are limited to five minutes.
(Public comments)
Thank you.
It is now time to take up the Agenda Items...
Agenda Item No. 1 (Project Authorization for the Groundwater
Replenishment System)
2
4
1. Public comments — This is an opportunity to make specific
comments about agenda item No. 1. Please limit your comments
to this specific agenda item. Refrain from repetitive or redundant
comments. And, please limit your comments to five minutes.
(Public comments) Thank you.
2. Staff Reports — I give the floor to Bill Mills for his report on the
recommended action. Bill...
Bill:
(Give your report on Agenda Item No. 1)
Norm:
3. Questions — I now open up the floor for questions from any of the
directors.
4. Motions —
A. I now turn the floor over to Jerry, who will entertain a
motion and a second from Orange County Water District
directors only. Jerry...
Jerry:
Call for a motion and a second from Water District directors.
Norm:
4 Motions —
B. 1 will now entertain a motion and a second from the
Sanitation District board. Thank you.
5. Discussion —With both a motion and a second from the Water
District Board and the Sanitation District Board, I open the floor
for discussion.
6. Vote—We will now call for the vote.
A. Jerry, please call for the vote from Water District directors.
Jerry:
Water District directors will be voting on recommendations B, C, D and F
for agenda item No. 1. All those in favor? All those opposed?
3
4
Norm:
6. Vote
B. I will now call for the vote from the Sanitation District
directors. Sanitation District directors will be voting on
recommendations A, B, C, E and F for agenda item No. 1.
All those in favor? All those opposed?
Agenda Item No. 2 (Interim Governance Recommendations for the
Groundwater Replenishment System)
1. Public comments—This is an opportunity to make specific
comments about agenda item No. 2. Please limit your comments
to this specific agenda item. Refrain from repetitive or redundant
comments. And, please limit your comments to five minutes.
Thank you.
(Public comments) Thank you.
2. Staff Reports — I give the floor to Bill Mills for his report on the
recommended actions of Agenda Item No. 2. Bill...
Bill:
(Give your report on Agenda Item No. 2)
Norm:
3. Questions -- I now open up the floor for questions from any of the
directors.
4. Motions —
A. I now turn the floor over to Jerry, who will entertain a
motion and a second from Orange County Water District
directors only.
Jerry:
I call for a motion and a second from Water District directors.
Norm:
4. Motions —
B. 1 will now entertain a motion and a second from the
Sanitation District board.
5. Discussion —With both a motion and a second from the Water
District Board and the Sanitation District Board, I open the floor
for discussion.
4
4
6. Vote—We will now call for the vote.
A. Jerry, please call for the vote from Water District directors.
Jerry:
Water District directors will be voting on recommendations A, B, and C of
agenda item No. 2. All those in favor? AH those opposed?
Norm:
6. Vote—
B. We will now call for the vote from the Sanitation District
directors, who will be voting on recommendations A, and C of
agenda item No. 2. All those in favor? All those opposed?
Agenda Item No. 3 (Consulting and Staff Services for Final Design,
Construction and Start-up Services for Implementation of the Groundwater
Replenishment System)
1. Public comments —This is an opportunity to make specific
comments about agenda item No. 3. Again, please limit your
comments to this specific agenda item. Refrain from repetitive of
redundant comments. And, please limit your comments to five
minutes.
2. Staff Reports — I give the floor to Bill Mills for his report on the
recommended action. Bill...
Bill:
(Give your report on Agenda Item No. 3)
Norm:
3. Questions — I now open up the floor for questions from any of the
directors.
4. Motions —
A. 1 now turn the floor over to Jerry, who will entertain a
motion and a second from Orange County Water District
directors only. Jerry...
Jerry:
I will entertain a motion on Agenda Item No. 3.
5
e
Norm:
4. Motions —
B. I will now entertain a motion and a second from the
Sanitation District board.
5. With both a motion and a second from the Water District Board
and the Sanitation District Board, I open the floor for discussion.
6. We will now call for the vote.
A. Jerry, please call for the vote from Water District directors.
Jerry:
I call for the vote from Water District directors who will be voting on
recommendations A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H for agenda item No. 3.
Norm:
6. Vote—
B. I will now call for the vote from the Sanitation District
directors, who will be voting on recommendations A, B, C,
D, E, F, G and H for agenda item No. 3. All those in favor?
All those opposed?
This now concludes the joint board meeting of the Orange County Water District
and the Orange County Sanitation District.
(You can ad lib now—we're done111)
We will now take a 10 minute break before we call to order the Orange County
Sanitation District Board meeting.
Thank you.
6
William R. Mills Page 1
' March 28,2001
Joint OCWD/OCSD Board Meeting on Groundwater Replenishment System
Good evening members of the boards, ladies and gentlemen.
Most of our citizens are concentrating on two things right now:
the stock market and the energy supply. Our water supply is
sometimes discussed, but it's not a hot button issue, not yet.
Some say that the stock market is in the hands of Alan
Greenspan. Some say that California's energy supply is in the
hands of Gray Davis. Well, Orange County's water future is
now in your hands. Not if, but when our water supply becomes
a hot button issue due to projected population figures, our
citizens will be asking what their Orange County public
servants have done to help them. We don't want to be in the
position of our energy counterparts! I'm sure five years ago,
you could have found many people who said, "We have plenty
of energy!"
My report to you this evening is that we have found a safe,
economical, environmentally responsible solution to Orange
County's future water needs. The project we are discussing
this evening will be a major part of ensuring that something
similar to the energy crisis does not happen to our water
supply. Can you imagine "water outs"?
William R. Mills Page 2
° March 28,2001
Joint OCWD/OCSD Board Meeting on Groundwater Replenishment System
Why does Orange County need the Groundwater
Replenishment System? Orange County needs the improved
water quality this project will provide. We need water
diversity to protect our citizens from the certain droughts that
we will face in the future, and the uncertain vagaries of
imported water politics we may face. And Orange County
needs this project, so we can avoid building another ocean
outfall.
But it is not only Orange County that benefits from this
project. This project also benefits the rest of California. Every
acre-foot of water produced by the Groundwater
Replenishment System is an acre-foot of imported water that
can be put to other uses, like providing water for the
environmentally sensitive San Francisco Bay Delta. And every
acre-foot of water we produce with this project uses one half
the energy it takes to transport imported water from Northern
California—leaving more energy for the rest of California to
use.
Some people may say that this project is visionary. I
completely agree! Some may say that this project is ahead of
its time. That may also be true. Some may say that Orange
William R.Mills Page 3
` March 28,2001
Joint OCWD/OCSD Board Meeting on Groundwater Replenishment System
County is not ready for this project—we should wait a few
years before we build the project to see if we really need it.
With that statement, I respectfully disagree.
Orange County needs this project now, today, 2001, for several
important reasons. And it is the convergence of these
opportunities that makes the Groundwater Replenishment
System a smart project for Orange County today. Here's why:
In the 1950s, 15% of Orange County's groundwater basin had
mineral levels above 500 mg/l. Today, 45% of our
groundwater basin is above 500 mg/l. This very hard water—
high in minerals—directly translates to aesthetic issues for our
citizens, and increased costs to replace water fixtures. Perhaps
most importantly, we need to reverse this trend for the sake of
the groundwater basin as a natural resource and for the sake
of our grandchildren's water supply. If we don't act now, the
entire basin will have very hard water. The Groundwater
Replenishment System will allow us to reverse this trend,
bringing higher quality water with fewer minerals to our
citizens and protecting the groundwater basin for generations
to come.
William R. Mills Page 4
` March 28,2001
Joint OCWD/OCSD Board Meeting on Groundwater Replenishment System
Orange County needs to develop water diversity to protect our
citizens from situations outside our control that could affect
our water supply. What are possible events outside our
control?
• Drought.
• The State cutting back State Project water to
Metropolitan.
• New environmental laws that cut back Colorado River
water to Metropolitan.
• New contaminants and stricter water quality standards
for everyone—before "Erin Brockovich", who was
worried about Chromium 6?
These are events that are beyond our control—and they are all
VERY REAL possibilities. If even one of them happens,
Orange County could face serious water supply shortages. We
could wait and see what happens, leaving our water
investments in one or two accounts. Or we could diversify our
water portfolio for a not-so-rainy day, protecting our citizens
from events beyond our control.
Orange County needs this project, or it needs another solution
to the certain increased sewer flows. An outfall would cost
about $170 million and would be used only nine days every five
William R. Mills Page 5
March 28, 2001
Joint OCWDIOCSD Board Meeting on Groundwater Replenishment System
years. Or the Sanitation District could spend even less money
on a project that will be used 365 days a year, with the same
benefits to OCSD.
The water industry is changing. Society has changed.
Environmental considerations now limit historic water
development techniques. We must be more efficient with the
water we have—reuse and conservation are the future.
The choice to proceed with this project seems pretty simple:
three public benefits—quality, supply and the environment—
for one public dollar. The choice may seem simple to others,
but the responsibility lies with you, members of the Boards, to
decide what is best for Orange County. Our water and
sanitation future is in your hands.
As former Governor Pat Brown said on numerous occasions,
"It's better to have problems WITH water than problems
WITHOUT water."
Thank you.
Remarks for In,Pickier
Joint OCWD and OCSD Page 1 of 6
March 28,2001 Board Meeting
re Groundwater Replenishment System
Good evening, everyone, and thank you for being here
tonight.
I've lived in Orange County for 44 years and I have seen a
lot of change and improvement -- new parks, communities,
shopping centers, museums, high-tech companies, schools
and universities. Orange County continues to be one of the
nation's most popular places to live and work. We maintain
an international reputation for excellence by our forward
thinking and planning.
Tonight, we are here to vote on a visionary water project that
will help maintain our enviable lifestyle, despite our and
1
• Remarks for Iry Pickier
Joint OCW D and OCSD Page 2 of 6
March 28,2001 Board Meeting
re Groundwater Replenishment System
environment. The Groundwater Replenishment System
incorporates forward thinking and planning to help ensure a
reliable, high-quality and diverse water supply for our future
here in Orange County.
We need more water to accommodate our future families
and new business ventures. The first phase of the
Groundwater Replenishment System will provide 70,000
acre-feet of water a year, enough for 140,000 Orange County
families. We have phased this project so that it can be
expanded in the future. We have learned a lot over the years
from Water Factory 21 and now we can use that knowledge
to produce even higher quality water and at a better cost.
The water from this project will actually help reverse the
2
Remarks for In,Pickier
Joint OCW D and OCSD Page 3 of 6
March 26,2001 Board Meeting
re Groundwater Replenishment System
gradual build up of minerals in our groundwater basin
caused by filling it over the years with water from the Santa
Ana and the Colorado Rivers.
You're all familiar with the "Got Milk?" campaign. That's
the one where someone eats a big bite of peanut butter
sandwich and afterwards realizes he's out of milk! Then
there's the "Got Electricity?" campaign that we've all been
living lately. That's where the seventh largest economy in
the world suddenly has the blackouts of a third-world
country when it realizes it doesn't have enough electricity to
support itself. Let's make sure Orange County never has a
"Got Water?" campaign.
3
Remarks for Iry Pickier
Joint OCWD and OCSD Page 4 of 6
March 28,2001 Board Meeting
re Groundwater Replenishment System
We have the entitlements and permits to move ahead with
this project. We have grants totaling $57 million dollars and
more grant requests pending. OCSD and OCWD will split
the cost of the construction of this project. We are ready to
proceed with detailed design and we look forward to
teaming with the Producer's Advisory Committee to ensure
a successfully implemented project.
We also applaud Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California for its many efforts to provide future water
reliability for Southern California in the face of cutbacks in
the Colorado River and threats to water from Northern
California. We want to complement those reliability efforts
4
Remarks for Iry Pickier
Joint OCW D and OGSD Page 5 of 6
Mamh 28,2001 Board Meeting
re Groundwater Replenishment System
in Orange County with this project that will provide drought-
proof, locally controlled and high-quality water.
I love Orange County and consider it a privilege to live here.
I feel strongly about the Groundwater Replenishment
System.
I believe in it for the good of Orange County and the people
who live here. But, most of all, I believe in it because I want
my grandchildren to enjoy the same or better quality of life
than I have enjoyed here.
I would like to personally compliment the members, past
and present, of the project's Join Cooperative Committee.
We bring to both boards today a successful project due to
5
Remarks for Iry Pickier
Joint OCWD and OCSD Page 6 of 6
March 28,2001 Board Meeting
re Groundwater Replenishment System
your foresight, hard work and excellent leadership. Thank
you.
There is a decision before us tonight and that's the future of
our water supply. It's time for us to move ahead with
designing the Groundwater Replenishment System. On
behalf of the JCC, we respectfully submit the
recommendation to proceed. Thank you.
6
Remarks for Norm Eckenrode
Joint OCWD and OCSD
Board Meeting
re Groundwater Replenishment System
Welcome everyone. This is truly a milestone evening for us...an event that has
been years in the making. Because tonight we will decide on the future of Orange
County's water supply. Will we have enough water to maintain the wonderful
quality of life we all enjoy now, or will we have a future of water shortages? Will
we have enough diversity in our sources to make us water independent, or will we
continue to rely on water from northern California and the Colorado River?
Most of you have heard me say that the Groundwater Replenishment System will
be the single best project for Orange County. I truly believe that. GWR will be
good for the people who live here now and for the 800,000 more who will be living
here by 2020.
I also believe the Groundwater Replenishment System will be good for Orange
County businesses. From the early days of this project, I have said, "Make the
pipeline going up the river as large as we can make it...and give businesses along
the 13-mile route the opportunity to tap in." The GWR System will produce
purified water, the highest quality water available to us. And I think Orange
County businesses that rely on distilled-quality water for their manufacturing
processes should have the opportunity to tap in.
As many of you know, I'm a former small-business owner...that's a fancy way of
saying I owned a pizza parlor in Placentia. It was hard work, but I loved it. I had
good employees, the restaurant was in a good location and I had the greatest
customers in the world.
But when you're a business owner, worrying comes naturally. It's an occupational
hazard. I worried about profits...I worried about whether my supplies would be
delivered on time...I worried about everything. That's just me. But, one thing I
never had to worry about was my utilities. I knew when I got to the restaurant in
the morning, I would flip a switch and the lights would go on. I would turn the tap
and there would be water.
I feel sorry for today's business owners with rolling blackouts. Who would have
ever thought California wouldn't have enough energy to meet our electricity needs?
Do we want to take the chance that without GWR there will always be enough
water? I don't want to take that gamble.
I'm ready to move forward with the Groundwater Replenishment System.
Thank you.
LAW OFFICES OF
WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Blake P. Anderson
General Manager
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Bradley R. Hogin, Esq.
DATE: March 27, 2001
RE: Procedure for GWRS Joint Board Meeting
This memo presents a suggested procedure for conducting the Joint Board
Meeting on the Groundwater Replenishment Project.
The following procedure would apply for each of the three action items: (1)
Project Authorization, (2) Interim Governance, and (3) Consulting/Staffing Services. As
chair of the host body, the OCSD Board Chair will preside by introducing each item,
recognizing speakers and moving the process from step to step.
1. Public Comments
The OCSD Chair will call for public comments and recognize each speaker.
2. Staff Reports
The OCSD Chair will ask for staff reports from the General Managers.
a. OCW D General Manager Report on Recommended Action
b. OCSD General Manager Report on Recommended Action
3. Director Questions
The OCSD Chair will open the floor up to OCWD and OCSD Directors for an
opportunity to ask questions of staff. The OCSD Board Chair will recognize each
speaker.
IS Memo.dw
Blake P. Anderson
March 27, 2001
Page 2
4. Motions
a. OCWD
The OCSD Chair will turn the floor over to the OCWD President, who will
entertain a motion and a second from among the OCWD Directors. (Note that motions
should specify each subpart of an action item, because not all subparts apply to both
agencies. For example, the recommended OCWD action for Item 1 includes only
subparts 1B, 1C and 1D.)
b. OCSD
The OCSD Chair entertains a motion and a second from among the OCSD
Directors.
6. Director Discussion
The OCSD Board Chair will open the floor up to OCWD and OCSD Directors for
discussion. The OCSD Board Chair will recognize each speaker.
7. Votes
a. OCWD
The OCSD Board Chair will turn the floor over to the OCWD President, who will
call for a vote of the OCWD Board on each motion. The OCWD President will declare
the result.
b. OCSD
The OCSD Board Chair will call for a vote by the OCSD Directors on each
motion. The OCSD President will declare the result.
2
m Memo.dm
p O
1
CITY OF ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92803
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
,OONO10 t�N
EXCERPT OF MINTUES
The Anaheim City Council met in regular session on March 27, 2001 in the
Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 6:18 P.M. with the following in
attendance: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait,
Frank Feldhaus and Lucille Kring.
Staff present: City Manger Ruth, City Attorney White, City Clerk Schroeder.
A20. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Orange County Water
District (OCWD) regarding beautification of OCWD facilities within Anaheim and
replacement of City production wells affected by the proposed Groundwater
Replenishment System project. (Continued from the meeting of March 20,
2001.)
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM supporting the groundwater replenishment system, a
joint effort of the Orange County Water District and the Orange County Sanitation
District.
Mayor Daly moved to approve the MOU, stating that rather than approve the
resolution, that Council work from the final paragraph of the staff
recommendation, which directed staff to monitor additional analysis and design
development activities of the proposed system in a cooperative manner with the
Orange County ground water producers. Council Member Kring seconded the
motion.
Roll call vote: Ayes — 5. Noes — 0. Motion carried.
Mayor Daly suggested that rather than a formal resolution; the Council should
aim towards monitoring the additional analysis and activities, working with the
underground water producers.
200 South Anaheim Boulevard,Suite 217 • P O.Be.3222 • (714)765-5166 • www.anaheim.net
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 27,2001
PAGE
Council Member Tait moved that Council adopt the staff recommendation, which
read:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of
Anaheim does hereby support moving forward with additional analysis and
design development activities of the proposed Groundwater Replenishment
System project in a cooperative manner with the Orange County Groundwater
Producers to further define the project's many aspects, including cost and water
supply reliability, before a final decision is made on expenditure of significant
funds for project construction.
Motion was seconded by Mayor Daly. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted:
524 A4a-�
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC
Anaheim City Clerk
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A FULL. TRUE APID
CORRECT COPY OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THIS
OF'--ICE. ATTEST: e+p
SHERYLL SCHROEDER. CITY CLERK OF THE bl.T OF ANgHEl,14
South Coast Water Dist Fax:949-499-4256 Mar 28 2001 15:50 p.02
RESOLUTION NO. 13-00101
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT SUPPORTING THE
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM, A JOINT EFFORT
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND THE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, within the next 20 years, Orange County will have a water
shortage of 150,000 acre-feet,the amount of water needed for 300,000 families; and
WHEREAS, the northern portion of the county obtains 75 percent of its
drinking water from the county's vast groundwater basin, and the other 25 percent
from imported sources,such as the Colorado River and northern California; and
WHEREAS, current and future water policy threaten to limit the availability
of future imported water;and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) have found a cost-effective solution to predicted
future water shortages and are sponsoring a proposed supplemental water purification
project, known as the Groundwater Replenishment System, that could each year
provide up to 200,000 north-central Orange County families with a new source of
safe,reliable,high quality water;and
WHEREAS, the Groundwater Replenishment System would take highly
treated wastewater from the Orange County Sanitation District that is currently sent to
the ocean, purify it to near distilled water quality through 100 percent reverse
osmosis, microfrltrotion and ultraviolet disinfection technologies,and then use it for a
seawater intrusion barrier and to percolate it through the ground into the Orange
County groundwater basin; and
WHEREAS, Groundwater Replenishment System water would be of such
high-quality that it will improve the quality of the County's overall drinking water
supply by reducing the salinity of aquifers; and
WHEREAS, to produce water from the Groundwater Replenishment System,
it will take one-half the energy currently required to bring imported water to Orange
County,making it much more environmentally friendly and energy efficient;and
WHEREAS, Groundwater Replenishment System water can be used for
multiple purposes including household, landscaping, industrial and for prevention of
seawater intrusion;and
South Coast Water Dist Fax:949-499-4256 Mar 28 2001 15:50 P.03
Rmulunon No.13-00101
WHEREAS, Groundwater Replenishment System water will be available
regardless of rainfall levels or drought conditions;and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation
District are recognized as innovative leaders in water reuse;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that South Coast Water District
does hereby SUPPORT the Groundwater Roplonishment System and the efforts of the
Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District to identify and
develop alternative sources for safe,reliable water supplies for Orange County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Board of Directors held
this 24th day of March 2001.
Zt�4 -
President
ATTEST:
Secretary .
2
Report to Joint Meetin
Orange County W
Orange County S
GROUNDWATER
REPLENISHQ(IENT
SYSTE
William R. Mills Jr.
General Manager t
Orange County Water District
"If there is
magic
on this
planet,
it is in water"
Loren Eiseley,"The Flow of the
River;' The Immense Journey
STOCK MARKET
ENERGY CRISIS
xv
No Water Crisis
*AAA
Ntf
ALLA
O
Local Benefits
• Quality
• Diversity
• Environmental
3
Regional/Statewide Benefits
• Less demand from Bay-Delta
• Less energy
Groundwater
Replenishment System
• A visionary project? Yes
• Wait until need? No
4
Reason No. 1 : Quality
Only 15% of Basin Above 500 mg/L;TD:S]
Concentration in 1950's
....,. �... I (tom,
� `
J
1954
m. 1954 �
5
Now 45% of the Basin Contains TDS
Concentrations Above 500 mg/L
1998 r
._.„ma,. ... 7
Wine Deselter
Salts Increase Water Softening
Costs and Reduce Life of
Water Appliances
• Heaters
• Washers
6
Reason No. 2: Water Supply Diversity
Orange County needs water diversity;
reliability of imported supplies Is beyond our
control
• Droughts
• Regulatory — ESA
• New chemicals
Reason No. 3: Environmental
• Orange County Sanitation District can
delay or possibly avoid constructing a
second ocean outfall.
• Lessen the burden of exporting supplies
from the Bay Delta
SpiteIn of Reasons,
System Costs and Assumptions
Must • ' Continuously Monitored
• Updated
OCWD : • . • and JCC recommend
formation of Advisory Committeeto
jointly • advise
Boards
A Changed Water World
California's Water Future,
According to Cal Fed Process
• Water conservation
• Recycling
Your Choice, GWRS
Provides. . .
• Quality
Public
• Supply diversity Dollar
• Environmental
Benefits
9
"iR�i S - ff'pjP F
Quote from
Former Governor
Pat Brown:
'i.
`It's better to have
problems WITH
water, than
problems
WITHOUT water"
ML
10
March 28, 2001
JOINT MEETING RE GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
A. Receive and File the following Correspondence
1. Orange County Groundwater Producers: March 25, 2001 letter
requesting formation of a groundwater producer advisory committee
and listing 11 areas of concern.
2. Orange Coast Watch; letter of recommendation dated March 22, 2001
3. Mesa Consolidated Water District; letter of recommendation dated
March 23, 2001
4. Irvine Ranch Water District; letter of support for the Irvine Racnh Water
District phased proposal dated March 27, 2001
5. Alicia K. De Frezna of Newport Coast; letter of opposition to the project
dated March 27,2001
6. Phillip J. Stevens of Newport Beach; letter of opposition to the project
dated March 26, 2001
7. National Water Research Institute, Letter of support for the project
dated March 27, 2001
B. New condition for agenda item No.1
OCWD AND OCSD:
Add the following:
F. Establish a groundwater producers advisory group and implement to
the degree possible the eleven points in the groundwater producers
letter dated March 25, 2001
March 25, 2001 2 7 IGO1
Mr. Jerry King, President
Orange County Water District
P. O. Box 8300
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300
Mr.Norman Z. Eckemode, Chairman
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92728
Re: Approval of the Groundwater Replenishment System
Gentlemen:
The Orange County Groundwater Producers have appreciated the opportunity to work directly
with the staffs of each of your agencies to work through the issues that have been raised over the
past several months regarding the Ground Water Replenishment System(GWRS). Last week
the Groundwater Producers met with the General Managers of your agencies regarding a series
of conditions and performance milestones that could be incorporated into the GWRS project
approval. The discussion of this topic was extremely frank and constructive. It was apparent
that all present were interested in creating a more successful GWRS project. As a result of our
meeting,the General Manager of OCWD issued a memorandum to the OCWD Board on March
21,2001 commenting on the Groundwater Producers concerns. Based on that memorandum,it
appears there is now substantial alignment between the positions of the Groundwater Producers
and OCWD on appropriate conditions and milestones should your Boards move forward with
GWRS.
On March 28,2001,both OCWD and OCSD will consider a"go/no go"decision for the GWRS
project. In the event that both boards decide to proceed with the project, the Groundwater
Producers believe that the items agreed to in the March 21, 2001 OCWD Board memorandum
should be formalized as part of the project's approval. We have prepared the attached list of
agreed to items,which have been restated with sufficient detail that they can be included in the
approval motion for the project. Should the project be approved,the Groundwater Producers
look forward to working closely with your respective staffs on the proposed GWRS Advisory
Committee. We appreciate your agencies' continued cooperation to resolve the issues that
remain before us and look forward to a successful relationship.
Sincerely, - -
oCtrO h181A130YlaA _
�p dopy -y—�
Patrick Scanlon HAS - - -•~ _�...
Chairman,Orange County Groundwater Producers ` E
'Li
t
cc: Blake Anderson,OCSD General Manager L�=="� - • • i -- - -
William R. Mills, OCWD General Manager
Recommended Items for Inclusion in the
Joint OCWD/OCSD Board Action on the GWRS Project
March 28, 2001
1. Authorize the establishment of a GWRS Advisory Committee made up of
representatives of the GWRS staff and the OCWD Groundwater
Producers. The Advisory Committee shall report to the OCWD and OCSD
Joint Cooperative Committee and Board during the term of the project.
2. Prior to the award of any GWR System construction contracts, adopt a
project implementation Contingency Plan and other appropriate milestone
conditions, which incorporate sufficient flexibility to accommodate
unanticipated changes in the GWR System, including cost reduction
alternatives, and/or a delay of the GWRS project until additional outside
funding is secured if cost projections exceed the current estimates. The
Contingency Plan shall be prepared by staff and the Advisory Committee
for review and approval by the JCC and Board.
3. Direct staff to work with the Advisory Committee to review outstanding
consultant proposals for final design, specialty design, construction
management, value engineering and other services and prepare
recommendations to the JCC and Board for review and consideration with
contract award.
4. Direct staff to adjust the schedule for the SAR pipeline design and
construction such that construction durations are appropriately reduced,
and pipeline completion will not be significantly ahead of the treatment
facility. The adjusted schedule shall be reviewed by the Advisory
Committee and submitted to the JCC and Boards prior to the award of
construction contracts.
5. Prior to the award of any SAR pipeline contract (with the exception of the
Theo Lacy reach), direct OCWD staff to establish terms of a contract with
MWD for replenishment water including price, availability, and salinity.
These contract terms should be reviewed with the Advisory Committee
and presented with a recommendation to the JCC and Board to either
initiate construction of the SAR pipeline, or defer construction (and for
what term) and execute a replenishment contract with MWD during the
intervening period.
6. Prior to award of the advanced water treatment plant and forebay pipeline
contracts (with the exception of the Theo Lacy reach), obtain a written
commitment from the Department of Health Services that the project can
be operated as planned and designed, including clearly defined criteria
and accountability milestones to be achieved for DOHS to allow recharge
and injection of 100% project water without blending.
GWRS Action Items Page 2
March 28, 2001
7. At each contract award or at no less than a quarterly interval, staff shall
present to the Advisory Committee and JCC an updated version of the
OCWD financial model for unit water cost and Replenishment Assessment
(RA) projections. The model shall reflect the most current information
available on project costs including construction bid information, energy
costs, financing, and other project cost parameters.
8. Prior to award of construction contracts, staff shall obtain a written
commitment from the State of California for the 2.8% state loan financing
for the project. Should State Loan financing not be used for the project,
evidence of the availability of equivalent cost financing shall be provided.
9. Prior to the award of construction contracts (except for the Theo Lacy
reach of the SAR pipeline), contract terms for electrical energy to serve
the project shall be negotiated with an energy provider for the Boards'
consideration and information in conjunction with decisions on
construction contract commitments. The energy pricing under the contract
shall be used to update financial modeling.
10. Prior to award of construction contracts, staff shall prepare and submit to
the JCC and Board for review and approval a debt financing plan which
recommends specific financing sources for the project and incorporates a
maximum 25 year debt financing term to minimize interest expenses and
match debt obligations with the economic life of the project.
11. Prior to the award of construction contracts, the OCSD and OCWD staff
shall confer with the Advisory Committee and prepare recommendations
regarding the cost allocation between OCSD and OCWD for the project,
and present these recommendations to the JCC and Boards. The review
shall include, but not be limited to:
a.) Operating costs;
b.) Future capital grant allocations; and
c.) Cost over-run contingency funding
WCOA$rT
ice..ca"a°p M W March 22,2001
Mm•:OG97943M
Fa.:9d AMM13 Chairman Iry Pickler
Joint GARS Cooperative Committee
Orange County Water District
P.O.Box 8300
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300
BOARD Oi WECIORB
s�•�.Bm°.cna"mn Dear Chairman Pickler:
`°m B. cFo
r". ,n,,,.. Orange Coast Watch is a new environmental organization dedicated to
FW, _FO
,,,,,,,°,,.,�.Rom, insuring that Orange County's coastal waters are safe for recreational use.
"""°�°e"'°" We want to applaud the Orange County Water District and its partner the
wmo-mce%M., ma°°
Orange County Sanitation District for their environmental leadership in
MOft� aR^O. developing the Ground Water Replenishment System(GWRS). We
oamRR�B encourage the boards of directors of these two organizations to adopt the
amo°=o°.=•.w proposed system.
Rma°lorry
rv°mwwmw a®°°,a,lmnm°
The most obvious benefit of GWRS is in reducing Orange County's
dependence on imported water. GWRS will also result in reduced volume
F.noaem,on of discharge of treated wastewater to the Pacific Ocean. In addition,we
R w°ar u
see GWRS as an important step toward the goal of enhancing the level of
a°^«=«m"ROW treatment of all of Orange County's sewage.
Mc"ael5cmemg•r
Thank you for your support of GWRS. We look forward to the
implementation of this innovative program.
mchdloNLGhnxrvw°y
aK,`�","„ Sincerely,
ea wan
irenmol"omas 8•ac"e:mG
V.
Rm V•o
aan.a
Steve Bone Victor Leipzig,Ph.D.
0"C111"a•"a= Chairman of the Board Executive Director
Vlaorwotg M.D.
VR
omnR•Co
NXWn
E11n"Olhq soulc•y°f populbn
RMn
FMabn G°vocaq.
rroM°MO°Maabn
RECEIVED MAR ..,
' MemCcrso6dated
eoAMD OF MNECroas March 23, 2001
T11uor oxuGMALL
Pm•ke111 Mr. Jerry King, President
10 Orange County Water District
JM ATMNWN
FM I. P .V P. O. Box 8300
IV Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300
FRED eOO.LLEA
V.PrezWM
tM1N°nI Mr. Norman Z. Eckenrode, Chairman
F.MCNAEL HEAL" Orange County Sanitation District
vwI 10844 Ellis Avenue
PALL se BEesm Fountain Valley, CA 92728
Vice Pree.
G on 11
x xEMP Re: Approval of the Groundwater Replenishment System
Gen•nI M.."
OIANA M.IFACX Gentlemen-
Nzlzwn Generel Mereper
COLEENGGMIMACN
uM•ns«ml..y The purpose of this letter is to advise you and your respective boards of directors that the
MAMGANEIM.W.FUn.EDGE Mesa Consolidated Water District Board of Directors voted yesterday to support
TmMum,llwOMe conditional approval of moving forward with the Groundwater Replenishment System
EGIVIe GIMIONEPeN subject to inclusion of conditions in the actions taken. We agreed with and support the
A••nmr purpose and principles of the eleven conditions recommended by the Orange County
Groundwater Producers (attached).
Mesa's Board discussed and wanted to emphasize the importance of a cooperative working
relationship among all the agencies involved to assure public benefit from the GWRS
Wamr nuI'w,s
Me•D erred endeavor. We believe that, in addition to the efforts of staff, the direct involvement of
mn' mlulan:
Dedmmdm elected officials is essential to the goals of cooperation, effective communication, and
S.IMh"•s ONr ultimately a successful project for the public served. The formation of the GWRS
ww"N.&. Advisory Committee is a good m that direction, and Mesa's Board recommends that
C.. NeeeJ, rJ' g step
at least one member of each of your boards be active members of that committee.
We recognize the significance and potential impacts of the decisions you are considering
at this time; and look forward to the effective representation of Mesa's interests.
Sincerely,
, C/ O!�/'�` /,C de OCWD DISTAIdUT19N
7�/7 rf Z G1 GLCI ropy _ .!
Trudy Ohlig-Hall -`
President HAS
�I ILE I _
Pc: Mesa Board of Directors ��-I'"--�--'--
OCWD Board of Directors i` iQ-Q,�4 -7 -
OCSD Board of Director =�b41L COFY rG
s
William R. Mills, OCWD General Managei -----1
Blake Anderson, OCSD General Manager
P.O. Box 5008• 1965 Placentia Avenue (92627)•Costa Mesa, Califomia 92628-5008
Telephone(949) 631-1200 FAX(949) 574-1036
Recommended Items for Inclusion in the
Joint OCWD/OCSD Board Action on the GWRS Project
March 28, 2001
1. Authorize the establishment of a GWRS Advisory Committee made up of
representatives of the GWRS staff and the OCWD Groundwater
Producers. The Advisory Committee shall report to the OCWD and OCSD
Joint Cooperative Committee and Board during the term of the project.
2. Prior to the award of any GWR System construction contracts, adopt a
project implementation Contingency Plan and other appropriate milestone.
conditions which incorporate sufficient flexibility to accommodate
unanticipated changes in the GWR System, including cost reduction
alternatives and/or a delay of the GWRS project until additional outside
funding is secured if cost projections exceed the current estimates. The
Contingency Plan shall be prepared by staff and the Advisory Committee
for review and approval by the JCC and Board.
3. Direct staff to work with the Advisory Committee to review outstanding
consultant proposals for final design, specialty design, construction
management, value engineering and other services and prepare
recommendations to the JCC and Board for review and consideration with
contract award.
4. Direct staff to adjust the schedule for the SAR pipeline design and
construction such that construction durations are appropriately reduced,
and pipeline completion will not be significantly ahead of the treatment
facility. The adjusted schedule shall be reviewed by the Advisory and
submitted to the JCC and Boards prior to the award of construction
contracts.
5. Prior to the award of any SAR pipeline contract (with the exception of the
Theo Lacy reach), direct OCWD staff to establish terms of a contract with
MWD for replenishment water including price, availability, and salinity.
These contract terms should be reviewed with the Advisory Committee
and presented with a recommendation to the JCC and Board to either
initiate construction of the SAR pipeline, or defer construction (and for
what term) and execute a replenishment contract with MWD during the
intervening period.
6. Prior to award of the advanced water treatment plant and forebay pipeline
contracts (with the exception of the Theo Lacy reach), obtain a written
commitment from the Department of Health Services that the project can
be operated as planned and designed, including clearly defined criteria
and accountability milestones to be achieved for DOHS to allow recharge
and injection of 100% project water without blending.
GWRS Action Items Page 2
March 28, 2001
7. At each contract award or at no less than a quarterly interval, staff shall
present to the Advisory Committee and JCC an updated version of the
OCWD financial model for unit water cost and Replenishment Assessment
(RA) projections. The model shall reflect the most current information
available on project costs including construction bid information, energy
costs, financing, and other project cost parameters.
8. Prior to award of construction contracts, staff shall obtain a written
commitment from the State of California for the 2.8% state loan financing
for the project. Should State Loan financing not be used for the project,
evidence of the availability of equivalent cost financing shall be provided.
9. Prior to the award of construction contracts (except for the Theo Lacy
reach of the SAR pipeline), contract terms for electrical energy to serve
the project shall be negotiated with an energy provider for the Boards'
consideration and information in conjunction with decisions on
construction contract commitments. The energy pricing under the contract
shall be used to update financial modeling.
10. Prior to award of construction contracts, staff shall prepare and submit to
the JCC and Board for review and approval a debt financing plan which
recommends specific financing sources for the project and incorporates a
maximum 25 year debt financing term to minimize interest expenses and
match debt obligations with the economic fife of the project.
11. Prior to the award of construction contracts, the OCSD and OCWD staff
shall confer with the Advisory Committee and prepare recommendations
regarding the cost allocation between OCSD and OCWD for the project,
and present these recommendations to the JCC and Boards. The review
shall include, but not be limited to:
a.) Operating costs;
b.) Future capital grant allocations; and
c.) Cost over-run contingency funding
08•-27-2001 04:52pm From-I AND i T-706 P.ODIAN F-085
^—_ 0=01STRINT00"
t:OPY
2]"M _ 4As
IRVINE RANCH WATER RI KHT rseaOaMn CWYWAZ!
!I U' L COPY TO ll
March 27,2001 ! _
Mr. Jerry King,President
Orange County Water District
P. O.Box 8300
Fountain Valley,CA 92728-9300
Re: Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS) "Go/No Go"Decision
Dear Mr.President:
On March 26, 2001, the IRWD Board of Directors voted to conceptually support the GWRS
project This support is contingent on the adoption of a phasing plan That defers the construction
of the forebay pipeline. Sometime ago IRWD assisted in formulating a phasing plan that was
presented to the Boards of Orange County Water District (OCWD) and Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD) on December 2, 2000. This phasing proposal was intended to
provide the districts with the flexibility to resolve The assumptions and reduce the financial risk
of proceeding with the forebay portion of the project before it was economically justified Our
Board remains committed to deferring the forebay portion of the project until it can be
demonstrated that it is actually required. We believe that implementing this phasing plan is your
most prudenr course of action at this time.
An additional condition of the IRWD Board's support is the adoption by the OCWD and OCSD
Boards of the attached "Recommended Items for Inclusion in the Joint OCWD/OCSD Board
Action on the GWRS Project" (conditions) developed by the Orange County Groundwater
Producers, with one key addition. IRWD's recommendation is that the engineering contract for
the Santa Ana River pipeline portion of the project(with exception of the Theo Lacy Reach) be
deferred until the proposed conditions are met. Moreover, it is our position that these revised
conditions be explicitly included in the OCWD and OCSD Boards' motion for any action taken
to proceed further with the GWRS project. Through the implementation of these conditions,it is
essential that project"off ramps"be clearly identified to allow the flexibility to phase the GWRS
project or implement alternative contingency measures should the economic and institutional
assumptions used to justify the project ultimately prove to be incorrect. In The past, IRWD and
others have suggested that these underlying assumptions and cost projections are optimistic.
Certainly California's energy situation highlights such concerns. If the project is implemented,
OCWD and OCSD must continuously validate cost projections by updating its financial model
with the latest data and actual bid information at each project milestone. Should cost projections
significantly exceed the current estimates for unit water cost or replenishment assessment
increases, it is incumbent upon the Boards to reconsider implementation of the project. We
believe the conditions proposed by the groundwater producers provide a valuable mechanism for
continual review and re-evaluarion of the project.
03-ZT-Z001 WSW Fran-IRWD + T-706 P.002/006 F-886
Mr. Jerry King,President
Orange County Water District
March 27,2001
Page Two
Finally, we have directed our staff to participate vigorously on the GWRS Advisory Group
suggested by the groundwater produms. We believe the direct input of staff professionals from
the groundwater producers To the Joint Cooperative Committee will provide both important
insight and an inclusive process for evaluating recommendations as each project decision
milestone is considered.
Thank you in advance for consideration of our position in this important matter.
Sincerely,
h
Mary een Metheis
Presi t
Irvine ch Water District
a: Board of Directors,OCWD
William Mills, OCWD
03-27-2001 04:53pm From-IRWD i T-708 P.003/005 F-005
March 2s,2001
Mr.Jerry King,President
Orange County Water District
P. O.Box 8300
Fountain Valley, CA 92728.8300
Mr.Nauman Z Eckenrode, Chairman
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley,CA 92728
Re: Approval of the Groundwater Replenishment System
Gentlemen
The Orange County Groundwater Producers have appreciated the opportunity to work directly
with The smBs of each ofyour agencies to work Through the issues that have been raised over the
past several months regarding the Ground Water Replenishment System(GWRS). last week
the Groundwater Producers met with the General Managers of your agencies regarding a series
of conditions and perfortnance milestones That could be incorporated into The GWRS project
approval. The discussion of This Topic was extremely hank and constructive. it was apparent
that all present were interested in creating a more successful GWRS project. As a result of our
meeting,The General Manager of OCWD issued a memorandum to The OCWD Board on March
21,2001 commenting on the Groundwater Producers concerns. Based on that memorandum,it
appears There is now substantial alignment between the positions of the Groundwater Pmd=m
and OCWD an appropriate conditions and milestones should your Boards move forward with
GWRS.
On March 28,2001,both OCWD and OCSD will consider a"go/ao go"decision for the GWRS
projecr. In the event that both boards decide to proceed with the projm%The Groundwater
Producers believe that the items agreed to in the March 21,2001 OCWD Board memorandum
should be formalized as part of The project's approval. We have prepared the attached list of
agreed to items,which have been restated with sufficient derail than they can be included in the
approval motion for the project. Should the project be approved,the Groundwater Producers
look forward to working closely with your respective staffs on the proposed GWRS Advisory
Committee. We appreciate your agencies' continued cooperation to resolve the issues That
retrain before us and look forward to a successful relationship.
Sincerely, R
Patrick a� \
Chairman.Orange County Groundwater Producers
cc: Blake Anderson, OCSD General Manager
William R.Mills, OCWD General Manager
037ZT-ZOOI 04:63pm From-IRWO + T-706 P.004/005 F-335
Recommended Items for Inclusion In the
Joint OCWD/OCSD Board Action on the GWRS Project
March 26, 2001
1. Authorize the establishment of a GWRS Advisory Committee made up of
representatives of the GWRS staff and the OCWD Groundwater
Producers, The Advisory Committee shall report to the OCWD and OCSD
Joint Cooperative Committee and Board during the tens of the project.
2. Prior to the award of any GWR System construction contracts, adopt a
project Implementation Contingency Plan and other appropriate milestone
conditions which incorporate sufficient flexibility to accommodate
unanticipated changes in the GWR System, Including cost reduction
alternatives and/or a delay of the GWRS project until additional outside
funding is secured if cost projections exceed the current estimates. The
Contingency Plan shall be prepared by staff and the Advisory Committee
for review and approval by the JCC and Board.
3. Direct staff to work with the Advisory Committee to review outstanding
consultant proposals for final design, specialty design, construction
management, value engineering and other services and prepare
recommendations to the JCC and Board for review and consideration with
contract award.
4. Direct staff to adjust the schedule for the SAR pipeline design and
construction such that construction durations are appropriately reduced,
and pipeline completion will not be significantly ahead of the treatment
facility. The adjusted schedule shall be reviewed by the Advisory and
submitted to the JCC and Boards prior to the award of construction
contracts.
5. Prior to the award of any SAR pipeline contract (with the exception of the
Theo Lacy reach), direct OCWD staff to establish terms of a contract with
MWD for replenishment water Including price, availability, and salinity.
These contract terms should be reviewed with the Advisory Committee
and presented with a recommendation to the JCC and Board to either
initiate construction of the SAR pipeline, or defer construction (and for
what term) and execute a replenishment contract with MWD during the
intervening period.
6. Prior to award of the advanced water treatment plant and forebay pipeline
construction contracts (with the exception of the Theo Lacy reach), obtain
a written commitment from the Department of Health Services that the
project can be operated as planned and designed, including clearly
defined criteria and accountability milestones to be achieved for DOHS to
allow recharge and Injection of 100% project water without blending.
03-27-2001 04:53PM Fror-IR&D + T-706 P.005/005 F-ee5
GWRS Action Items Page 2
March 28. 2001
7. At each contract award or at no less than a quarterly interval, staff shall
present to the Advisory Committee and JCC an updated version of the
OCWD financial model for unit water cost and Replenishment Assessment
(RA) projections. The model shall reflect the most current information
available on project costs including construction bid information, energy
costs, financing, and other project cost parameters.
a. Prior to award of construction contracts, staff shall obtain a written
commitment from the State of California for the 2.8% state loan financing
for the project. Should State Loan financing not be used for the project,
evidence of the availability of equivalent cost financing shall be provided.
9. Prior to the award of construction contracts (except for the Theo Lacy
reach of the SAR pipeline), contract terms for electrical energy to serve
the project shall be negotiated with an energy provider for the Boards'
consideration and information in conjunction with decisions on
construction contract commitments. The energy pricing under the contract
shall be used to update financial modeling.
10. Prior to award of construction contracts, staff shall prepare and submit to
the JCC and Board for review and approval a debt financing plan which
recommends specific financing sources for the project and incorporates a
maximum 25 year debt financing term to minimize interest expenses and
match debt obligations with the economic life of the project.
11. Prior to the award of construction contracts, the OCSD and OCWD staff
shall confer with the Advisory Committee and prepare recommendations
regarding the cost allocation between OCSD and OCWD for the project,
and present these recommendations to the JCC and Boards. The review
shall include, but not be limited to:
a.) Operating costs;
b.) Future capital grant allocations; and
c.) Cost over-run contingency funding
Alicia K. De Frenza
17 Saint Laurent
Newport Coast, CA 92657
(949) 644-8072
FAX(949)760-1459
aliciakd@home.com
March 27, 2001
Mr. Jerry King, President
Orange County Water District
10500 Ellis Ave.
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300
FAX: (714)378-3373
Re: Opposition to plan for Reclaimed Water in O. C. tap water
Dear Mr. King:
I am a homeowner in Costa Mesa and Newport Coast.
1 am strongly opposed to the plan to use reclaimed waste water in Orange County's
tap water supply. What concerns me most is not what we currently know about
reclaimed water, but what we don't know based on the limitations of today's science.
Whatever the condition of our current water supply, we know to a certain extent
what we are dealing with and/or reacting to. The plan to use reclaimed water is
most certainly introducing many unknown factors.
Personally, 1 would rather pay a much, much higher water bill than resort to using
reclaimed waste water in my tap supply.
Whatever the condition of our ocean water, it seems that desalination, even at a
much higher cost, is a better option.
Sincerely,
� y
dt01SnA»�iupll6as
U COPY
Alicia K. De Frenza
IfAS 2
>•RE
FILE
FILE
MAIL COPY TO
40 'd 65bT 09L bTl 02N3NA 3a Wd 9T =40 TO-LZ-NJ14
Alicia K. De Frenza
17 Saint Laurent
Newport Coast, CA 92657
(949) 644-8072
FAX(949)760-1459
aliciakd@home.com
March 27,2001
Mr. Jerry King, President
Orange County Water District
10500 Ellis Ave.
Fountain Valley, CA 92729-8300
FAX: (714)378-3373
Re: Opposition to plan for Reclaimed Water in O. C. tap water
Dear Mr. King:
I am a homeowner in Costa Mesa and Newport Coast.
1 am strongly opposed to the plan to use reclaimed waste water in Orange County's
tap water supply. What concerns me most is not what we currently know about
reclaimed water, but what we don't know based on the limitations of today's science.
Whatever the condition of our current water supply, we know to a certain extent
what we are dealing with and/or reacting to. The plan to use reclaimed water is
most certainly introducing many unknown factors.
Personalty, 1 would rather pay a much, much higher water bill than resort to using
reclaimed waste water in my tap supply.
Whatever the condition of our ocean water, it seems that desalination, even at a
much higher cost, is a better option.
Sincerely,
ftFqk
Alicia K. De Frenze
1
I
I
--• - ^^ • �• UZN3MJ art Wd 95 : 20 rO-LZ-Nuw
y FROM PHIL STEVENS FRX NO. : 9496441376 Mar. 26 2001 09:47PM PI
Mai•-2fi-01 08:30A LET ERSiARP WORD PROCESS 949 363 1956 P_ 10
CoPIfS Y-a
Phillip J. Stevens a ILL 0K, S
Prosldant, �N wI r*"v a
STEVENS INTERNATIONAL
No. t Belcourt Drive L l S L A+ 90 a
Newport Beach,CA 02660 rJ y N 6Cdnwp-ooL
Nv K YL�
March 26,2001
Mr. Blake Anderson
General Manage
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
10544 Ells Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 02708
Dear Mr.Anderson:
I am writing you this letter to express my strong objection to the plan to convert
recycled sewage for use as tap water here In Orange County.
I am a graduate engineer who has lived here In Orange County for 32 years, and 1
fully understand the planned sewage treatment conversion process of utilizing
mlcroAltration,reverso osmosla,and ultmviolatlightexposuro to tiro sawagewater.
I also understand the plan to distribute the water to spreading basins In Anaheim
where the treated water would percolate Into the underground aquifer and then be
withdrawn,chlorinated and sentto the homes In Orange County for use as drinking
water...AND 1 STILL OBJECT TO THE PLAN.
As you know, If all systems are operating perfectly,the plan could provide potable
water that would be safe to drink; butenginooring systems do not always function
reliably and properly. Upsofe and malfunctions do occur,even though safeguards
are installed In the systems.
To help control the population expansion of the Orange County Water Districtfrom
Its present population of 2.3 million people to the 2.8 million people that Is projected
for 2020.1 suggeatthatthe Chamberof Commerce announce thatOrange Countywill
use recycled sewage water for drinking water If the proposed plan Is approved,and
I guarantee you that the prospective population of 2020 will not materialize.
FROM PHIL STEVENS FAX NO. : 9496441376 Mar. 26 2001 09:47nM P2
-oa.-�♦ Ua;d1A LETTERSHA2P WORD PROCESS 949 363 1956 P_11
Mr.Blake Anderson
General Managor
ORANGE COUNTY SANrrATION DISTRICT
March 29, 2001
Page 2
In closing, If the Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Water
Dlatrictapprove the plan to recycle sewage water for use as drinking water,I believe
that there will be a substantial increase In the sale of bowed water, and my family
and 1 will be among the brat to switch.
Sincerely,
Q'94
Phil Stevens
Prealden%
STEVENS INTERNATIONAL
cc: Seema Monte
Los Angeles Times
AaA?R _ Nation__a_l Water Research Institute
10500 Ellis Avenue,P.O. Box 20865,Fountain Valley,CA 92728-0865 ` (774)378-3278 Fax(774)378-3375
Ronald 6.Linsley
Ezanhoe Director
March 27, 2001
Bourn��t nl.e�ua..
Orange County Water District
Langdon W.Dnm,
Mr. Iry Pickler !mine Rands Water District
Co-Chair, Joint Coordinating Committee Per,A.su,on
Ground Water Replenishment System County Sanitation Districts
c/o Orange County Water District of Orange County
10500 Ellis Avenue Victor Leipzig
Fountain Valley, CA 92606 Municipal Water District
y of orange County
Wiliinm F.Davenport
Mr. Norm Eckenrode Son)na.satin authority
Co-Chair Joint Coordinating Committee lolm V.Foley
Ground Water Replenishment System
c/o Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92606
Dear Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support for the Orange County Ground Water
Replenishment(GWRS)project. My congratulations to you and the Joint Committee for the
diligent efforts put forth to ensure future generations will enjoy a similar quality of life as we all
have in Orange County. Under your leadership the Committee has persevered even though
voices, like those in history,have said, "the earth was flat"or"the contraption won't fly."
Over the last few years,NWRI has been engaged in a number of meetings and workshops that
have focused on the issues associated with increasing populations and decreasing water supplies.
In my opinion,the GWRS project,as planned, is the premiere multiuse water project in the
world today. I am convinced that over the next decade the GWRS project will be considered or
replicated by a host of other water utilities in the United States, as well as overseas, as a viable
strategic option to overcome the decline in water supplies. The GWRS will take its place in
history as a cost-effective solution for expanding urban population centers that require
sustainable, high-quality water supplies.
Although the true value of the GWRS product waters has not yet been quantified,the investment
this project will make in creating a new and reliable asset will ensure that the services it provides
will be maintained for future generations.
March 27,2001
Page 2
I commend you and the Committee for its leadership in taking the actions necessary to ensure the
quality of life for Orange County' s future generations.
Sincerely,
NATIONAL WA EAR INSTITUTE
Ronald B. Linsky
Executive Director
cc: Jan Debay
RBL:td
NWM National Water Research Institute
— ---- --..._ -- —i
AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
AND
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
JOINT MEETING RE GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
March 28, 2001
6:30 PM
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
108" ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708
www.ocsd.com
www.ocwd.com
In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2,
this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the Orange County Sanitation
District's Administrative Offices and in the lobby of the Orange County Water District
10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting
date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available
for public inspection in the office of the Board Secretaries.
In the event and matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the
Board for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section
54954.2(b) as and emergency item, or that there is a need to take immediate action, or
as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the
meeting date.
All current agendas and meeting minutes are also available via Orange County
Sanitation District's Internet site located at www.ocsd.com. Upon entering the District's
web site, please navigate to the Board of Directors section.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Orange County Water District (OCWD)
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
1
VISITOR PARTICIPATION
Members of the audience wishing to address the Boards on items of interest to
the public are requested to identify themselves. If the matter on which they wish
to comment is an Agenda item the visitor will be called on when the matter
comes up for consideration on the Agenda. Limit comments to five minutes.
OCSD APPOINTMENT OF PRO TEM, IF NECESSARY
REPORTS
a. OCSD: Verbal Report by Chair, Norm Eckenrode
b. OCWD: Verbal Report by the President, Jerry King
c. Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee:
Verbal Report by Chair, Iry Pickier
d. OCWD: Verbal Report of General Manager, William R. Mills Jr.
e. OCSD: Verbal Report of General Manager, Blake Anderson
f. Public Comments
ACTION ITEMS
Following are items for consideration by the Boards of Directors of the Orange
County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. Each item will be
submitted first to the Orange County Water District Board of Directors and then to
the Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors.
The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
recommends to the Boards of Directors of the Orange County Water District and
the Orange County Sanitation District to take the following actions:
1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE GROUNDWATER
REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
OCSD:
A. Find that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines Section 15164 that some changes or additions to the 1999
Strategic Plan EIR certified in October 1999 are necessary but none of
the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred and that
Addendum No. 1 is approved.
OCWD AND OCSD:
B. Find that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines Section 15164 that some changes or additions to the
EIR/EIS on the Groundwater Replenishment System certified in March
1999 are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section
15162 have occurred and that Addendum No. 1 is approved.
2
OCWD AND OCSD:
C. Authorize the Orange County Water District, in conjunction with the
Orange County Sanitation District, to proceed with the final design,
construction and operation of the Phase 1 Groundwater
Replenishment System under the direction of the Joint Groundwater
Replenishment System Cooperative Committee.
OCWD:
D. Establish and find that construction of the Groundwater Replenishment
System is feasible, necessary, and beneficial to the lands of the
District, and establish project budget of$352 million ($352,000,000).
OCSD:
E. Approve a budget amendment to the Orange County Sanitation District
project budget of$4,478,000 for the Groundwater Replenishment
System, Job No. J-36, for a total project budget of$182,700,000.
2. INTERIM GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
OCWD AND OCSD:
A. Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Cooperative Agreement for Project
Planning for the Groundwater Replenishment System, granting the
Orange County Water District Board of Directors authority to award a
contract for the Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline - Lacy Parking
Facility in an amount not to exceed $5 million ($5,000,000) and to
approve change orders not to exceed 10% of the original contract
amount, and granting the Orange County Water District General
Manager authority to sign permits.
OCWD:
B. Approve agreement between the Orange County Flood Control District,
the County of Orange and the Orange County Water District for
providing early construction of Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline
within County property adjacent to the Theo Lacy Jail Facilities and for
reimbursement of costs for construction of County parking facilities
over the pipeline.
OCWD AND OCSD
C. Approve the plans and specifications for the Groundwater
Replenishment Pipeline - Lacy Parking Facility, for the early
construction of a portion of the Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline
and parking lot for the Orange County Sheriffs Department and
authorize staff to advertise for competitive bids.
3
3. CONSULTING AND STAFFING SERVICES FOR FINAL DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND START-UP SERVICES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
OCWD AND OCSD
A. Approve Addendum No. 3 to Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. increasing
the authorized amount by $29,924,187, from $5,039,920 to an amount
not to exceed $34,964,107 for final design, construction support
services, and start-up services for the Groundwater Replenishment
System. The amount shall be split equally between Orange County
Water District and Orange County Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
B. Approve Addendum No. 2 to Separation Processes Inc., Task Order
No. 201301 increasing the authorized amount by $1,455,530, from
$445,880 to an amount not to exceed $1,901,410 for the final design of
the Microfiltration and Reverse Osmosis components of the
Groundwater Replenishment System. The amount shall be split
equally between Orange County Water District and Orange County
Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
C. Approve Addendum No. 2 to Task Order No. 201312 with Carl R.
Nelson, increasing the authorized amount by $371,000, from $61,200
to an amount not to exceed $432,200 for four years of project support
in securing permits, rights-of-way agreements, reviewing plans, and
providing liaison with agencies during construction, and water pipeline
construction overview. The contract includes annual hourly rates at:
• $89 per hour for April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002;
$92 per hour for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003;
• $95 per hour for April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004; and
$98 per hour for April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.
The amount shall be split equally between Orange County Water
District and Orange County Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
D. Approve a Task Order to Gerald Jones, dba Linjer Company, for an
amount not to exceed $97,400 for specialty services for the final
design of the Groundwater Replenishment System, which includes
assistance in developing and implementing the integrated
computerized systems and the supporting business plan. The amount
shall be split equally between Orange County Water District and
Orange County Sanitation District.
4
OCWD AND OCSD
E. Approve Addendum No. 4 to Task Order No. 200539 to James W.
Williams increasing the authorized amount by $148,400, from $35,000
to an amount not to exceed $183,400 for specialized engineering
services for four years of project support for securing permits and
rights-of-way agreements, providing technical review, and serving on
an independent review team at:
$89 per hour for April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002;
$92 per hour for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003;
$95 per hour for April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004; and
$98 per hour for April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.
The amount shall be split equally between Orange County Water
District and Orange County Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
F. Approve Addendum No. 2 to Task Order No. 202091 with Debra
Burris, dba DDB Engineering, Inc., to provide engineering services and
serve as Project Coordinator for the Groundwater Replenishment
System, increasing the maximum hours from 1500 hours per year to
1800 hours per year; extending the contract time from October 11,
2003 to October 10, 2005 at hourly rates of:
$90 per hour for October 11, 2003 to October 10, 2004; and
• $93 per hour, October 11, 2004 to October 10, 2005.
(Current approved rates vary from $78.75 per hour for October 11,
2000 to October 10, 2001, to $86.82 per hour for October 11, 2002 to
October 10, 2003.) The cost is estimated at $700,000, shared equally
between Orange County Sanitation District and Orange County Water
District.
OCWD AND OCSD
G. Approve a four-year limited-term Orange County Water District
employment agreement with Thomas M. Dawes to act as Program
Manager for the Groundwater Replenishment System at hourly rates
Of'.
$95 per hour for April 23, 2001 to April 22, 2002;
$97 per hour for April 23, 2002 to April 22, 2003;
$99 per hour for April 23, 2003 to April 22, 2004; and
$100 per hour for April 23, 2004 to April 23, 2005.
The Limited-Term Employment contract provides for hourly rate
compensation, no benefits, a maximum pay of 40-hours per week, and
contract cancellation on a 30-day notice. The Orange County
Sanitation District will reimburse the Orange County Water District for
half of the contract amount.
5
OCWD AND OCSD
H. Approve a four-year limited-term Orange County Water District
employment agreement with Laura Thomas to manage project tasks in
the electrical and instrumentation disciplines for the Groundwater
Replenishment System at hourly rates of;
$75 per hour for April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002;
$78.75 per hour for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003;
$82.69 per hour for April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004; and
• $86.82 per hour for April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.
The Limited-Term Employment contract provides for hourly rate
compensation, no benefits, a maximum pay of 40-hours per week, and
contract cancellation on a 30-day notice. The Orange County
Sanitation District will reimburse the Orange County Water District for
half of the contract amount.
4. ADJOURNMENT/ RECESS
a. OCWD: Adjournment
b. OCSD: Recess. Reconvene in 10 minutes for continuation of regular
Board Meeting.
6
Agenda Item No. 1
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 28, 2001
TO: Board of Directors, Orange County Sanitation District
And
Board of Directors, Orange County Water District
FROM: Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
STAFF CONTACTS:
OCSD: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager
Wendy Sevenandt
OCWD: William R. Mills Jr., General Manager
Thomas M. Dawes
SUBJECT: PROJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE GROUNDWATER
REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM (OCSD JOB NO. J-36)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee recommends to
the Boards of Directors of the Orange County Water District and the Orange County
Sanitation District to take the following actions:
OCSD:
A. Find that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines
Section 15164 that some changes or additions to the 1999 Strategic Plan EIR
certified in October 1999 are necessary but none of the conditions described
in Section 15162 have occurred and that Addendum No. 1 is approved.
OCWD AND OCSD:
B. Find that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines
Section 15164 that some changes or additions to the EIR/EIS on the
Groundwater Replenishment System certified in March 1999 are necessary
but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred and that
Addendum No. 1 is approved.
OCWD AND OCSD:
C. Authorize the Orange County Water District, in conjunction with the Orange
County Sanitation District, to proceed with the final design, construction and
operation of the Phase 1 Groundwater Replenishment System under the
I NPwnemUM PNLnGWRONpeMe0u0mAu4]OOtNl]B JCpt PROBECTR ORGAnM DOC
Page 1
Agenda Item No. 1
direction of the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative
Committee.
OCWD:
D. Establish and find that construction of the Groundwater Replenishment
System is feasible, necessary, and beneficial to the lands of the District, and
establish project budget of$352 million ($352,000,000).
OCSD:
E. Approve a budget amendment to the Orange County Sanitation District
project budget of$4,478,000 for the Groundwater Replenishment System,
Job No. J-36, for a total project budget of$182,700,000.
SUMMARY
The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee has completed
its review of the Groundwater Replenishment System and unanimously recommends
proceeding with the project. The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee specifically recommends that both Boards of Directors of the
sponsoring agencies, the Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County
Water District authorize the project with each Board acting separately, and in the order
presented.
The Groundwater Replenishment System is ready for implementation. Environmental
compliance documentation, preliminary design (30% design), water quality evaluation,
cost estimates, and an implementation plan are complete. A comprehensive Public
Information Program including over 400 presentations resulting in an impressive list of
endorsements has been completed. The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee recommends that the Boards of Directors of the Orange County
Sanitation District and Orange County Water District proceed with the project.
The recommendations herein do not authorize any expenditure of funds, but will
authorize staff to proceed with the final design, construction, and operation of the
Phase 1 Groundwater Replenishment System, often referred to in prior discussions as
the "golno go" decision. .
In the Final Program EIR for the Groundwater Replenishment System and in the
Orange County Sanitation Districts 1999 Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact
Report, the issue of a river discharge was not fully addressed. Staff prepared an
addendum to the Groundwater Replenishment System Final Program EIR/EIS and the
Orange County Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan Program EIR addressing minor
changes such as the rare emergency discharge of treated, disinfected water to the
Santa Ana River at Garfield Avenue. There are two actions required regarding this
addendum.
I Noomm PIMJe1GWRSVP Bm ftlA 1N 28 J=1 PRWEC RU111pflVAT KWC
Page 2
Agenda Item No. 1
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
Based on completion of the Project Development Phase, we can accurately estimate
costs. We have completed a 30% design, have applied for all permits and received
permit conditions, completed all necessary financial, environmental and technical
studies, and have the necessary information and ability to accurately estimate capital
cost requirements, operating and maintenance costs, and unit costs.
It is estimated that the Phase 1 project will cost $352 million to build and have annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) charges of approximately $22 million per year. Unit
costs will vary depending on the volume of water produced, electric power rates, grants,
and final interest rates. From a water supply viewpoint, the estimated unit cost of the
water will be between of$394 to $455 per acre-foot, with a predicted average cost of
about$420/af. The prediction is based on shared capital costs by Orange County
Sanitation District and Orange County Water District, and O&M costs, an Orange
County Water District responsibility.
To fund the project, we have already secured $57.5 million in grants from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and State of
California. To date, we have received approximately $2 million of these grants, leaving
about $56 million yet to be received as the project is designed and constructed.
We are hopeful that additional grants will be secured. In February and March, we
submitted an application for$50 million from the California Department of Water
Resources, and another application for$5 million will be submitted to the State Water
Resources Control Board this spring. We have also been working to get an additional
$60M in grants from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the Phase 1 project.
Based on the grant funding we have received thus far, it is proposed that Orange
County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District equally share in the capital
cost as follows:
Total Estimated Capital Cost: $352 Million
Less Remaining Grant Funding: $ 56 Million
Subtotal, Local Share $296 Million
Approximate Capital Cost, Orange County Sanitation $148 Million
District and Orange County Water District @ 50%each:
Additional grant funds would reduce this capital requirement.
OCSD BUDGET IMPACT
❑ This Item has been budgeted. (Line item:CORF Water Management Projects, Pg 164)
® This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
❑ This item has not been budgeted.
❑ Not applicable (information item)
�paa,menlVdv PMUe�GWRSWPeMa SWmille 001W28 JCC%1 PROJECT M ORVVMON 00C
Page 3
Agenda Item No. 1
The $148 million is the cost for the final design and construction and does not include
Orange County Sanitation District staff costs or funds spent to date. The budget shown
in the Budget Information Table includes Orange County Sanitation District staff costs
and funds spent to date for a total project budget $182.7 million before grants and
$154.7 million after receipt of grants.
A total budget increase of$4,478,000 is requested bringing the total project budget to
$182,700,000 before receipt of grants. The project development task is increased by
$4,000 and the studies/permitting task is being increased by $4,000,000 to reflect costs
to date for preliminary design efforts and actual cost accounting methods. The
consultant PSA budget is being increased by $6,490,000 based on the fees proposed
for the final design services. The design staff budget is being decreased by $609,000 to
reflect more effort performed by contract project management staff. The construction
contract budget is being increased by $6,000,000 to match the revised engineer's
estimate. Construction administration is being increased by $4,602,000, reflecting
contract construction management. The construction inspection budget is being
decreased by $6,009,000 also reflecting contract construction management. Finally,
the project contingency is being reduced by $10,000,000 to partially cover the budget
increases described above and to reflect increased confidence in the current engineer's
estimate based on completion of the 30% design.
A project net decrease in the total cost to Orange County Sanitation District of
$23,522,000 is shown reflecting anticipated receipt of grants reducing the project net
cost to $154,700,000.
Please refer to the attached Budget Information Table.
OCWD BUDGET IMPACT
The Groundwater Replenishment System is included in the budget of Orange County
Water District. The project cost, to be shared equally by both Orange County Water
District and Orange County Sanitation District, is $352 million. This will be
supplemented by state and federal grants. We have secured $57.5 million in grants and
expect more. The Orange County Water District line-item number for the project is
501-4030-600.70-01.
GROUNDWATER PRODUCERSIIRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT COMMENTS
Project staff has had several meetings with the groundwater producers, a group of retail
agencies that pump water from the basin, and staff and directors of the Irvine Ranch
Water District. Recent letters were submitted to the Joint Groundwater Replenishment
System Cooperative Committee with nearly identical points generally expressing
concern over the method of proceeding with the project, including competition for design
services, the cost of the water produced, and the need for the entire project. Many of
the points from the producers are already in the program and others are good additions.
They are also concerned that course changes be considered if costs change. The Joint
LlpcpvnmAWEV PMIINA Sft.M SudnN 0011 28 JOO\1 PROJECT ORI VON.DOC
Page 4
Agenda Item No. 1
Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee agreed to form the
groundwater producers advisory group to review these issues. (For additional
discussions, see Agenda Item 7, Attachment No. 1.)
An overall summary of the items from the groundwater producers and the Irvine Ranch
Water District is provided below along with recommendations:
1. Competitive Design Proposals: Both the groundwater producers and Irvine
Ranch Water District recommend that we seek competitive proposals for the
design work. Our design team was originally selected through a competitive
process, has done an excellent job, and a fair price was negotiated for the work.
Other project consultants will be selected via a proposal process.
2. Provide Value Engineering: We agree and have this work in our plan. We will
seek proposals immediately after the project is authorized.
3. Adjust Project Components: We agree that we do not want to complete portions
of the work far ahead of when they are needed for the overall project, and will
schedule construction accordingly.
4. Make a Commitment to Try to Obtain an Metropolitan Water District Recharge
Water Sales Contract: The Orange County Water District supports this
comment.
5. Develop a Contingency Plan for Cost Charges: We will work with the
groundwater producers to update our cost model if changes are identified, in
conjunction with development of a contingency plan.
6. Obtain Final Project Commitment from Department of Health Services: We have
reviewed conditional approval and expect to obtain the final approval soon. We
will have it before major construction projects are approved.
7. Obtain Loan Guarantee Before Major Construction: We agree and will submit an
application shortly if the project is authorized.
8. Obtain Power Contracts Before Construction: We will continuously monitor
power issues and will obtain the contracts if possible.
9. Debt Financing: Use 25-year debt financing, not longer. The Orange County
Water District will attempt to meet this requirement.
10.Grant Funding: Obtain new grants and dedicate all new grants to the Orange
County water District. We are and will continue to aggressively pursue new
grants. The grants are planned to be shared equally between the Districts;
however, we will discuss this issue.
I'.N M, L M PNVo\GNRSWgwda SUEMfflGI 01Y28 JCL%1 PROJECT ORILTIONOOC
Page 5
Agenda Item No. 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Fresh water is one of Orange County's most precious natural resources and an integral
part of our lives. It makes this semi-arid desert region one of the most envied places in
the world to live.
Within the next 20 years, Orange County's population is forecast to increase by more
than 20 percent and California's population is also growing at a rapid pace. As our
population grows, so will our demand for safe, reliable drinking water. Growing
statewide population and losses in imported water supplies to Southern California, adds
to future water uncertainties. If Orange County does not take steps now, we may have
a water crisis.
As Governor Davis stated in August 1999 "There's not a crisis right now, but it is a crisis
in the making. Without strong leadership California's progress toward long-term water
sufficiency will stall. The next drought, and the one after that, will not wait while water
users squabble." His message urges strong leadership from our policy makers, at local,
regional, state and federal levels, to aggressively address water issues.
The Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Water District have
studied a cost-effective solution to diversify Orange County's water supply by providing
a supplemental source of exceptionally high quality water, the Groundwater
Replenishment System.
The Groundwater Replenishment System will take highly treated wastewater from
Orange County Sanitation District and purify it far beyond required drinking water
standards using microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet (UV)
disinfection. The water will be percolated through the ground into Orange County's
underground aquifers, or storage basins, where it will blend with groundwater from other
sources, improving the overall quality of existing groundwater. This water will also
maintain an underground freshwater barrier to keep ocean water out of the underground
storage basin and, ultimately, our drinking water. The Groundwater Replenishment
System studies have been managed by the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee, three Directors from each agency, who have concluded that the
Groundwater Replenishment System will:
• Provide a new supply of purified water, enough for up to 150,000 initially and up
to 300,000 Orange County families annually.
• Be available regardless of rainfall levels or drought.
• Improve the quality of Orange County's groundwater by adding purified water to
the natural underground storage basin.
• Help soften Orange County's drinking water, reducing corrosion and scaling of
plumbing fixtures and appliances.
• Diversify our water supply and lessen our future dependence on imported water
from the Colorado River and Northern California.
I�.n PIMJ@N3 SW8 Su0mM1eYV 1O 28JCC11 PROJECTMITHORIUTWKDOC
Page 6
Agenda Item No. 1
• Produce water using 50 percent less electrical energy than importing water to
Orange County.
BACKGROUND
For nearly 40 years, water reclamation has been part of each District's environmental
program. Orange County Sanitation District built secondary wastewater treatment
facilities in the 1960's; long before the 1972 Clean Water Act required them to do so. In
1972, Orange County Water District, in partnership with Orange County Sanitation
District, began construction of Water Factory 21; which includes a reverse osmosis
plant producing highly treated recycled water for the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier.
In 1991, Green Acres Project, a coastal industrial and irrigation project, was constructed
by Orange County Water District to expand the development of reclaimed water. The
Orange County Sanitation District 1989 Master Plan Report provided $77 million for
water reclamation, and funding for a new ocean outfall needed only for severe peak
storm flow relief. Since 1995, Orange County Sanitation District and Orange County
Water District have been working together to develop a project that addresses the
multiple needs of both Districts, provision of a reliable, cost efficient solution for
additional water supplies and increased wastewater management capabilities. This
project is the Groundwater Replenishment System. A special Joint Cooperative
Committee of Directors, three from each District, was formed three and a half years ago
to oversee the development of the Groundwater Replenishment System.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Groundwater Replenishment System will take highly treated wastewater from
Orange County Sanitation District and purify it beyond required drinking water standards
using microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet disinfection. This low-salinity water
will be percolated through the ground into Orange County's aquifers, where it will blend
with groundwater from other sources and will improve the water quality. This water will
also help maintain an underground freshwater barrier to keep ocean water out of the
underground storage basin and will reduce the amount of treated wastewater
discharged to the Pacific Ocean.
The Groundwater Replenishment System will consist of three major components: the
Advanced Water Treatment and Pumping Facilities, a pipeline and injection wells for the
barrier protection from seawater intrusion, and a 14-mile long, 78-to 60-inch diameter
pipeline that parallels the Santa Ana River up to the Kraemer Spreading Basin.
Designed to ultimately produce nearly 140,000 acre-feet per year of water, the
Groundwater Replenishment System will be implemented in phases. Phase 1 of this
milestone project has a treatment capacity of 70 million gallons per day and will produce
up to 78,000 acre-feet per year of high quality water.
I:NenvnenlWOV PtrNNGNRiSMpa,Me Sib,nAIW3N11�}1p JCC11 PROJECTPNX00.1iAlIINl.000
Page 7
Agenda Item No. 1
The Treatment Process
After having gone through three purification processes at Orange County Sanitation
District, the highly treated secondary sewage effluent is clear. It is then ready to
undergo an additional three-step, high-tech purification process of microfiltration,
reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection at the Orange County Water District. Once
purified, it will be sent to percolation basins or recharge injection wells for a final natural
filtering process through the ground.
Microfiltration (MF)
Microfiltration is a low-pressure membrane process that takes small-suspended
particles and other materials out of the water. MF provides the most efficient
preparation of water for reverse osmosis. Besides water treatment, MF is used in
commercial industries to process food, fruit juices, and soda beverages; in computer
chip manufacturing; and to sterilize medicines that cannot be heated.
Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Reverse osmosis is a high-pressure membrane process that forces water through a thin
membrane to filter out minerals and contaminants, including salts, viruses, pesticides
and other materials. The RO membrane is like a microscopic strainer that essentially
allows only the water molecules to pass through. RO membranes have been
successfully used at Orange County Water District's Water Factory 21 for nearly three
decades.
Ultraviolet(UV) Disinfection
During UV disinfection, water is exposed to UV light, which acts as concentrated
sunlight to provide an additional barrier of protection. This step provides extra
assurance that no unwanted contaminants will pass through the system and that the
water will be the highest quality possible.
Groundwater Mixing
The final phase of the process for water destined for the groundwater basin occurs as
the water is filtered through the ground an route to deep aquifers in our underground
basin —the same natural filtering path taken by rainwater. The water blends with
groundwater from other sources, including the Santa Ana River and Colorado River
water, for at least one year—and in most cases longer—before being extracted by wells
and pumped into the drinking water supply. As this occurs, through blending, all
groundwater quality improves.
WORK COMPLETED TO DATE
Since the project's inception, much work has been completed. The following outlines
the work that has been accomplished to date.
HOawm PIAQOWWPSNpaMe 9udnA1 =1N 8JC01 PROJECT AO DRIMOH.000
Page 8
Agenda Item No. 1
• Environmental Compliance
The Program Environmental Impact Reportlfier 1 Environmental Impact
Statement(EIR/EIS) for the Groundwater Replenishment System has been
completed. The Final EIR was certified by the Orange County Water District and
Orange County Sanitation District Boards of Directors in March 1999 for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Record of
Decision on the Final EIS was issued by the United States Bureau of
Reclamation in August 2000 in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
A program EIRIEIS was certified in October 1999 for Orange County Sanitation
District's 1999 Strategic Plan. The Orange County Sanitation District Strategic
Plan included the Groundwater Replenishment System.
Both the Orange County Sanitation District Strategic Plan and the Groundwater
Replenishment System EIRIEIS; have been modified, by addendum to include
minor changes such as the rare emergency discharge to the Santa Ana River at
Garfield of treated water. The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee is recommending that the Boards of Directors act on this
addendum.
• Development of 30% Final Design
We have completed the Project Development Phase which included 30% design
and preparation of over 400 plan sheets, technical specifications, and 31
Development Information Memoranda; resolution of all federal, state and local
permits, agreements, and rights-of-way issues, and estimation of project costs.
With this detailed foundation, we are ready to complete the final design
engineering. Costs will be continually monitored as construction of the facilities
proceeds.
• Permits and Agreements
All federal, state and local permits are in-hand and ready to accept. We have
resolved all permitting and rights-of-way issues and have secured the necessary
agreements for construction and operation of the facilities. The conditions for
construction of the pipelines have also been defined by the affected cities,
County, and Caltrans.
• Demonstration Plant
The water quality and performance of the treatment processes have been
successfully demonstrated over the past five years at the Orange County Water
District Demonstration Plant. This full scale 500,000 gallon per day capacity
facility enabled us to confirm the design criteria, verify membrane performance,
and thoroughly test the water quality under actual operating conditions.
0a mlVWv P6No1GWR5Nputla SN•tl614 JO eJLC1 PROJECTR ORPAT MMC
Page 9
Agenda Item No. 1
• Water Quality Evaluation
We conducted a study to compare the relative water quality of Groundwater
Replenishment System water as compared to that from other available recharge
water sources. An independent panel of water quality and health experts
participated in this assessment of the health risk. We have completed the Water
Quality Evaluation and received concurrence from the Independent Advisory
Committee that the Groundwater Replenishment System water is at least as safe
as existing water supplies.
• Public Information
Since 1997, a successful public information program, including over 400 public
presentations about the project, has been conducted. We have received more
than 80 resolutions of support for the project, including nearly all cities in the
Orange County Water District/Orange County Sanitation District service area.
• Financial Study
A Financial Study was completed in 1999 to assess the impact of the project cost
on the Orange County Water District Replenishment Assessment (RA) and the
Orange County Sanitation District Sewer Service Charge (SSC). Based on the
results of this study, the Groundwater Replenishment System will increase the
RA up to $14/af, which is equivalent to approximately $0.60 per month on a
typical residential water bill. Similarly, the study concluded that the project would
increase the SSC by about$19 per year initially and then later result in a lower
SSC by avoiding the cost associated with building a new ocean outfall.
PROJECT BENEFITS
The Groundwater Replenishment System will benefit the local Orange County
community and the State of California as well. Benefits include:
• Meeting future water demands of Orange County
The Groundwater Replenishment System will ultimately produce nearly 140,000
acre-feet per year of a new, reliable safe drinking water supply, enough to serve
over 300,000 families ultimately.
• Protecting and improving the groundwater basin quality
The Groundwater Replenishment System will expand the seawater intrusion
barrier to protect the groundwater basin from further degradation. It will also
provide substantial improvements to the water quality by introducing nearly salt-
free water.
• Providing diversity of water sources
The Groundwater Replenishment System will assist the CALFED process by
reducing the region's dependence on water transferred through the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta.
110w,m PNUNOW1tS%,eWP 8u0mfth=1b 28 JC01 PROJECT W ORUATION.DOC
Page 10
Agenda Item No. 1
• Conserving California's energy
The Groundwater Replenishment System will produce high-quality water for half
of the energy it takes to pump imported water from Northern California or from
the Colorado River.
• Providing peak wastewater flow relief
The Groundwater Replenishment System will provide a fail-safe means of
diverting up to 100 mgd of treated wastewater during peak wet weather flows.
This flow would otherwise have to be discharged to the Pacific Ocean and would
require the construction of a new ocean ouffall.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative project for the Orange County Sanitation District is to build a second
ouffall with a current estimated construction cost of$170 million.
The alternative for the Orange County Water District is to follow the Orange County
Water District's Master Plan and rebuild Water Factory 21 at a cost of$123 million.
CEQA FINDINGS
The Program Environmental Impact Report/Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement
(EIR/EIS)for the Groundwater Replenishment System has been completed by Orange
County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. The Orange County
Water District and Orange County Sanitation District Boards of Directors certified the
Final EIR/EIS in March 1999 for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The Final EIS and Record of Decision were completed in August 2000 for
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
A program EIR was certified in October 1999 for Orange County Sanitation District's
1999 Strategic Plan. The Orange County Sanitation District Strategic Plan included the
Groundwater Replenishment System.
In the Final Program EIR/EIS for the Groundwater Replenishment System, the
emergency river discharge outlet was not specifically sited. Since its certification and
completion of 30% design, staff has finalized the location of the Santa Ana River
discharge outall. In the Orange County Sanitation District's 1999 Strategic Plan
Program Environmental Impact Report, the Groundwater Replenishment System had
not addressed the issue of a river discharge. Staff prepared an addendum to the
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Program EIR/EIS and the Orange County
Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan Program EIR addressing minor changes such as
the rare emergency discharge of treated, disinfected water to the Santa Ana River at
Garfield Avenue. One addendum addresses both documents.
Mmm WvPNW1GWRSfte SuEmMebCW1W 201Cg1 PROJECT AMORI TIONOOC
Page 11
Agenda Item No. 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Orange County Sanitation District Budget Information Table
2. Addendum No.1 to the EIR/EIS on the Groundwater Replenishment System and the
Orange County Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan EIR
1\Owmm PLNNOWRSUymMSUEmItl WW11 8.1=1 PROJECT AMORWMN.000
Page 12
BUDGET INFORMATION TABLE
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
JOB NO.J-36
CRIGN& CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED FUNDS - THIS PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
PROJEGT7TASK AUTHORIZED PROJECT 13UDGET REVISED AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZATION TOTAL EXPENDITURE EXPENDED
BUDGET BUDGET INCREASE BUDGET TO DATE RECUEBT' AUTHORIZATION TO DATE TO DATES%)
Project Development $ 700.000 $ 4000 $ 4,000 $ 4,900 $ 4000 $ 4,000 100%
Studies/PermBtln ' S 4000000 $ 4,000.000 $ 4,000.000 $ 4,000000 $ 4,000,000 100%
Consultant PEA $ 7500,000 $ 11,010,000 S 8490000 $ 17500000 $ - $ 0%
Design Staff $ 2,349,000 $ 1958,000 If 009000 $ 1,349000 $ 1,956,000 $ 609000 $ 1,349,000 $ 450,000 33%
Construction Contract $ 86,481500 $ 131500,000 $ 6000000 S 137,500,000 $ - $ 0%
Construction
Administration $ 2653900 $ 1419,000 $ 4602000 $ 8,021,000 $ - $ 0%
Construction
.Inspection $ 9345600 $ 6,335,C0G $ 8009000 $ 326,000 $ - $ 0%
Contln en $ 12,895000 $ 26,000000 $ 10000000 $ 1800D,000 $ - $ 0%
PROJECTTOTAL 1 $ 121,925,000 $ 178.222,000 $ 4,478,000 $ 182,700,000 is 5,962,000 1 $ 609,000 $ 5.353,000 1 $ 4,454.000 1 83%
Rshnbursable Costa $ - $ - $ 28.000.000 1 $ 28,000.000 1 1 1 1 $ 750,000
PROJECT NET $ 121.925.000 $ 178,222,000 1 $ 23,522,000 $ 154,700.000 1 $ 5,902,000 1 $ 609,000 $ 5.353.000 1 $ 3,704,000 1 69%
Funds authorized to date includes multiple contracts Issued under the terms of the Cooperathre Agreement for Pmjocl Planning for the Groundwater Replenishment
System with the Orange County Water District
"This authorization request Is for a reduction in OCSD Design Staff budget. Design staff support has shifted from Internal staff to contract hired consultants.
Request for authorization of funds for contract consultants Is in a subaequenl agenda report.
%:twa.dteraiWVoaemneegeV-a9Vd0 BUDGET TABLE813BAi.%LBeWha4xWon
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Addendum to the Groundwater Replenishment System
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 1 Environmental Impact
Statement
and
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Orange County Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction............................................................................................................................... I
Groundwater Replenishment System Overview....................................................................... I
Proposed Modifications to the Project Description..................................................................2
Potential Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modification................................................4
CEQACompliance...................................................................................................................6
References.................................................................................................................................7
owasy Rdtlm&m i Envimn�nenlal Scima Neocialn
March 20,=I 201012
INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement(EIR/EIS)for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWR System)Program EIR.
Since the proposed modification to the GWR System would affect the Orange County Sanitation
District(OCSD)peak wet weather discharge strategy,this document also serves as an Addendum
to the Final EIR for the OCSD 1999 Strategic Plan. The GWR System Final EIR/EIS was
certified by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and by OCSD in March 1999. OCWD
and OCSD acted as joint lead agencies. Since certification of the EIR/EIS,minor changes have
occurred in the project design requiring preparation of an Addendum. The modification to the
project covered by this Addendum is the installation of a discharge pipeline and outfall to be used
for infrequent peak wet weather or power outage-induced discharges of highly treated effluent to
the Santa Ana River. This Addendum provides an overview of the GWR System and provides a
discussion on the proposed modification. Potential constmction and operational impacts of the
proposed modifications are then analyzed.
The information compiled in this document will be reviewed by the OCWD and OCSD Boards of
Directors when considering the next set of discretionary decisions for the GWR System project.
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The GWR System is a joint water reclamation project of OCWD and OCSD. The GWR System
would take secondary-treated wastewater from the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 and treat it to
meet drinking water standards. The advanced tertiary treatment process would include
microfiltration(MF),reverse osmosis(RO),and ultra violet(UV)disinfection systems. A portion
of the highly treated,reclaimed water would then be pumped from the OCWD treatment plant in
Fountain Valley to existing spreading basins in the City of Anaheim to recharge the groundwater
basin and augment water supplies. The remainder of the highly treated water would also be used
to expand the existing saltwater intrusion barrier and augment the supply of reclaimed water used
by local irrigation projects and industrial customers. Figure I shows the OCWD boundaries
including the location of the treatment plant,GWR System pipeline,spreading basins,and
injection wells forming the seawater intrusion barrier.
Another aspect of the GWR System would be to provide peak wet weather discharge capacity for
the OCSD treatment system. The OCSD Strategic Plan,approved in October 1999, identified
facilities needed to meet the wastewater management requirements of the OCSD service area
through the year 2020 including wastewater collection,treatment,and discharge systems. OCSD
prepared a separate Program EIR on the Strategic Plan that was certified in October 1999. As part
of the peak wet weather management strategy outlined in the OCSD Strategic Plan EIR,the GWR
GWR aye®Aaa . I EnvimxnenW Sekncc N 6..
Me N,0001 201012
System would be designed to accept over 100 million gallons per day(mgd)of secondary-treated
effluent. Implementation of the GWR System would assist in postponing the need for OCSD to
construct a new ocean outfall by diverting treated wastewater flow that would otherwise be
discharged to the Pacific Ocean.
Implementation of the GWR System would occur in phases. Phase I would produce up to 78,400
acre-feet per year of recycled water by the year 2005. If approved,future phases(up to Phase 3)
would expand the system to over 145,000 acre-feet per year. The conveyance pipeline to the
spreading basins would be sized to accommodate the flow at full build out. The initial phase
would provide 70 mgd of reverse osmosis capacity and 80 mgd of microfiltmtion capacity.
Subsequent phases would expand the system to provide up to 130 mgd reverse osmosis capacity
and 148 mgd microfiltmtion capacity.
The project includes construction of advanced water treatment facilities at the OCWD water
reclamation plant and installation of a conveyance system along the Santa Ana River from
Fountain Valley to the spreading basins. The NT treatment process would first remove suspended
and colloidal solids,including bacteria and protozoa. The RO treatment would then remove a
substantial portion of dissolved and inorganic components as well as viruses. Finally,the UV
disinfection system would provide additional destruction of bacteria and viruses. Additional
components of the project include the installation of additional injection wells to augment the
existing seawater intrusion barrier. Table 1 summarizes the goals of the GWR System.
Table I
Groundwater Replenishment System Goals and Objectives
GOALS OBJECTIVES
Water Supply • Provide a new source of water supply to meet future increasing demands.
• Provide a reliable water supply in times of drought.
• Lower groundwater salinity.
Expand the seawater intrusion barrier to protect groundwater quality.
Conform to California State Constitution by acknowledging the value of
recycled water and the reasonable use of the State's limited water supplies.
Use less energy than would be required to import an equivalent volume of
water.
Wastewater • Defer the need to construct a new ocean outfall by diverting peak effluent
Management discharges.
Reduce the frequency of emergency wastewater discharges near the shore
under wet weather conditions.
�WRSyaem Pa0.AEdeMum 2 FnWromnmml ki.A i.
Much 20,2001 201012
Conform to the OCSD Charter,which supports water recycling.
Source: Camp Dresser McKee,Development Information Memorandum#31,December 2000
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SANTA ANA RIVER DISCHARGE OUTFALL
A dedicated pipeline and outfall is proposed for the GWR System to discharge up to 100 mild of
highly treated,disinfected effluent to the Santa Ana River under infrequent peak flow conditions.
The proposed alignment for this conduit is parallel to the proposed GWR System pipeline,exiting
the OCWD treatment plant from the south end of the site and continuing south to Garfield
Avenue. The pipeline would turn on Garfield Avenue,heading east to the Santa Ana River.
Figure 2 shows the proposed location of the pipeline and outfall structure. A schematic diagram
of the dedicated pipe system is shown in Figure 3. The cattail conduit would be entirely
underground and would discharge directly to the outfall structure. The pipeline would be
approximately 1,850 feet long with a diameter of 54 inches.
OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS
The initial phase of the GWR System would have the capacity to treat up to 70 mgd of effluent
through the RO system. However,the OCSD peak wet weather management strategy relies on
approximately 100 mgd of discharge relief from the GWR System by the year 2020. The
proposed modification to the GWR System provides for flows from OCSD greater than 70 mgd to
be discharged to the Santa Ana River through a dedicated discharge pipeline. The excess flow
would receive MF and UV treatment prior to discharge and would be subject to National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Permit(NPDES)requirements. These requirements include
providing disinfection to achieve a coliform level of 2.2 most probable number(MPN)per 100 mi.
The effluent would also require dechlorination using sodium bisulfate and pH adjustment using
sodium hydroxide.
The need to discharge highly treated wastewater into the Santa Ana River would occur under three
infrequent operating scenarios. The first of these scenarios would occur during wet weather
conditions,as described above,when flows from OCSD are greater than the maximum capacity of
the RO facility. This event would be expected to occur less than one time per year(0.6)under
flow rate assumptions predicted for the year 2020. This frequency was derived using the Storage,
Treatment, Overflow,Runoff Model(STORM). The prediction is based on 22.4 years of hourly
rainfall data from 1976 to 1999.
GWR Sy4 EIR AdC = 3 Envi..W Scimx Aes .t.
MWN,2001 201012
The second scenario would occur if the OCWD treatment plant was to suffer a power outage
during periods of peak wet weather flow. Under this scenario,the W and UV systems would
continue to operate under emergency on-site power generation systems,but the RO system would
shut down. Peak flow conditions with loss of power are anticipated to occur very rarely.
The third scenario would occur in dry weather under peak diumal flow conditions during a power
outage. Phase I is required to treat 15 mgd of OCSD peak diurnal flows. Phase 3 is required to
treat 30 mgd of OCSD peak diumal flows. This scenario would be similar to Scenario 2 with the
RO system shutting down. Table 2 summarizes the three discharge scenarios. Figures 4 through 6
depict the flow chart for each scenario under the initial phase of the GWR System.
The addition of a discharge capability to the Santa Ana River greatly increases the flexibility of
the GWR System to meet its treatment and discharge commitments. The three scenarios outlined
above would occur infrequently if at all. In fact,the RO capacity may be increased for subsequent
phases of the project before OCSD has the need to deliver more than the initial treatment capacity.
In this case,the discharge pipeline would only be needed during emergency power outages. The
installation of the discharge pipeline would be more war effective than providing and maintaining
back-up power generation capacity for the full RO system that would only be used during
potential future power outages occurring during peak flow periods.
Table 2
Operational Scenarios Requiring Discharge to the Santa Ana River
Flow Ran e mad
MF RO GWR
Power Treatment Treatment System SAR
Alternative Condition Capacity Capacity Discharge Discharge
Scenario I
Phase I Peak Wet Weather Normal 80.110 70 70 0-30
Scenario 2 Power
Phase I Peak Wet Weather Outage 0-100 0 0 0-100
Scenario 3
Diumal Daily Peak OCSD Flow Power
Dry Weather Outage
Phase 1 15-100 0 0 15-100
Phase 3 30-100 0 0 30-100
Source: Camp Dresser McKee,Development Information Memorandum#31,December 2000
GWR Sy OR 4
M N.2001 201012
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATION
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction of the 1,850-foot long pipeline would involve trenching through city streets and
installing an outfall structure within the Santa Ana River levee at Garfield Avenue. The trenching
would occur within Garfield Avenue for less than 1,500 feet following the same route as the GWR
System pipeline. The two pipelines would be constructed during the same period.
The EIR/EIS for the GWR System identified mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts
from construction activities to environmental resources such as archaeological resources,public
utilities,and biological resources. These mitigation measures would apply equally to the
installation of the discharge pipeline and outfall structure. The EIR also identified significant,
unavoidable short-term impacts to air quality,traffic,and noise resulting from construction
activities of the project. The addition of the discharge pipeline would not create any additional
impacts to traffic,noise,or air quality substantially greater than those already analyzed in the
Program EIRTIS.
Similarly,the GWR System pipeline would be installed within the Santa Ana River levee from the
Garfield Avenue to the spreading basins. As provided in the EIR/EIS for the project,installation
of the pipeline would require approval from the Corps of Engineers and Orange County Flood
Control District prior to impacting the river levees. As such,installation of the outfall structure
within the Santa Ana River levee at Garfield Avenue would be included in the approvals already
required for the project. The project modification would not create additional significant
construction impacts.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
The water to be discharged to the Santa Ana River would be highly heated and disinfected,
including MF and UV treatment processes. In addition,the discharge would be most likely to
occur for only a few hours during peak wet weather events when the Santa Are River would be
experiencing high flows. The effluent would be of better quality than the river water and would be
significantly diluted by the high flow volumes before reaching the Pacific Ocean.
As part of the project,OCWD would apply for a NPDES discharge permit. The permit would be
issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)Santa Ana Region 8. The
NPDES permit would include waste discharge requirements(WDRs)specifying water quality
parameters and monitoring requirements. The RWQCB generally requires publicly-owned
treatment works discharging to the Santa Ana River to provide tertiary treatment. The MF and
GINR Sy.FIR AddWM 5 FnvinI..w Ssi.,lvmciNc
M.h 20,2001 201012
UV treatment to be provided the Santa Ana River discharge would be adequate to meet the permit
requirements. As such,the discharge would not create significant impacts to the water quality in
the Santa Ana River.
FLOODING IMPACTS
The project would not contribute significantly to flood conditions of the Santa Ana River due to
the small volume of water to be discharged. The addition of up to 50 million gallons over a few
hour period would not impact flood levels of the river,which can reach levels of 5,000 mgd during
storm events. In the event of discharge from the GWR System to the Santa Ana River,it is
estimated that the depth in the river channel would be increased by one-half inch or less. The
depth of the River during a storm event would already be several feet deep due to stoma runoff.
No flooding impacts are anticipated.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The proposed modification to the GWR System is a minor change in the project,which does not
warrant the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)
Guidelines,Section 15164,indicate that an Addendum is the appropriate document to identify and
analyze minor modifications to a proposed project for which a Final EIR has been prepared and
certified. An Addendum may be prepared if the minor modifications do not pose additional
significant impacts or require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR.
"The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of s subsequent EIR have
occurred."(CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a))
Conditions which would call for a Subsequent EIR include substantial changes that would require
major revisions of the previous EIR and new information of substantial importance that was not
available at the time of the preparation of the previous EIR.
CEQA(Section 15164(e))requires that an Addendum to a previously certified EIR include an
explanation as to why a subsequent EIR is not necessary. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines
outlines the criteria for preparing a subsequent EIR.
ov! R'6-
1 USGS,Office of Surface Wetw,5uem Mwt 0�iom a Muoh 1_=o-— �—
!r oo eat tcyi— —
EvNm�mW SrimaA 6 "1012
o,asy, Eat Addendum
Mu N,2001
As discussed in the previous section,the modifications to the GWR System are not substantial
enough to require major revisions to the certified EIR. Nor have new significant environmental
effects been identified that would require major revisions or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts. Furthermore,no new information of substantial importance has
been identified that would add new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts. None of the mitigation measures identified in the GWR System
EIR/EIS have been rejected by the project proponent. Similarly, the modification would not affect
mitigation measures identified for the OCSD 1999 Strategic Plan.
According to CEQA Section 15164(c),no public circulation or review period is required for an
Addendum prepared for a previously circulated and certified Final EIR.
REFERENCES
Camp Dresser&McKee,Groundwater Replenishment System,project Development Phase—
Development Information Memorandum (DIM) #37, Project Summary,December 2000
Camp Dresser&McKee, Groundwater Replenishment System,project Development Phase—
Development Information Memorandum(DIM) #32,Santa Ana River Discharge,August 2000
Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District,Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report/Tier I Environmental Impact Statement, Groundwater
Replenishment System,P&D Consultants,November 5, 1998
Orange County Sanitation District, 1999 Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact Report,
June 1999
United States Geological Society,Office of Surface Water,stream flow conditions website,
hnp//h2o nwisw er uses eov/nwis w/CA/data comoonents/hist ceivstamum=l 107 accessed
March 12,2001.
GW Synge EIR ALd . 7 Envlrownmlal9clma Aua1ata
M hN.M1
FIGURES
OCWD Spreading 1
Boundary Basins
'! Fullerton ® ■
Proposed
/ GWR System
/ Pipeline ,�Y
Jr
4Huntington
Beach \ �`
aos \
PACIFIC :4 IMDa /
OCEAN `%^\ Jr
\%Existin / \
♦` /� /.� •, ��/ OCSD Reclamation
IIntrusiioe Barrier arrier `\�� \� .,,:._ Plant No.1
OCSDTreatment
Water Factory 21 Plant No.2
Proposed Advanced
WaterTroaMent Facility
OCBD-OCSDAddr MI201012
SOURCE.Emo =ry Iki<n¢As We
Figure 1
Project Components
a
y N O
Y m
r
S!A
GWR
F O U N A I N PIPELINE
VAL EY SANTA ANA
TALBEflT A
�e
�e
y SU LOWER A
Fius
PNM
OCWD OCSO SOU COAST A.
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE OUTLET
PIPELINE rq€ TO RIVER
COSTA MESA
HU TINGTON BEACH aK
SA I?Sr,
uPM
ME54
YEADE
PAFK 'uy'pV
ESfiNGIA N^'
PAflN
PMI(
MflN.RK
Gp�(FCp�
OCWJ-O=Addrnb.1201012
90URCfi:PaNmnmmnW Sekrce/wxicW
Figure 2
Location of Discharge to Santa Ana River
EXIST. GRADE
EL. 37.3
F FLAP GATE
11
OARFIELD AVE.
PROPOSED 54" ry• PROP. 54" GRP
E..;� L 22.0
EXIST. 66"
I.E. 15.8s I.E. 10.3s
SANTA ANA
EXIST. 18" RDPG RIVER
80URCR:CDM,DIMpt OCWD-OCSDAdd,nd..1201012
Figure 3
100 MGD—SAR Discharge Profile Dedicated Pipeline
7-113.4124.7mgd
MF Backwash RID Concentrate
to OSCD to Outfall
Al
I I
1 1
3.4-14.7 mgd 1 I
Microfiltration 1
(88.2% -97% Recovery)
---1 I
1
110 mgd 30-36 mgd I
1
80 mgd I
10-16 _gd
Reverse Osmosis ___ _____ _
(80% -87.5% Recovery)
64-70 mgd UV Disinfection
UV Disinfection
64-70 mgd Dechlorination
0 mgd 55 mgd 15 mgd 30-36 mgd
MILLER KRAEMER BARRIER SANTA ANA
BASIN BASIN WELLS RIVER
OCnD-GMOtBAddlnd.m1201012 M
SOUMMCDM.DM02
Figure 4
Scenario 1 Phase 1 —Peak Wet Weather Flow
716.7
3.4 mgd
MF Backwash RO Concentrate
to OSCD to Outfall
1 1
I
1.7-13.4 mgd I 1
Microfiltration 1 I
(88.2% -97% Recovery)
--- I I
1
15-110 mgd 15-100 mgd
1
0 mgd 1
0 mgd
Reverse Osmosis _______ __ _
(80% - 87.5% Recovery)
0 mgd UV Disinfection
UV Disinfection
0 mgd Dechlorination
0 mgd 0 mgd 0 mgd 15-100 mgd
MILLER KRAEMER BARRIER SANTA ANA
BASIN BASIN WELLS RIVER
OCWD-OCSDAdden 1201011
SOMCE:CUM,e1M#32
Figure 5
Scenario 2 Phase 1 —Peak Wet Weather Flow
Power Outage
r- 3.4
mgd
MF Backwash RO Concentrate
to OSCD to Outfall
A
I 1
I 1
=mgd15-100
.7-13.4 mgd 1 1
tion 1 1
ecovery)
--- 1 1
I
115-100 mgdmosis 0 mgd --- -- - 1ecovery)
0 mgd UV Disinfection
UV Disinfection
0 mgd Dechlorination
0 mgd 0 mgd 0 mgd 15-100 mgd
MILLER KRAEMER BARRIER SANTA ANA
BASIN BASIN WELLS RIVER
OCW -OCWAddendum1201012
SOURCE:MM,DM 02
Figure 6
Scenario 3 Phase 1 —Peak Dry Weather Flow
Power Outage
Agenda Item No. 2
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 28, 2001
TO: Board of Directors, Orange County Sanitation District
And
Board of Directors, Orange County Water District
FROM: Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
STAFF CONTACTS:
OCSD: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager
Wendy Sevenandt
OCWD: William R. Mills Jr. General Manager
Thomas M. Dawes
SUBJECT: INTERIM GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
(Orange County Sanitation District JOB NO. J-36)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee recommends to
the Boards of Directors of the Orange County Water District and the Orange County
Sanitation District to take the following actions:
OCWD AND OCSD:
A. Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Cooperative Agreement for Project
Planning for the Groundwater Replenishment System, granting the Orange
County Water District Board of Directors authority to award a contract for the
Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline - Lacy Parking Facility in an amount not
to exceed $5 million ($5,000,000) and to approve change orders not to
exceed 10% of the original contract amount, and granting the Orange County
Water District General Manager authority to sign permits.
OCWD:
B. Approve agreement between the Orange County Flood Control District, the
County of Orange and the Orange County Water District for providing early
construction of Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline within County property
adjacent to the Theo Lacy Jail Facilities and for reimbursement of costs for
construction of County parking facilities over the pipeline.
flCra. vPMY .SU .SudnillaM1 11 281CC%H.a gwnnwro2.WC
Page 1
Agenda Item No. 2
OCWD AND OCSD
C. Approve the plans and specifications for the Groundwater Replenishment
Pipeline- Lacy Parking Facility, for the early construction of a portion of the
Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline and parking lot for the Orange County
Sheriffs Department and authorize staff to advertise for competitive bids.
SUMMARY
Staff and counsel are preparing an Operations Agreement between Orange County
Water District and Orange County Sanitation District providing for the financing, design,
construction, maintenance and operation of the Groundwater Replenishment System.
This formal agreement will be finalized in the next few months. In the meantime, the
managing body, the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
and Orange County Water District Board of Directors need additional authority
regarding the early construction of a portion of the Groundwater Replenishment System
Pipeline. This agenda item provides interim governance recommendations,
recommends approval of plans and specifications for a small portion of the Groundwater
Replenishment Pipeline, and approval of an agreement with the County of Orange
regarding construction of that small portion of the Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline
and a parking facility for the Theo Lacy Jail.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
The engineer's estimate for the Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline - Lacy Parking
Facility is $3.9 million including $2.3 million of County parking facilities to be reimbursed
under the agreement.
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BUDGET IMPACT
® This Item has been budgeted. (Line item:CORF Water Management Projects, Pg 164)
❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
❑ This item has not been budgeted.
❑ Not applicable (information item)
With approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Cooperative Agreement for interim
governance, the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee and
Orange County Water District Board will award the construction contract for the
Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline - Lacy Parking Facility. The budget information
table requests authorization of funds based on the engineer's estimate.
Please refer to the attached Budget Information Table.
OCWD BUDGET IMPACT
The Groundwater Replenishment System is included in the budget of Orange County
Water District. The project cost, to be shared equally by both Orange County Water
LDwumanlNdv PMUN SU ndx S..'. VWIWY2s ACCW 1. 1... re2.DOC
Page 2
Agenda Item No. 2
District and Orange County Sanitation District, is $352 million. This will be
supplemented by state and federal grants. We have secured $57.5 million in grants and
expect more. The Orange County Water District line-item number for the project is
501-4030-600.70-01.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Interim Governance
Currently, the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee has
the charge of managing the Groundwater Replenishment System under a Cooperative
Agreement (amended three times). The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee can authorize expenditures of up to $100,000; provided the
funds are budgeted by both Orange County Water District and Orange County
Sanitation District, and at least two directors from each agency approve the item. Other
authority has been granted to Orange County Water District under the Cooperative
Agreement, such as hiring personnel.
The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee, established in
1997, reviewed various methods to govern this project, including formation of a Joint
Powers Authority. Little reason could be found to create a new Joint Powers Authority
now; however, if it is found to be advantageous in the future, it could be formed. It is the
recommendation of the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative
Committee that the day-to-day management of the project continue to be provided by
the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee, with expanded
authority. The interim governance authority requested below will allow the Joint
Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee to deal with immediate
needs, including construction of 2330 feet of pipe and parking facilities for the county,
adjacent to the Theo Lacy Jail in the west bank of the Santa Ana River between the 5
and 22 freeways (discussed below). The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee will have about the same authority as it now has, but
Amendment No. 4 will transfer approval authority to the Orange County Water District
Board for award of a construction agreement for the pipe and parking at the Theo Lacy
Jail.
The future Operations Agreement will continue in much the same way, but should
provide substantial authority to the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee. The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative
Committee will continue to provide project management of day-to-day operations similar
to what we have been experiencing. Over the first few months after a "go" decision, and
prior to execution of the Operations Agreement, interim authority is needed for the Joint
Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee and the Orange County
Water District Board in order to maintain schedules. Specifically, it is recommended
that the Boards approve Amendment No. 4 to the existing Cooperative Agreement
adding the following items.
I.V , MY sM.w Sfte Swmftl. 1m 2e 1CM mwmm poem, W.DM
Page 3
A. Construction Authori Agenda Item No. 2
Recommend that the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative'
Comm award of the G�Oundwater ittee have authority to recommend to the Orange County
Bo struction contract in an amounts not to'exceed shment fiP Lacy Parking
five million dollars ($5,000,000)
a
and change order approvals in Facility
n amount not to exceed 10% of the ori
contract amount, provided that: inal
g 1. Both the Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation
District approved budget include nclude the funds; and
Both Boards have received reports on projected activities; and
3. Two Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative
Committee members from each agency approve the award.
If these three conditions are met, the Sanitation District Board of Directors
delegates to the Water District Board of Directors authority to award the
construction contract for the Theo Lacy in an amount not to exceed five million
dollars ($5,000,000), make all necessary findings, and approve all change orders
in an amount not to exceed 10% of the original contract amount.
For all authorizations, all three conditions stated above must be met in the order listed.
B. Permittin_g quthority
Authorize the Orange County Water District general manager to sign and accept
permits on behalf of the Groundwater Replenishment System.
Actions Regarding Groundwater Replenishment Pioekne
A. APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PIPELINE
During preliminary design meetings for the Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline,
staff discovered that the County of Orange acquired a portion of the Orange
County Flood Control District's Santa Ana River property to expand the Theo
Lacy Jail Facilities parking lot adjacent to the Santa Ana River on the west side,
between the 22 and 5 freeways. The Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline will
be constructed through the parking lot facility. The parking facilities construction
is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2001. To avoid costly tunneling or
damaging the parking facility in the future during pipeline construction, an
agreement was negotiated between the County of Orange, the Orange County
Flood Control District and the Orange County Water District to construct the
parking facilities and approximately 2,330 feet of the Groundwater
Replenishment Pipeline under the same construction contract. Under the
agreement, Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District
will be reimbursed for costs associated with the parking lot construction. The
completion schedule for the parking facility necessitates an accelerated
I DevmemNEV PbNe'AWIiSRpeMe9udnitlab1iW11Pl3B JCOb IMenmpgBrtunv.P.°°L
Page 4
Agenda Jtem No. 2
construction schedule for a portion of the Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline.
Staff requests execution of a reimbursement agreement between the agencies
so that a portion of the Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline can be constructed
concurrently with the County of Orange's parking facilities in the summer and fall
of 2001.
B. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE BID
ADVERTISEMENT
To complete the construction of the County of Orange parking facilities and the
Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline, construction plans must be approved and
authorization to advertise for competitive bids is required. The engineer's
estimate is $3.9 million, which includes $2.3 million for the County's parking
facilities and $1.6 million for approximately 2,330 feet of 66-inch diameter
Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline. The proposed project schedule is as
follows:
Milestone Date
Advertise for Competitive Bids: April 2, 2001
Open Bids: April 27, 2001
Award Contract: May 16, 2001
Issue Notice To Proceed: May 25, 2001
Complete Construction: November 30, 2001
Approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to advertise is necessary to
construct the facilities to meet the County of Orange's schedule for completion of the
Theo Lacy Jail Facilities.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative would be to construct the pipeline after the construction of the parking
facility at a much higher construction cost due to costly tunneling or damaging the
parking facility in the future during pipeline construction
CEQA FINDINGS
The Program Environmental Impact ReporUTier f Environmental Impact Statement for
the Groundwater Replenishment System has been completed by Orange County Water
District and Orange County Sanitation District. The Orange County Water District and
Orange County Sanitation District Boards of Directors certified the Final Environmental
Impact Report in March 1999 for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
INm—n vPlMeWWARS !mmftm=11W.M,CCW Nam Oa�.Dm
Page 5
Agenda Item No. 2
Act. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision were completed
in August 2000 for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
A program Environmental Impact Report was certified in October 1999 for Orange
County Sanitation District's 1999 Strategic Plan. The Orange County Sanitation District
Strategic Plan included the Groundwater Replenishment System.
In the Final Program EIRIEIS for the Groundwater Replenishment System, the
emergency river discharge outlet was not specifically sited. Since its certification and
completion of 30% design, staff has finalized the location of the Santa Ana River
discharge ouffall. In the Orange County Sanitation District's 1999 Strategic Plan
Program Environmental Impact Report, the Groundwater Replenishment System had
not addressed the issue of a river discharge. Staff prepared an addendum to the
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Program EIRIEIS and the Orange County
Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan Program EIR addressing minor changes such as
the rare emergency discharge of treated, disinfected water to the Santa Ana River at
Garfield Avenue. One addendum addresses both documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Orange County Sanitation District Budget Information Table
2. Amendment No. 4 to the Cooperative Agreement for Project Planning for the
Groundwater Replenishment System
3. Agreement between the Orange County Flood Control District, the County of Orange
and the Orange County Water District
W0.VTBMNEv PWWGWRSWpBMOSWMtlik�M 20JCM Mft� .WC
Page 6
BUDGET INFORMATION TABLE
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
JOB NO. J-36
ORIGINAL CURRENT PROPOSED FUNDS . THIS ESTIMATED ESTBTATED
PROIECTITASK AUTHORIZED PROJECT BUDGET PROPOSED AUTHORIZED TO AUTHORRATION PROPOSED TOTAL EXPENDITURE TO EXPENDED TO
BUDGET BUDGET - INCREASE REVISED BUDGET GATE REQUEST" AUTHOR17ATION DATE DATEIY�
Proect Dew enl $ 700.000 $ 4.000 $ 4,000 $ 4.000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 100%
SludleallA mlMn ' 4,000,000 $ 4,000.000 $ 4,OOD,000 $ 4,000000 $ 4,000,001) 1G0%
Consultant PSA $ 7.500000 $ 17.500,000 $ 17,500,000 $ $ - $ 0%
Design Staff IS 2,349,000 $ 1,349,000 S 1,349,D00 1 It 1,349,000 1 $ 1.349.000 $ 450,000 33%
construction Contract $ 86481500 $ 137500,ODD $ 137500.G00 $ 3.900000 It 3,900,000 1 $ 0%
Construction
AEministns8on $ 2.653,900 S 6.021,000 $ 6.021,000 $ - $ 0%
construction
Inspection $ 9,346,600 $ 326,000 $ 326,000 $ - $ 0%
Conlingenor $ 12,896000 S 16.000,000 $ 16.000,000 $ - $ 0%
PROJECT TOTAL It 121,925,00D $ 182,700,000 S - $ 182,700,000 $ 5,353,000 $ 3,900.000 $ 9,253,000 5 4,454,000 48%
Relmhureasle Costa Is - $ 28.000,000 1 $ 28,000.000 $ 2.300.000 1 S 750.000
PROJECT NET $ 121,925,000 $ 154,700,000 $ - $ 154,700.000 $ 5,353.000 1 111 1.600.000 1 $ 9,253,000 $ 3,704,000 40%
Funds authorimtl to date includes multiple contracts Issued under the terms of the Cooperallw Agreement for Project Planning fw the Groundwaler Replenlahmant System
with the Orange County Water Dislrlw
HYaD.merea9Voxono-earV-JeNae BUDGET TABLES 3 I XLSgmorsmca
AMENDMENT NO. 4
TO THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT PLANNING
FOR THE
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
THIS AGREEMENT is made and dated for reference purposes only on the
28th day of March, 2001, by and between:
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
(hereinafter referred to as "Sanitation District")
AND
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
(hereinafter referred to as "Water District")
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties have previously executed an Agreement on
February 26, 1997, entitled "Cooperative Agreement for Project Planning for
Orange County Reclamation Project" to initiate project planning for the
Groundwater Replenishment System, hereinafter referred to as "System"
(formerly known as Orange County Regional Reclamation Project or 'OCR'
Project); and
WHEREAS, said Agreement has previously been amended by
Amendment No. 1 on March 1, 1998, Amendment No. 2 on December 16, 1998,
and by Amendment No, 3 on April 5, 2000; and
WHEREAS, said Agreement, as amended, provides for a Joint
Cooperative Committee (hereinafter after referred to as "Committee") consisting
of three directors and three alternates each appointed by the governing boards of
Water District and Sanitation District, and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined that to proceed with
implementation of the System, it is desirable to enter into a new Operations
Agreement defining the design, construction and operations of System; and
WHEREAS, the parties have met and determined that the Water District
Board should be granted authority as the contracting Board for the Groundwater
Replenishment Pipeline — Lacy Parking Facility and the OCWD General Manager
should be given authority to accept permits for the Groundwater Replenishment
System, until said Operations Agreement is approved.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend said Agreement as
follows:
SECTION 1 - INTERIM GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following interim governance authority is granted to the Committee and the
Water District Board of Directors:
A. Construction Authority
The Committee shall recommend to the Water District Board award of the
Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline - Lacy Parking Facility construction
contract in an amount not to exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000), and
change order approvals in an amount not to exceed 10% of the original
contract amount, provided that:
1. Both the Water District and the Sanitation District approved
budgets include the funds; and
2. Both Boards have received reports on projected activities; and
3. Two Committee members from each agency approve the
award.
If these three conditions are met, the Sanitation District Board of Directors
delegates to the Water District Board of Directors authority to award the
construction contract for the Theo Lacy in an amount not to exceed five
million dollars ($5,000,000), make all necessary findings, and approve all
change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the original contract
amount.
B. Permit Authority
The Water District General Manager may sign and accept permits on
behalf of the GWR System.
SECTION 2 - EXISTING AGREEMENT
All provisions of the existing Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amendment
No. 2, and Amendment No. 3 shall remain in place except as modified herein.
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Amendment
No. 4 to the Agreement.
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
March 28, 2001 By
Date Chair, Board of Directors
March 28, 2001 By
Date Secretary, Board of Directors
Approved As To Form:
Thomas L.Woodruff, General Counsel
Orange County Sanitation District
By
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
March 28, 2001 By
Date President, Board of Directors
March 28, 2001 By
Date General Manager
Approved As To Form:
Clark Ide,General Counsel
Orange County Water District
By
3
1 AGREEMENT
2
I
3 This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2001,
4 BY and BETWEEN
5
6 The County of Orange, a body corporate and politic,
hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"
7 AND
8 The Orange County Water District, a body corporate
and politic, hereinafter referred to as "WATER
g DISTRICT',
10 Which are sometimes individually referred to as "PARTY," or collectively referred to as
11 "PARTIES".
12 RECITALS
13 WHEREAS, WATER DISTRICT and the Orange County Sanitation District, hereinafter
14 referred to as "SANITATION DISTRICT", are planning the development of a major water
15 reclamation project called the Groundwater Replenishment System Project, hereinafter
16 referred to as "PROJECT", which will produce highly purified reclaimed water for the purpose
17 of percolation into the groundwater basin as an additional source of water to supplement
18 existing water supplies to Orange County; and
19 WHEREAS, WATER DISTRICT and SANITATION DISTRICT have agreed that
20 WATER DISTRICT will perform as the lead agency for implementation of PROJECT; and
21 WHEREAS, a key element of PROJECT is construction of a pipeline, hereinafter
22 referred to as "PIPELINE", from a new treatment plant located at WATER DISTRICT's
23 existing Fountain Valley site and running along Garfield Avenue and thence by way of Orange
24 County Flood Control District's, (hereinafter referred to as "FLOOD DISTRICT"), rights-of-way
25 for the Santa Ana River Channel and Carbon Canyon Diversion Channel to WATER
26 DISTRICT's Kraemer Basin; and
I WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors acting as Board of Supervisors for
2 FLOOD DISTRICT by resolution authorized the FLOOD DISTRICT to cooperate in an
3 agreement for an exchange of rights of way through which FLOOD DISTRICT grants to
4 WATER DISTRICT an easement for construction of PROJECT along the westerly side of the
5 Santa Ana River; and
6 WHEREAS, subsequent to aforesaid resolution, FLOOD DISTRICT entered into an
7 agreement now pending to convey to COUNTY certain excess lands along the Santa Ana
8 River between the SR-22 Freeway and the 1-5 Freeway for the purposes of constructing a
9 parking facility serving COUNTY'S Theo Lacy Facility; and
10 WHEREAS WATER DISTRICT is now requesting from COUNTY an easement for
11 construction of PIPELINE within COUNTY'S right of way for the proposed Theo Lacy parking
12 facility, hereinafter referred to as "PARKING"; and
13 WHEREAS, it is in the public's best interest that COUNTY, FLOOD DISTRICT and
14 WATER DISTRICT continue to cooperate in the planning, design, construction, operation and
15 maintenance of said PIPELINE and PARKING improvements.
16 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
17 1. PURPOSE
18 The purpose of this AGREEMENT is to establish the terms and conditions for
19 plan review of PIPELINE and PARKING improvements, the terms for
20 conveyance of PIPELINE right-of-way to WATER DISTRICT, and the terms
21 under which COUNTY and WATER DISTRICT shall provide for PIPELINE and
22 PARKING construction.
23 2. PROJECT COORDINATION
24 a. COUNTY'S SHERIFF, or an authorized designee, hereinafter referred to as
25 "SHERIFF", and the Director of the County's Public Facilities and Resources
26 Department or designee, hereinafter referred to as "DIRECTOR", shall be
-2- .
i
I
the representatives respectively of COUNTY and FLOOD DISTRICT in all
2 matters pertaining to this AGREEMENT.
3 b. WATER DISTRICT's General Manager, or an authorized designee,
4 hereinafter referred to as "MANAGER", shall be WATER DISTRICT's
5 representative in all matters pertaining to this AGREEMENT.
6 3. PIPELINE DESCRIPTION
7 a. PIPELINE for purposes of this AGREEMENT shall consist primarily of the
8 construction by WATER DISTRICT of a pipeline of approximately 66-inches
9 in diameter running from the SR-22 Freeway to the I-5 Freeway.
10 b. PIPELINE site is located within the City of Orange, and is more specifically
11 illustrated on Exhibit A, entitled "PIPELINE LOCATION MAP", attached
12 hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
13 4. DESCRIPTION OF PARKING CONSTRUCTION (AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT B)
14 a. Relocation of COUNTY'S Regional Recreation Trail pursuant to conditions of
15 COUNTY's pending land acquisition, a copy of which is incorporated herein
16 and attached hereto as Exhibit D from FLOOD DISTRICT.
17 b. Site grading and subgrade preparation for paving including integration of .
18 surplus material from PIPELINE trench excavation.
19 c. Drainage and lighting facilities.
20 d. Retaining Wall and Fencing.
21 e. Paving of PARKING, except at "Laydown" area for construction of
22 COUNTY's adjacent Building B.
23 5. WATER DISTRICT PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PIPELINE
24 a. Construct PIPELINE at no cost to COUNTY and/or FLOOD DISTRICT.
25 b. Retain the services of registered Civil Engineer(s), appropriately registered
26 for practice in the State of California to prepare the following for approval by
1 DIRECTOR:
2 1) PLANS and specifications for the construction of PIPELINE
3 improvements in accordance with FLOOD DISTRICT's criteria, standards
4 and practices, which shall be in a format as required by DIRECTOR;
5 2) Legal description(s) and easement deed(s) for property to be granted for
6 PIPELINE operation and maintenance;
7 3) Soils and geotechnical investigations, to be utilized in the engineer's
8 design of PIPELINE;
9 4) Surveying services necessary for PIPELINE and PARKING construction;
10 and
11 5) Compliance with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality
12 Act.
13 c. Obtain and pay fees for all permits including, but not limited to Sections 401,
14 404, and 1601, which may be required for PIPELINE construction, or as part
15 of those required for future operation/maintenance responsibilities, including,
16 but not limited to the following:
17 1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
18 2) State of California Department of Fish and Game;
19 3) .California Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
20 4) County of Orange, Recreational Trail plan review.
21 d. Prepare and submit Easement deed(s) for PIPELINE right-of-way for areas
22 shown on Exhibit C, entitled "PIPELINE Easement Area", including legal
23 descriptions, for review and written approval by SHERIFF AND DIRECTOR.
24 e. Make all necessary arrangements to ensure that any private or local public
25 drainage facilities, which may enter PIPELINE right-of-way but are not
26 considered part of PIPELINE, including connector pipes and/or interfering
� -
1 pipes, will be operated and maintained by the appropriate person, entity or
2 agency.
3 f. Submit PLANS for PIPELINE construction to SHERIFF and DIRECTOR for
4 review and written approval prior to advertising bids for construction.
5 Subsequent to such written approval, WATER DISTRICT shall file
6 reproducible drawings of said PIPELINE PLANS with SHERIFF and
7 DIRECTOR.
8 g. Furnish to SHERIFF and DIRECTOR, prior to commencement of PIPELINE
9 construction, evidence that all insurance required is in accordance with
10 Paragraph 8 ("INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS") below. All insurance shall
11 be obtained and held from a company or companies licensed to do business
12 in the State of California, and shall be approved by County of Orange, Risk
13 Management Department, and maintained until SHERIFF and DIRECTOR
14 certifies that construction is complete.
15 h. Notify SHERIFF and DIRECTOR promptly in writing, but not less than
16 seventy-two (72) hours in advance, of the time and location of all pre-
17 construction and construction meeting(s).
18 i. Provide SHERIFF and DIRECTOR, and their agents and employees, with
19 access to PIPELINE areas to perform its responsibilities pursuant to this
20 AGREEMENT.
21 j. Be responsible for modifications, relocations or reconstruction of utilities
22 necessary for PIPELINE construction.
23 k. Obtain SHERIFF's and DIRECTOR's advance written approval of any
24 proposed changes to approved PIPELINE PLANS prior to implementing
25 such changes.
26 I. Complete PIPELINE construction and substantiate such occurrence by
5_..
1 obtaining written verification from SHERIFF and DIRECTOR that
2 construction has been completed in accordance with approved PIPELINE
3 plans.
4 m. File Notice of Completion for PIPELINE within ten (10) days after
5 construction is completed. WATER DISTRICT shall provide SHERIFF and
6 DIRECTOR each with two (2) copies of said Notice.
7 n. Furnish one (1) set of mylar copies and computer files of the approved "As-
8 Built' construction drawings to both SHERIFF and DIRECTOR.
9 o. It is understood that WATER DISTRICT shall be responsible for the
10 operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of all PIPELINE improvements in
11 accordance with terms of Easement Deed.
12 p. Obtain written approval from SHERIFF and DIRECTOR on all future
13 modification, additions or repairs made to PIPELINE and be responsible for
14 all costs of such modification, additions or repairs.
15 6. WATER DISTRICT'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PARKING
16 a. Retain the services of registered Civil Engineer(s), appropriately registered
17 or licensed to practice in the State of California, for the purpose of preparing .
18 Plans and Specifications for the construction of PARKING improvements in
19 accordance with COUNTY's criteria, standards and practices.
20 b. Submit plans for PARKING construction to SHERIFF for review and written
21 approval prior to advertising bids for construction. Subsequent to such
22 approval, WATER DISTRICT shall file reproducible drawings of said
23 PIPELINE plans with SHERIFF and DIRECTOR.
24 c. At no cost to COUNTY and/or FLOOD DISTRICT, construct relocation of
25 COUNTY'S Regional Recreation Trail pursuant to terms and conditions of
26 COUNTY's pending land acquisition from FLOOD DISTRICT. Said cost of
-s-
1 relocation shall be full compensation for the grant of easement to WATER
2 DISTRICT as described in paragraph 7 below.
3 d. Complete construction of COUNTY's laydown area, as shown on the
4 contract documents on or before September 1, 2001. Complete construction
5 of remainder of PARKING (as described in paragraph 4 above) in readiness
6 for COUNTY's occupancy and use on or before December 1, 2001.
7 e. Upon completion of PARKING construction to satisfaction of SHERIFF,
8 submit invoice for COUNTY's portions of final costs pursuant to paragraph
9 7.c. below.
10 7. COUNTY'S AND FLOOD DISTRICT'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PIPELINE
11 AND PARKING
12 a. Cooperate in the review and approval of plans and specifications as
13 described in paragraph 6.b. above. Such approval shall not be unreasonably
14 withheld.
15 b. Grant to WATER DISTRICT an easement for pipeline construction, operation
16 and maintenance upon submittal of a legal description meeting approval of
17 SHERIFF and DIRECTOR. It is agreed that construction described in .
18 paragraph 6.c. shall be a quid pro quo fully compensating COUNTY for the
19 value of easement conveyed.
20 c. Review WATER DISTRICT invoice for PARKING within 30 days and
21 promptly upon SHERIFF's approval, COUNTY shall reimburse WATER
22 DISTRICT for actual construction costs in the following percentages:
23 1) Relocation of Regional Recreation Trail 0%
24 2) Site grading and subgrade preparation 50%
25 3) Drainage and lighting facilities 100%
26 4) Retaining Wall and Fencing 100%
-7-
1 5) Paving of PARKING 100%
2 8. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
3 WATER DISTRICT shall require the designated contractor ("Contractor') for
4 PIPELINE and PARKING to obtain and provide to SHERIFF and DIRECTOR,
5 written proof of insurance and copies of insurance policies and endorsements,
6 and shall require its contractor to maintain at all times during the term of this
7 AGREEMENT the following policies of insurance:
8 a. Workers Compensation Insurance to cover Contractor's employees.
9 Similarly, Contractor shall require all subcontractors ("Subcontractors") to
10 provide Workers Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of
11 the State of California for all of its employees and its Subcontractors
12 employees. The policy(ies) of insurance shall provide that it (they) shall not
13 be canceled or altered without thirty (30) days written advance notice
14 thereof, to the County Risk Management, at 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room
15 324, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Attention: Manager of Risk Management.
16 b. For all operations of WATER DISTRICT, COUNTY and FLOOD DISTRICT,
17 Contractor and/or Subcontractors in performing the construction included in .
18 this AGREEMENT, insurance coverages with the following minimum limits
19 shall be provided in a form satisfactory to COUNTY and FLOOD DISTRICT:
20 Coveraaes Minimum Limit
21 Comprehensive General Liability One Million Dollars
22 Comprehensive Automobile Liability One Million Dollars
23 (including coverage for owned, ($1,000,000)
combined non-owned and hired automobile
24 single limit hazards).
25 Each such policy of insurance provided in subparagraph b. above, must be
obtained and held from a company or companies licensed to do business in
26
1 the State of California, and shall contain the following five clauses:
2 1) "This insurance shall not be canceled, limited in scope of coverage or
3 non-renewed until after 30 days written notice has been given by mail to
4 the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and the
5 Orange County Water District.
6 2) "The County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and
7 the Orange County Water District are added as additional insureds in
8 regard to incidents arising out of the performance of AGREEMENT."
9 3) "It is agreed that any insurance maintained by the County of Orange, the
10 Orange County Flood Control District, and/or the Orange County Water
11 District shall apply in excess of and not contribute with insurance
12 provided by this policy."
13 4) "All rights of subrogation are hereby waived against the County of
14 Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and the Orange
15 County Water District, their elective or appointed officials, officers,
16 employees and agents when acting within the scope of their employment
17 or appointment."
18 5) Any losses shall be payable" notwithstanding any act or failure to act or
19 negligence of the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control
20 District, and the Orange County Water District, or any other person or
21 entity."
22 9. SEVERABILITY
23 If any part of this AGREEMENT is held, determined or adjudicated to be illegal,
24 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this
25 AGREEMENT shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible.
26 10. ATTORNEY FEES/COSTS
1 Should litigation be necessary to enforce any terms or provisions of this
2 AGREEMENT, each PARTY shall bear its own litigation and collection
3 expenses, witness fees, court costs and attorney's fees.
4 11. EXHIBITS
5 This AGREEMENT incorporates by this reference, the following exhibits, which
6 are attached hereto and incorporated herein:
7 a. Exhibit A- Pipeline Location Map
8 b. Exhibit B - Parking Improvement
9 c. Exhibit C - Pipeline Easement Area
10 d. Exhibit D - Conditions of Land Acquisition
11 12. NOTICES
12 a. Notices or other communications which may be required or provided under
13 the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be given as follows:
14 WATER DISTRICT:
General Manager
15 Orange County Water District (OCWD)
10500 Ellis Avenue
16 Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 378-3200
17 Fax No.: (714) 378-3381
18 SHERIFF:
Sheriff Department
19 Manager of Facilities Planning
431 The City Drive South
20 Orange, CA 92868
Fax No.: (714) 935-6669
21 FLOOD DISTRICT:
Director
22 Public Facilities and Resources Department (PFRD)
23 County of Orange
P.O. Box 4048
24 Santa Ana, CA 927024048
Fax No. (714) 834-2395
25 b. All notices shall be in writing and deemed effective when delivered in person
26 or deposited in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid and
-10--
1 addressed as above. Notwithstanding the above, PARTIES may also
2 provide notices by facsimile transmittal, and any such notice so given shall
3 be deemed to have been given upon receipt during normal business hours,
4 or in the event of receipt after business hours, the following business day.
5 Any notices, correspondence, reports and/or statements authorized or
6 required by this AGREEMENT addressed in any other fashion shall be
7 deemed not given.
8 c. Either PARTY hereto may change its address to which notices are to be sent
9 by giving notice of such change to the other PARTY.
10 13. APPLICABLE LAW
11 This AGREEMENT has been negotiated and executed in the State of California
12 and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
13 State of California. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this
14 AGREEMENT, the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent
15 jurisdiction located in Orange County, California, and the PARTIES hereto agree
16 to and do hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such court, notwithstanding Code
17 of Civil Procedure Section 394. The PARTIES specifically agree that by .
18 soliciting and entering into and performing services under this AGREEMENT,
19 COMPANY shall be deemed to constitute doing business within Orange County
20 from the time of initiation of work, through the period when all work under this
21 AGREEMENT is completed, and continuing until the expiration of any applicable
22 limitations period. Furthermore, the PARTIES have specifically agreed, as part
23 of the consideration given and received for entering into this AGREEMENT, to
24 waive any and all rights to request that an action be transferred for trial to
25 another county under Code of Civil Procedure Section 394.
26 14. AMENDMENT(S)
11 '
I It is mutually understood and agreed that no addition to, alteration of, or
2 variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT, nor any oral understanding or
3 agreement not incorporated herein, shall be valid unless made in writing and
4 signed and approved by all necessary PARTIES.
5 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
6 This document sets forth the entire AGREEMENT between COUNTY and
7 WATER DISTRICT, and may be modified only by further written amendment
8 between the PARTIES hereto, in accordance with Paragraph 14
9 (AMENDMENTS), above.
10
11
12 //!
PwFL0037rocwD-SMN071301.d=
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.tp_
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of
1 the day and year first written above.
2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
3
4
Date: By:
5 President, Board of Directors
6
7 Date: By:
8 Secretary, Board of Directors
9 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Clark Ida
10 General Counsel
Orange County Water District
11
12
13 By:
14
15 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COUNTY OF ORANGE,
16 COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS a body corporate and politic
BEEN DELIVERED TO THE
17 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
18
19 By.
20 Darlene J. Bloom Chair, Board of Supervisors of
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California
21 The County of Orange of
Orange County, California
22
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
23 LAURENCE M. WATSON,
County Counsel
24
25
26 By
Deputy Date
-13=
EXHIBIT A
i
0I1,i
. 1
�1
p .. j allt. t. l,ry lei(
> '• -\ s i �M�£ �4.� r*-,�;,,•a, y> ...... t � 1 1k'� � )LI':i�1fN'
a � ins kiy5 . . 2ta l
° a neat a r .'26 wt^ fi6 a I ai�• N
Will
11 r, the u„
Ira $ e° 4 9 s f
]� ► xei I 1' 0$A � , J.
hoU�r�a,. tAC;;1!y, a �Y w. ��� a "• TI
u
zi H • 91 is ■Sr1y6� a 1T .I .:t Ba tiep. .ay f N �.
✓u �
66" Lecy N.,t i I e of
Pipeline
lid
.a�?:'��
i Win' e
r
ew "Nisj..F+
B _ Gfa Yt5 — Lai A
T
iral Ci, r. �B 1 I (� � t �y sce�.Da :yl
R.. ���
LL. . t . .
9
t ii I t ...��* � la•
i rR1oN.4 � b- .� . I �• "t �
Yury 18f
P f€
qq o 1
Bn 2l ,
,•� 9E
and t._, w �� ,•i�' rmn � ��n ov�cena al .t:n : F 9ta � � A
SCALE: i inch 2.000 feet
•v „� GWR PIPELINE•UNIT II
CDM Exhibit
Groundwater
Replenishment System
„„P ,,,, o,,.,,, „ ,, Pipeline Location Map
I-- Lacy Facility Reach
EXHIBIT B
4DMNG
ANDSCAPE RELOCATED If
AREA BIKEWAY/
MNTENANCE ROAD
NEW GRA
3
& RELOCATED 10'
RIDING AND
g�g XBDNG TRNL
iT ETTISRNG LEVEL
ALL .
Zf qR A.C. LAD �"f UYOOWNLACY FACILITY FiLLWwom .. ., IXISnNG
MPRAP
O
SOMA Pl1A
RNEft CHANNEL
EIKE NG
GWR PIPELINE &IQ 7P.VL
SCALE am,
1' = 40' HOP PARKING AREA DRAINAGE AND LIGHTING FACIUTIES ARE INCLUDED
1' = 8' VER. AND SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.
..... GVVR PIPELINE-UNIT 11
'CDY C�pp�fiM�lf¢Lrc w.ma.r,
acn.m wle..oaws��.wwn s GnDlaKivra�r EldTibRB
�$stuN Parldng Conshuctlon
Typical Cross Section
^.. Pnl menr
EXHIBIT C
NEW OPAOED PARKING LOT VJIDS--PE RF101ID 1T
ARM NOW/
3W PERMANENT UNNIMAIM Rao
FASEMENr
15' RBMTm 10'
RM NC AND
c IOI M MIL
y` I RETAR@1G WALL g
' a
LACY FPLIUTT' I AG PAVEMENT
�"f4wiruv. .
EXISTING
MPRAP
PIPELNE
SANTA ANA
RNEN CHANNEL
GNR RPELNE
SCALE:
T' - 40' HOR.
1' = 8' VER
GWR PIPELINE-UNIT 11
GvW Dcmv A MrlTee Inc w.ea.a
�emcalmaAAuwrmipr s���a GR)1BKAA2IE( ExhibkC
Rt'tr4j rent$sfirn Pipeline Easement
Typical Cross Section
EXHIBIT D
ant by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :26; Jr(fax_N142;Page 2
EOI-1105.1 ^ pp �q;E
Santa Ana River Channel 0� 4J
`L P ' kl!' A L
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT,hereinafter"Agreement," is made on 2000,
by and between COUNTY OF ORANGE,a body corporate and politic, here Wafter"COUNTY," and
ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic,hereinafter
"DISTRICT ."
RECITALS
A. COUNTY desires to expand employee parking at the Manchester Complex in the city of Orange.
B. DISTRICT owns the real property,hereinafter"the Property," described in Exhibit"A" of the
Grant Deed attached hereto as Attachment 1. The Property is adjacent to the east of the
Manchester Complex.
C. DISTRICT has determined that the Property is not required for the purposes of the DISTRICT.
D. COUNTY desires to purchase the Property to use as a surface parking lot.
E. DISTRICT desires to sell the Property to COUNTY for such use.
Therefore, for valuable consideration, COUNTY agrees to purchase and DISTRICT agrees to sell the
Property upon the terms and conditions stated herein.
1. PURCHASE PRICE
The purchase price of the Property shall be Two Hundred Ninety-Three Thousand Six Hundred
Dollars($293,600.00).
2. DELIVERY OF PURCHASE PRICE
Within 10 days after execution of this Agreement, COUNTY shall transfer the purchase price of
$293,600.00, adjusted as provided for in Section 14 of this Agreement, into the Property Services
Trust Fund administered by the Public Facilities and Resources Department, County of Orange,
("PFRD"). The purchase price shall be held in said Trust Fund until such time as the executed Grant
Deed is delivered to COUNTY,whereupon the purchase price shall be transferred into a DISTRICT
account.
3. DELIVERY OF DEED
Upon completion of the improvements described in Section 11 of this Agreement, DISTRICT shall
promptly execute and deliver the Grant Deed for the Property to COUNTY. "Completion," as used
herein,is defined in Section 13 of this Agreement.
ant by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/14/01 14:30; E&x N166;Pa9e 2/2
- tr
4. COUNTY'S COSTS
COUNTY shall pay all costs in connection with the purchase and sale of the Property. Such costs
may include,but are not limited to,escrow fees, title insurance policy fees, documentary transfer tax,
recording fees, and preliminary change of ownership fees,if any.
5. DISTRICT'S COSTS
DISTRICT shall pay no costs in connection with the purchase and sale of the Property.
6. PRORATIONS
There shall be no proration made in connection with this purchase and sale.
7. TITLE INSURANCE
COUNTY has obtained and reviewed Preliminary Report OR No. 2031843, dated April 24, 2000,for
the Property through First American Title Insurance Company.
There shall be no policy of title insurance provided by DISTRICT in connection with COUNTY's
purchase of the Property. However,COUNTY may obtain a policy of title insurance at COUNTY's
sole cost and expense.
8. CONDITION OF TITLE
COUNTY shall take title to the Property subject to all matters of record and other matters apparent or
known to COUNTY, including:
A. That certain Stipulation and Judgment, filed July 21, 1995 in Califamia Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, for Case No. BS029472,between the City of Orange, as
Plaintiff/Petitioner, and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's Department,Brad Gates,
Chief Administrative Officer of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's Department, Orange
County Board of Supervisors,and Does 1 through 100, as Defendants/Respondents, which
may require that all or portions of the Property be included as part of a future Metropolitan
Drive road project;
B. That certain First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding Dated April 5, 1991
between the City of Orange and the County of Orange,dated March 31, 1998,which may
require that all or portions of the Property be included as part of a future Metropolitan Drive
road project;
C. Various Property Encroachment Permits issued to the Orange County Sanitation District,
hereinafter"the Sanitation District," for sewer lines and related improvements.
D. The Reservations and Restrictions specified in Section 16 of this Agreement.
ant by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :27; ltt&&_#142;Page 4
9. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
COUNTY has obtained and reviewed a Hazardous Material,Phase I Report for the Property.
10. PROPERTY PURCHASED "AS-IS"
COUNTY acknowledges that DISTRICT has made no representations, warranties, or agreements as
to any matters concerning the Property, other than contained herein, including, but not limited to, the
marketability of title,the land, topography, climate, air, water, water rights, utilities,present or future
zoning, soil,sub-soil, hazardous substances, waste, or materials, the purposes for which the Property
is suited,drainage, access to public roads, proposed routes or extensions of roads, or the availability
of goventmentat permits or approvals of any kind. COUNTY represents and warrants to DISTRICT
that COUNTY has made its own independent inspection and investigation of the Property and
COUNTY agrees to purchase the PROPERTY in its "as-is"condition.
11. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
In order to accommodate COUNTY's intended use of the Property, certain improvements must be
made to the segment of the Santa Ana River Regional Trail and Bikeway on DISTRICT's land
adjacent to the east of the Property and to the Property itself. Therefore, prior to DISTRICT
executing and delivering the Grant Deed for the Property, COUNTY shall cause the following
improvements, hereinafter"the Required Improvements," to be completed at COUNTY's expense
and at no cost to DISTRICT:
A. Installation of a Bikeway/DISTRICT maintenance road approximately 2,040 feet in length;
B. Installation of a Riding and Hiking Trail approximately 2,040 feet in length;
C. Installation of a Landscape Area, including new compacted fill and excluding landscaping, _
approximately 2,040 feet in length. The Landscape Area will vary in width per plans to be
approved by the PFRD Director, or designee, (the"Director';
D. Installation of block wall fencing, including a 20-foot wide gate, along the most easterly
portion of the Property;
E. Removal of surplus riprap slope protection where needed to complete the above
improvements. All riprap removed shall be salvaged,transported to, and stockpiled at a site
to be designated by the Director.
The Required Improvements are shown and generally described on the Cross-Section Plan attached
hereto as Attachment 11.
Prior to commencement of construction of the Required Improvements, COUNTY shall obtain a
Property Encroachment Permit through PFRD Real Property Division and shall provide all plans and
specifications requested by the Director for issuance of said Permit COUNTY shall comply with all
conditions of said Permit and agrees that any such conditions shall be conditions hereof as though
originally stated herein.
;ent by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :28; 19tFiax #142;Page 5
COUNTY agrees that all Required Improvements shall be completed in such a manner that will not
interfere with DISTRICT's operation and maintenance of the adjacent flood control channel or with
the Sanitation District's existing improvements and rights on the Property and DISTRICT's adjacent
land. COUNTY fmtheT agrees to obtain directly from the Sanitation District its related construction
requirements.
12. MECHANICS LIENS OR STOP-NOTICES
COUNTY shall indemnify and save DISTRICT harmless from all claims, losses, demands, damages,
costs, expenses, or liability costs for labor ar materials in connection with construction of the
Required Improvements on the Property and DISTRICT's adjacent land, and from the cost of
defending against such claims, including attorney fees and costs.
In the event a lien or stop-notice is imposed as a result of such construction, COUNTY shall either:
A. Record a valid Release of Lien,or
B. Procure and record a bond in accordance with Section 3143 of the Civil Code, which frees
property from the claims of a lien or stop-notice and from action brought to foreclose
thereon.
13. COMPLETION OF REQUIRED IMPROVMENTS
The Required Improvements shall be considered completed upon written approval by the Director of
the Permit Inspector's Report stating that the Required Improvements were completed in a
satisfactory manner per instructions and plans and upon DISTRICT's verification that the block wail
fencing constructed on the Property does not encroach onto DISTRICT's adjacent land. DISTRICT's
approval and verification shall be completed within 30 days of receipt of said Report.
14. VALUE OF BETTERMENTS
COUNTY and DISTRICT acknowledge that the completion of the Required Improvements will
result in a betterment to this segment of the Santa Ana River Regional Trail and Bikeway.
Furthermore,COUNTY and DISTRICT hereby agree that the monetary value of this betterment is
Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($11,650.00). DISTRICT further agrees to allow
COUNTY to deduct this value from the purchase price of the Property.
IS. MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS
COUNTY shall have all maintenance obligations for the block wall fencing referred to in Section 11
of this Agreement. Furthermore, any and all graffiti placed on said fencing which is visible from
DISTRICT's adjacent land shall be removed by COUNTY within 72 horns of COUNTY's receipt of
Director's written notice to remove same.
ent by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11:28; JAt&L-0142;Page 8/16
16. RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
COUNTY acknowledges and agrees that DISTRICT shall reserve an ingress and egress easement in,
over, and across the Property for purposes of access to DISTRICT's adjacent land. This easement
shall include the right to use and pass through perimeter gates on the Property as needed for such
access.
COUNTY also acknowledges and agrees that DISTRICT shall restrict the development of the
Property to limit its use to a surface parking lot, excluding the right to construct or permit thereon
buildings or permanents structures of any kind, except fencing. This restriction shall include the right
of reversion in the event of a breach by COUNTY.
Said reservations and restrictions shall be included in the Grant Deed to be executed by DISTRICT.
17. HOLD HARMLESS
COUNTY agrees to indemnify, defend with counsel approved by DISTRICT, and save DISTRICT
and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents,employees, and contractors harmless from
any or all penalties, liabilities, or losses resulting from claims or court actions arising directly or
indirectly out of any injury to persons or damage to property by reason of the acts or omissions,
intentional or otherwise, of COUNTY or its agents, employees, or contractors in exercising any of the
conditions of this Agreement,or in consequence thereof, or resulting from DISTRICT's operation,
maintenance, repair, reconstruction,replacement, or enlargement of the adjacent flood control facility
or from flood or overflow conditions. If DISTRICT undertakes to represent itself as co-defendant in
such legal action, COUNTY shall pay to DISTRICT its litigation costs and expenses and expert
witness and attorney's fees. lfjudgment is entered against COUNTY and DISTRICT by a court of
competent jurisdiction because of the concurrent active negligence of COUNTY and DISTRICT,
both parties agree that liability will be apportioned as determined by the court. Neither party shall
request a jury apportionment. The foregoing indemnification shall not apply to DISTRICT's gross
negligent acts or DISTRICT's acts of willful misconduct.
18. PARTIAL INVALIDITY
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of California.
The invalidity of any provision in this Agreement, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction,
shall in no way affect the validity of any other provision hereof.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the matters herein,
and there are no restrictions,promises,warranties,or undertakings other than those set forth or
referred to herein.
20. AMENDMENTS
No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and
signed by the parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be
binding on any of the parties.
not by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :28; ]etyr p142;Page 7116
21. TIME
Time is of the essence in the performance of the respective obligations contained in this Agreement.
Failure to comply with any time requirement contained herein shall constitute a material breach of
this Agreement.
22. NOTICES
All notices, documents, correspondence,and communications concerning this purchase and sale shall
be addressed as set forth below, or as the parties may hereafter designate by giving 10 days prior
written notice, and shall be sent through the United States mail, duly registered or certified with
postage prepaid. Any such mailing shall be deemed served or delivered 24 hours after mailing.
Notwithstanding the above, either parry may also provide notices, documents, correspondence, or
such other communications by personal delivery, regular mail, or facsimile, and, so given, shall be
deemed to have been given upon receipt if provided by personal delivery or facsimile, or 48 hours
after mailing if provided by regular mail.
COUNTY DISTRICT
County of Orange Orange County Flood Control District
Sheriff-Coroner Department PFRD Real Property Manager
300 N. Flower Street, 6" Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Telephone: Telephone: (714)834-4792
Facsimile: Facsimile: (714) 834-2870
23. ATTACHMENTS
This Agreement includes the following, which are attached and made a part hereof:
I. Grant Deed
II. Cross-Section Plan
ant by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :29; Fax N142;Page 8116
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first written
above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Laurence M. Watson, County Counsel
By
Deputy
Date O O
COUNTY
County of Orange,
a body corporate and politic
B ate^
Y
Chairman,Board of Supervisors
DISTRICT
Orange County Flood Control District,
a body
co ra
corrporate and politic
By
Chairman,Board of Supervisors ,
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF
THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN DELIVERED TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD.
By
DARLENE I. LOOM
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Orange and governing board of the
Orange County Flood Control District,
Orange County, California
ant by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 B342496; 03/13/01 11 :29; JgtFar g142;Page 9/15
ATTACr` J'1
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF: P t# �7
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
County of Orange
Sheriff Coroner Department
320 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, California 92703
Attn: Financial/Administrative Services
FREE RECORDING REQUESTED PER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27393 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX S -0-
Computed on the consideration or value of property
conveyed; OR
Computed on the consideration or value less liens or
encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
x Exempt per Revenue & Taxation Code Section 11922
A.P. No.: portion ofparcels By:
002-231-04 and 22 PFRD Real Property
Unincorporated area
x Incorporated City of Orange
Projeet/ParcelNo: E01-1105.1
Project: Santa Ana River Channel
GRANT DEED
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic. Grantor,
does hereby grant to:
COUNTY OF ORANGE, a body corporate and politic, Grantee,
the real property in the County of Orange, State of California, described in Exhibit"A"attached
hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
This grant is subject to:
1. The reservations and restrictions described herein below:
Reservations
Grantor hereby reserves an ingress and egress easement in, over, and across the property
described in this Deed for purposes of access to Grantor's adjacent property. This easement
includes Grantor's right to use and pass through perimeter gates on the property as needed
,nt oy: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :29; JetFax N142;Page 10/16
ATTACK. NT Page a d
Restrictions
The use of the property described in this Deed shall be limited to the construction, operation,
and maintenance of a surface parking lot No buildings or permanent structures of any kind,
with the exception of fencing, shall be placed on the property. A breach of the foregoing
condition shall cause the property to automatically and unconditionally revert to Grantor, or
its successors or assigns.
Grantee herein agrees and covenants by its acceptance of this Deed, that in the event of a
breach of the foregoing condition, Grantee shall convey the property to Grantor, free and
clear of any and all liens, encumbrances, or claims suffered by Grantee or arising in any way
connected with the use of the property as a surface parking lot. In the event of reversion,
Grantee shall execute a grant deed in favor of Grantor and deliver said deed to Grantor upon
written notice from Grantor that Grantee is in breach of said forgoing condition.
2. The terms and conditions contained in that certain Purchase Agreement dated
between Grantor and Grantee, including, ban not limited to, the following:
A. Grantee shall have all maintenance obligations for fencing installed on the property by
Grantee. Any and all graffiti placed on said fencing which is visible from Grantor's adjacent
land shall be removed by Grantee within 72 hours of Grantee's receipt of Grantor's written
notice to remove same.
B. Grantee shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by Grantor, and save Grantor
and its elected and appointed officials, officers,agents, employees, and contractors harmless
from any or all penalties, liabilities,or losses resulting from claims or court actions arising
directly or indirectly out of any injury to persons or damage to property by reason of the acts
or omissions,intentional or otherwise, of Grantee or its agents, employees, or contractors, or
resulting from Grantor's operation,maintenance, repair, reconstruction,replacemen4 or
enlargement of the adjacent flood control facility or from flood or overflow conditions. If
Grantor undertakes to represent itself as co-defendant in such legal action, Grantee shall pay
to Grantor its litigation costs and expenses and expert witness and attorney's fees. If
judgment is entered against Grantee and Grantor by a court of competent jurisdiction
because of the concurrent active negligence of Grantee and Grantor, both parties agree that
liability will be apportioned as determined by the court. Neither party shall request a jury
apportionment. The foregoing indemnification shall not apply to Grantor's gross negligent
acts or Grantor's acts of willful misconduct.
3. All other matters of record and matters apparent or known to Grantee.
ant by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :30;
Ieff8JLY142;P1ge 11116
ATTACLWT-,f Pap 3 af..L
Dated ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF By
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED Chairman, Board of Supervisors
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
DARLENE 1. BLOOM
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors,governing
board of the Orange Counry Flood Control
District, Orange County,California
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
On .200 , before me, .a Notary Public in and for said
County and State,personally appeared
personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the persons(s)whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged m me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their authorized capaciry(ies), and that by histher.'their
signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in teal propertyconveyed by the within deed or grant to the COUNTY OF
ORANGE,a body corporate and politic, is hereby accepted by order of the Board of Supervisors or0ranae
County, California, and the COUNTY OF ORANGE consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Dated By
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Document: Grant Deed
Grantor/Grantee: Orange County Flood Control District/County of Orange
APPROVALS
Approved as to form: Legal description reviewed and approved by PFRD
Laurance M. Watson, County Counsel �-( RO(W�P:� /'� /�
B C IPFWn Date J ( 23 /oo By\iZo,R�u'Cy 'Date 5l($�OO
ant by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :30; Jalrglt_R142;Page 12/16
Page 1 of 4 T Page`� of '7
Legal Description ATWHMENT_
May 15.2000
Legal Description
That portion of the "Dawn Tract" in the County of Orange. State of
California, as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 8, Page 21 of
Miscellaneous .Maps, records of said County of Orange, and that
portion of the "Potts, Borden and Sidwell Tract" in said County of
Orange, as shown on a map thereof recorded in Book 4, Page 624 of
Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, California, and that
portion of the "Lockhart Tract" in said County of Orange, as shown on
a map thereof recorded in Book 4, Pages 512 and 513 of
Miscellaneous Records of said Los Angeles County, described as a
whole as follows:
Commencing at the southerly terminus of that certain tangent portion of
the centerline of The City Drive, said southerly terminus being
monumented as shown on a map filed in Book 62, Page 43 of Parcel
Maps, records of said County of Orange, from which the intersection of
the centerlines of The City Drive and Chapman Avenue, monumented
as shown on said parcel map, bears North 00040'40" East a distance of
1245.78 feet (shown as North 00012'43" West a distance of 1245.75
feet on said parcel map); thence North 00040'40" East, along said
centerline of The City Drive, a distance of 105.44 feet to the intersection
of said centerline with the westerly prolongation of the southerly line of
Parcel 1 as per said parcel map; thence South 89019'04" East, along
the westerly prolongation of said southerly line (shown as North
89147'27" East on said parcel map), to the southwest comer of said
Parcel 1, said corner being 50,00 feet easterly of the centerline of The
City Drive; thence South 89019'04" East, along the southerly line of said
Parcel 1, a distance of 885.52 feet (shown as North 89'47'27" East a
distance of 885.46 feet on said parcel map); thence North 66'51'48"
East (shown as North 65058'13" East on said parcel map) a distance of
35.14 feet; thence North 53006'09" East (shown as North 52012'31"
East on said parcel map) a distance of 49.90 feet; thence South
89321'42" East (shown as North 89044'50" East on said parcel map) a
distance of 48.25 feet; thence South 59058'55" East (shown as North
60052'18" West on said parcel map) a distance of 26.00 feet; thence
South 89021'34" East, continuing along the southerly line of said Parcel
nt by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :30; )pffg;_N142;Page 13/16
Page 2 of 4 ATTAChrJEW age5 Of?
Legal 0escriplion
May 15.2000
1 , a distance of 517.81 feet to a point being the easterly terminus of that
certain course shown as North 89044'50" East a distance of 517.83 feet
on said parcel map, said course being monumented as shown thereon,
said point also being the southerly terminus of that certain southeasterly
course of the land described in the Grant Deed to the Regents of
University of California recorded July 1, 1976 in Book 11795, Page
1282 of Official Records of said County, shown therein as North
40051'57" West 42.00 feet; thence North 39058'21" West, along said
course, a distance of 42.00 feet; thence North 50001'26" East,
continuing along the southerly line of the land described in said Grant
Deed (shown as North 49008'03" East in said Grant Deed) a distance of
98.23 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Parcel 1 from which the
southerly terminus thereof bears South 39058'34" East a distance of
251.06 feet; thence South 39058'34" East (shown as North 40051'57"
West on said parcel map, and as South 39058'49" East in the following
described Instrument), along the westerly right-of-way line of the
Southern Pacific Railroad as shown on said parcel map, a distance of
420.49 feet to a point being the northerly most corner of the land
described in the Grant Deed to the State of California recorded October
6, 1995 in Instrument 19950440367 of official Records of said County,
said point being South 39058'34" East 169.43 feet from the easterly
most corner of said Parcel 1, said point also being the beginning of a
non-tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of
5161.86 feet (shown as a grid distance of 5161.75 feet in said
instrument), a radial line through said point bears South 54000'31 " West
(shown as South 54000'16" West in said instrument); thence
southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of
3058'30" (shown as 3058'36" in said instrument) a distance of 358.11
feet (shown as a grid distance of 358.27 feet in said instrument) to a
point on the northwesterly line of the 600.00 foot-wide strip of land
described as "Parcel 1" in the deed to the County of Orange recorded
May 25. 1932 in Book 557, Page 264 of Official Records of said County.
said point being the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave
northwesterly, from which the radius point thereof bears North 59016'41"
West a distance of 700.00 feet; thence southwesterly along the
northwesterly !ine of said 600.00 foot-wide strip of land and along the
arc of said curve through a central angle of 3023'32" a distance of 41.44
feet to a point, said point being the westerly terminus of that certain
course shown as South 39058'04" East a grid distance of 439.07 feet in
Parcel No. 200875-5 of Easement Deed to the State of California
714 8342490; 03/13/01 11:31; 6�6
�LN142;Page 14/16
g 7 of
Legal Descdpnon
ATTACHMENT I Page 6 of L
Le
May 15, 2000
recorded September 4, 1998 in Instrument 19980593748 of Official
Records of said County, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing along the northwesterly line of said
600.00 foot-wide strip of land, and along the arc of said curve, through
a central angle of 12°51'10" a distance of 157.03 feet; thence continuing
along the northwesterly line of said 600.00 foot-wide strip of land, South
46°58'01" West a distance of 26.96 feet to the beginning of a curve
concave southeasterly having a radius of 2300.00 feet; thence
continuing along the northwesterly line of said 600.00 foot-wide strip of
land and along the arc of said curve through a central angle of
22a34'47" a distance of 906.41 feet to a point on the southerly terminus
of said 600.00 foot-wide strip of land and the northerly line of the 630.00
foot-wide strip of land described as "Parcel 2" in said deed to the
County of Orange recorded May 25, 1932; thence North 65'36'46" West
along said northerly line, said line being radial to the previously
described curve, a distance of 15.00 feet to the northwesterly corner of
said 630.00 foot-wide strip of land; thence South 24°23'14" West along
the northwesterly line of said 630.00 foot-wide strip of land a distance of
1060.14 feet to a paint, said point being the most easterly corner of the
land described as Parcel 1 in the Grant Deed to the State of California
recorded November 6, 1962 in Book 6311, Page 631 of Official Records
of said County, said point being 150.00 feet northerly of the centerline
of the Garden Grove Freeway (as measured at right angles thereto) as
shown on a map filed in Book 85, Page 1 of Records of Survey, records .
of said County; thence South 88050'31" East, along a line parallel with
said freeway centerline (said centerline shown as North 88'50'55" West
on said map and South 88050'38" East on California Division of
Highways Right-of-Way Map F-1255 filed as Garden Grove Freeway
Plan #8461 in the office of the County Surveyor of said County), a
distance of 143.64 feet to a point an the easterly line of the westerly
132.00 feet of said 630.00 foot-wide strip of land (as measured at right
angles thereto); thence North 24023'14" East, along the easterly line of
said westerly 132.00 feet, a distance of 897.37 feet; thence South
65°36'46" East a distance of 3.00 feet; thence North 24"23'14" East,
along the easterly line of the westerly 135.00 feet of said 630.00 foot-
wide strip of land, a distance 106.11 feet to a point on the northerly line
of said 630.00 foot-wide strip of land and the southerly line of the
previously described 600.00 foot-wide strip of land, said point being on
the easterly line of the westerly 120.00 feet of said 600.00 foot-wide
strip of land (as measured at right angles thereto), said point also being
,nt by: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 714 8342496; 03/13/01 11 :31 ; )9LE i-R142;Page 15116
?
Page d of a Page of
legal Gesm�plion ATTACHMENT
May 15, 2000
the beginning of a curve concave southeasterly having a radius of
2180.00 feet; thence northeasterly along the easterly line of said
westerly 120.00 feet and along the arc of said curve through a central
angle of 3018'00" a distance of 125.56 feet; thence North 62*18'46"
West, along a line radial to said curve, a distance of 3.00 feet to a point
on the easterly line of the westerly 117,00 feet of said 600.00 foot-wide
strip of land, said point being the beginning of a curve concave
southeasterly having a radius of 2183.00 feet, said curve being
concentric with the previously described curve; thence northeasterly
along the easterly line of said westerly 117.00 feet and along the arc of
said curve through a central angle of 19016'47" a distance of 734.57
feet; thence North 46058'01" East, along the easterly line of said
westerly 117.00 feet, a distance of 26.96 feet; thence North 43°01'59"
West a distance of 37.00 feet to a point on the easterly line of the
westerly 80.00 feet of said 600.00 foot-wide strip of land, said point
being the beginning of a curve concave northwesterly having a radius of
780.00 feet, said curve being concentric with the curve previously
described herein having a radius of 700.00 feet; thence northeasterly
along the easterly line of said westerly 80.00 feet and along the arc of
said curve through a central angle of 11011'00" a distance of 152.24 feet
to a point on the previously described course shown as South 39°58'04"
East a grid distance of 439.07 feet in Parcel No. 200875-5 of said
Easement Deed to the State of California, thence North 39057'49" West
along said course a distance of 82.84 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Subject parcel containing 5.872 Acres more or less
NpL 11N°suv
t L,� 1�! /' •S_C� - - OG a` 4S.6254 � s
Michael K. Sullivan Date * EW-6.3a'0
Professional land Surveyor r
Certificate No. 6254 �r4'FeFc
Expiration Date: June 30, 2002
ti
a
ti
a
n
N
O
m
z
0
N
z
m
m
a
z
.n cr
a
a
ti
a
38' MINIMUM
II A
wWIDTH VARIES 12' Z. 1 10' 2' a
BIKEWAY / min- RIDING AND HIKING y m
m
r x LANDSCAPE AREA MAINTENANCE ROAD TRAIL z
m
r a
F14"asphalt/native soil "decomposed granite
,• , • , • •,••••• COMPACTED •• •,•, • ,•, ',•,','� 4"a99regate base
0
• •• .•. •. FILL .•. .•. N
. . .• '• . .' .• ' '. . . .
EXISTING LEVEE
EXISTING GROUND
pyN¢
A
N
d
W
CROSS-SECTION PLAN
Agenda Item No.3
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 28, 2001
TO: Board of Directors, Orange County Sanitation District
And
Board of Directors, Orange County Water District
FROM: Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
STAFF CONTACTS:
OCSD: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager
Wendy Sevenandt
OCWD: William R. Mills Jr., General Manager
Thomas M. Dawes
SUBJECT: CONSULTING AND STAFFING SERVICES FOR FINAL DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND START-UP SERVICES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT
SYSTEM (Orange County Sanitation District JOB NO. J-36)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee recommends to
the Boards of Directors of the Orange County Water District and the Orange County
Sanitation District to take the following actions:
OCWD AND OCSD
A. Approve Addendum No. 3 to Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. increasing the
authorized amount by $29,924,187, from $5,039,920 to an amount not to
exceed $34,964,107 for final design, construction support services, and start-
up services for the Groundwater Replenishment System. The amount shall
be split equally between Orange County Water District and Orange County
Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
B. Approve Addendum No. 2 to Separation Processes Inc., Task Order
No. 201301 increasing the authorized amount by $1,455,530, from $445,880
to an amount not to exceed $1,901,410 for the final design of the
Microfiltration and Reverse Osmosis components of the Groundwater
Replenishment System. The amount shall be split equally between Orange
County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District.
I�menNWr%nUn10WRSVyOW.SIIm U,1P MIN J107 PRWEC IMPEVTWATIONI. O
Rw1.oE W. Page 1
Agenda Item No. 3
2003.) The cost is estimated at $700,000, shared equally between Orange
County Sanitation District and Orange County Water District.
OCWD AND OCSD
c Ann nvA a four-vear limited-term Orange County Water District employment
Agenda Item No. 3
OCWD AND OCSD
C. Approve Addendum No. 2 to Task Order No. 201312 with Carl R. Nelson,
increasing the authorized amount by$371,000, from $61,200 to an amount
not to exceed $432,200 for four years of project support in securing permits,
rights-of-way agreements, reviewing plans, and providing liaison with
agencies during construction, and water pipeline construction overview. The
contract includes annual hourly rates at:
• $89 per hour for April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002;
• $92 per hour for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003;
• $95 per hour for April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004; and
• $98 per hour for April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.
The amount shall be split equally between Orange County Water District and
Orange County Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
D. Approve a Task Order to Gerald Jones, dba Linjer Company, for an amount
not to exceed $97,400 for specialty services for the final design of the
Groundwater Replenishment System, which includes assistance in
developing and implementing the integrated computerized systems and the
supporting business plan. The amount shall be split equally between Orange
County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
E. Approve Addendum No. 4 to Task Order No. 200539 to James W. Williams
increasing the authorized amount by $148,400, from $35,000 to an amount
not to exceed $183,400 for specialized engineering services for four years of
project support for securing permits and rights-of-way agreements, providing
technical review, and serving on an independent review team at:
• $89 per hour for April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002;
• $92 per hour for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003;
• $95 per hour for April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004; and
• $98 per hour for April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.
The amount shall be split equally between Orange County Water District and
Orange County Sanitation District.
OCWD AND OCSD
F. Approve Addendum No. 2 to Task Order No. 202091 with Debra Bums, dba
DDB Engineering, Inc., to provide engineering services and serve as Project
Coordinator for the Groundwater Replenishment System, increasing the
maximum hours from 1500 hours per year to 1800 hours per year; extending
the contract time from October 11, 2003 to October 10, 2005 at hourly rates
of:
$90 per hour for October 11, 2003 to October 10, 2004; and
$93 per hour, October 11, 2004 to October 10, 2005.
(Current approved rates vary from $78.75 per hour for October 11, 2000 to
October 10, 2001, to $86.82 per hour for October 11, 2002 to October 10,
pai,menMp•pNlypWp6Ugan0a&2mlbtlsi001➢Yf8 JCMT M WEU IMPLEME AnONI. 0 Page
NeW W: e"10.9B
Agenda Item No. 3
2003.) The cost is estimated at $700,000, shared equally between Orange
County Sanitation District and Orange County Water District.
OCWD AND OCSD
G. Approve a four-year limited-term Orange County Water District employment
agreement with Thomas M. Dawes to act as Program Manager for the
Groundwater Replenishment System at hourly rates of:
$95 per hour for April 23, 2001 to April 22, 2002;
$97 per hour for April 23, 2002 to April 22, 2003;
$99 per hour for April 23, 2003 to April 22, 2004; and
$100 per hour for April 23, 2004 to April 23, 2005.
The Limited-Term Employment contract provides for hourly rate compensation,
no benefits, a maximum pay of 40-hours per week, and contract cancellation on
a 30-day notice. The Orange County Sanitation District will reimburse the Orange
County Water District for half of the contract amount.
OCWD AND OCSD
H. Approve a four-year limited-term Orange County Water District employment
agreement with Laura Thomas to manage project tasks in the electrical and
instrumentation disciplines for the Groundwater Replenishment System at
hourly rates of;
$75 per hour for April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002;
$78.75 per hour for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003;
$82.69 per hour for April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004; and
$86.82 per hour for April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.
The Limited-Term Employment contract provides for hourly rate
compensation, no benefits, a maximum pay of 40-hours per week, and
contract cancellation on a 30-day notice. The Orange County Sanitation
District will reimburse the Orange County Water District for half of the contract
amount.
SUMMARY
This agenda item describes the proposed implementation plan to provide final design,
construction and start-up services for the Groundwater Replenishment System. The
plan is supported by organization charts, qualifications of team members, scopes of
work, proposed levels of work effort (hours), fees and rates, a schedule, and other
pertinent information.
Separately, and prior to acting on this item on March 28, 2001, the Boards of Directors
of the Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District will have
acted on the "go/no-go" and interim governance agenda items.
At Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee meetings in
October, November, and December, members reviewed alternative methods for
proceeding with final design, construction, and start-up of the Groundwater
1.N men vPIaVe1GWRWW Ma Svbm=ISU8811B 28 JOW PFOJEU IMP EWATIONIDOL
xeawa: ermne Page 3
Agenda Item No. 3
Replenishment System. The Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative
Committee authorized staff to negotiate with the Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team for
final design, construction support, and start-up services to implement the project. The
Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee also authorized staff
to negotiate specialty consulting contracts with several firms and individuals for
specialized technical and professional services, nearly all of which worked on the
Project Development Phase. Staff recommended that proposals be solicited from
qualified consultants for construction management services if the Boards approve
implementation of the project.
This report summarizes the results of staffs negotiations with the Camp Dresser&
McKee Inc. Team and the specialty consultants. The organization, qualifications, and
scopes of work for the entire project team, which consists of 28 firms and individuals,
are described herein. Of these 28 firms and individuals, 17 firms are members of the
Camp Dresser& McKee Inc.led Team. Breakdowns of the level of effort and fees are
presented for review. The total cost is approximately $34 million.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
The eight proposed professional services actions represent an estimated $33,696,517
to be shared equally between the Orange County Water District and Orange County
Sanitation District.
Addendum No. 3 with Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. provides an annual cost of living
adjustment for remaining funds once a year, within limits of 0 to 5%, based on the
consumer price index, Los Angeles. An annual adjustment to their professional
services agreement will be presented to the Boards of Directors for approval.
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BUDGET IMPACT
® This item has been budgeted. (Line item:CORF Water Management Projects, Pg 164)
❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
❑ This item has not been budgeted.
❑ Not applicable (information item)
Authorization of $16,848,259 is being requested for the Orange County Sanitation
District share of the eight proposed contracts.
Please refer to the attached Budget Information Table.
OC WD BUDGET IMPACT
The Groundwater Replenishment System is included in the budget of Orange County
Water District. The project cost, to be shared equally by both Orange County Water
District and Orange County Sanitation District, is $352 million. This will be
supplemented by state and federal grants. We have secured $57.5 million in grants and
I:IDoamenabv PMU1 PZIVu EuOmltleNU0 M1 28 JM7 PRWECT WUMEMAMN,ACC
Rewea: mass Page 4
Agenda Item No. 3
expect more. The Orange County Water District line-item number for the project is
5014030-600.70-01.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Many project implementation issues, including final design, construction management,
project delivery methods, equipment procurement, and construction sequencing, have
been presented and discussed in recent months. Attachment 1 summarizes the
presentations and discussions related to project implementation issues from Joint
Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee meetings in October,
November and December 2000, January, February, and March 2001.
The final design, construction, and start-up phases of the project will include the
following major work items:
• Pre-selection of equipment (2 contracts)
• Construction contracts (12 contracts)
• Design drawings and specifications (Estimated 2,353 plan sheets)
• Specialty engineering design services (membranes, surveying, potholing,
geotechnical, noise, corrosion, and computer systems)
• Contractor shop drawings (Estimated 5,000 submittals)
• Contractor Requests for Information (Estimated 10,000 submittals)
• Technical review/oversight
• Value engineering
• Construction management
• Equipment testing/demonstration (ongoing to verify compliance)
• Public information program
• Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee and
Board direction/decisions
Two alternative methods for implementing the Groundwater Replenishment System
have been presented for consideration by the Joint Groundwater Replenishment
System Cooperative Committee: (1) Dividing the project into components and awarding
separate Professional Services Agreements for each component; and (2) Maintaining
the project as a whole and awarding one Professional Service Agreement for all the
work. Under either alternative, staff would manage the overall project, including
coordinating with the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
and the Boards of Directors, working with outside interests on environmental and
financial issues (loans and grants), conducting research/demonstration projects,
resolving permitting and right-of-way issues, managing the Public Information Program,
and managing the final design, construction, and start-up of the facilities.
Staff recommended maintaining the project as a whole, but dividing the effort between
two Consultant Teams and the in-house Project Staff Team. The first Consultant Team
would focus on the final design, construction support(submittal review), and start-up
tasks, while the second Consultant Team would focus on construction management.
I.�MVo\OWNSUgaMa5u4m:TabVW110.Y2B J=7% EU MMMEWAMNLD
tea:a W Page 5
Agenda Item No. 3
The efforts of the in-house Project Staff Team would be focused on the overall program
management and specialty engineering services. The Joint Groundwater
Replenishment System Cooperative Committee concurred with this project
implementation method at its December 18, 2000 meeting.
Also at the December Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative
Committee meeting, staff recommended that the Joint Groundwater Replenishment
System Cooperative Committee continue with the Camp Dresser& McKee Inc.-led
Consultant Team for the final design, construction support (submittal review), and start-
up services. The Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Team did an excellent job on the Project
Development Phase, which was completed in December 2000. The Camp Dresser&
McKee Inc. Team, which was selected after an extensive competitive procurement
process, consists of a consortium of 17 firms, with Camp Dresser& McKee Inc., Brown
and Caldwell, and Tetra-Tech ASL as principals. The Camp Dresser& McKee Inc.
Team, with a local staff resource level of over 1000 people, has met schedules,
performed the work under budget, produced quality products, and worked well with both
Districts and regulators. Staff noted that by staying with the Camp Dresser& McKee
Inc. Team, project continuity would be maintained. Costs and time delays that would be
inherent with a new Consultant Team's"learning curve" could be avoided. Following
discussion, the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
authorized staff to negotiate with the Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Team for final design,
construction support, and start-up services.
In addition, the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee
authorized staff to negotiate with the following specialty consulting firms and individuals
that will provide technical expertise:
• Separation Processes Inc. (Microfiltration & Reverse Osmosis)
• Carl Nelson (Permits, Right-of-Way)
• James Williams (Independent Review)
• Independent Technical Review Committee (Professors and industry
leaders for oversight)
With regard to construction management services, staff recommended that proposals
be solicited from qualified Consultants at the January 8, 2001, Joint Groundwater
Replenishment System Cooperative Committee meeting. Staff will prepare a Scope of
Work for these services. If the project implementation is approved, requests for
proposals will be issued for construction management services. In addition, a work plan
for Public Information Services will also be developed for review by the Joint
Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee next month, with
procurement of services to follow shortly.
The following discussion/analysis focuses on the project implementation plan and the
results of the negotiations with the Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team and the specialty
consultants.
I:IWcs,menNWv PhUMGWRS0NVGa SuOmMaISVC0110&40 JM7W EC IMPI EMA=NI. 4
R.w WM Page 6
Agenda Item No. 3
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Implementation of the Groundwater Replenishment System will involve three major
steps to take the project from preliminary (30%) design through final design,
construction, and start-up.
The first step toward project implementation is completion of the final design. Because
of the magnitude and complexity of the project, a team of specialized engineers and
professionals is needed to design the project components and prepare the final
drawings and specifications. The design team's work will concentrate on final design of
the facilities, but will also provide related engineering services through the latter project
stages to ensure that the intent of the design is maintained.
The second step is actual construction of the Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) plant
pump station, Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline, barrier pipeline, wells, and other
components. The project will be divided into 12 separate construction contracts. A
construction manager will coordinate the construction contractors' work and provide
inspection services. The design team for compliance with the drawings and
specifications will review shop-drawing submittals.
The third step is operational start-up of the project facilities. Start-up will include testing,
training of operations staff, and preparation of operation and maintenance manuals.
The design team will assist with these start-up tasks.
Implementation of the Groundwater Replenishment System requires an organized
approach, carefully orchestrated and closely managed by Orange County Water District
and Orange County Sanitation District staff, and the Joint Groundwater Replenishment
System Cooperative Committee. The coordinated plan is described below and in the
attached documents for your review and consideration.
ORGANIZATION CHART
The organization charts included in Attachment 2 illustrate how the entire project team
Will work together. A total of 28 firms and individuals, plus agency staff, will be
responsible for completion of the tasks, according to their expertise and experience.
Attachment 2 is comprised of the following figures:
Figure 1 Overview of Project Implementation Organization Chart
Figure 2 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Team — Overall Firm Organization
Figure 3 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Team — Overall Organization
Figure 4 Program and Project Management- Project Team Organization
Figure 5 Barrier Facilities — Project Team Organization
Figure 6 Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline— Project Team Organization
Figure 7 AWT Facilities— Project Team Organization
Figure 8 Transactional Systems— Project Team Organization
I:10ecl,menM Plnll WnS nda Sudn'.:WV001W}26XM7PROJEMIMPLEMENIAnON1.DM
Reivtl:a Page 7
Agenda Item No. 3
Figure 9 Construction Support and Start-Up Services— Project Team
Organization
Figure 10 Technical Support— Project Organization
Figure 1 shows the overall project team, the in-house Project Staff Team, the Design
Consultant Team led by Camp Dresser& McKee Inc., and the Construction
Management Consultant (to be determined later through competitive proposals).
Of these 28 firms and individuals, 17 firms are members of the Camp Dresser & McKee
Inc. Team. The Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team will have primary responsibility for
the final design, construction support (submittal review), and start-up services. Figure 2
shows the roles of the firms on the Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team. The specific
individuals on the Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team and their assigned tasks are
described in more detail in Figures 3 through 10.
QUALIFICATIONS, ROLES AND WORK EFFORT
Attachment 3 presents a summary of the qualifications, scopes of work, and budgeted
work effort (hours)for each of the 28 firms and individuals comprising the project team.
The 17 firs comprising the Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team are listed and their
respective roles in the project are described. The hours shown are estimated for the
scopes of work over the four-year design, construction, and start-up period.
More detail on the specific responsibilities of each project team member is included as a
list of major tasks in the Attachments. This list provides a "thumbnail" description of the
scope of work for each firm and individual.
SCOPE OF WORK AND FEES
As directed by the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee,
staff negotiated the scopes of work, levels of effort, and fees with each of the project
team members. Attachment 4 summarizes the proposed fees for the project team
members along with a brief description of the associated scopes of work.
Attachment 4 shows the distribution of the work among the 28 firms and individuals (as
a percent of the total engineering, legal, and administrative (ELA) fee).
In an attempt to assess the "reasonableness" of the fees, staff evaluated the total final
design fee in two ways: (1) comparison with published industry guidelines for
engineering services, and (2) estimation of the approximate cost per sheet of plans.
The total final design fee accounts for 4.7% of the estimated construction cost. The
attachments present a breakdown of the engineering and administrative fees for each
work phase. This percentage is presented merely to compare with guidelines published
by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)for projects of this magnitude and
level of complexity. (ASCE - Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice— No. 45,
"Consulting Engineering, A Guide for the Engagement of Engineering Services")
i:e nm ProwwwPswamm"wbm!naIWOO,mi2e J=7 Pn E¢ iWLWEWATMNI, c
nm+.m:aurae Page 8
Agenda Item No. 3
According to the ASCE Manual, for projects of similar magnitude and level of
complexity, the average design fee would be about 6.5 percent of the estimated
construction cost. The proposed final design percentage for this project is lower than
this guideline, mostly due to the fad that the Project Development Phase (30% design)
has already been completed.
Another way to assess the "reasonableness" of the final design fee is based on cost per
sheet of engineering plans. The unit design fee for this project is approximately $6,178
per drawing. The basis for this unit cost is shown in the attachments. in comparison,
unit costs per drawing typically range from $7,000 to $9,000 per drawing for treatment
plant work and from $3,000 to $5,000 per drawing for pipeline work. Engineering
design fees tend to be higher on a unit cost per sheet basis for more complex projects,
such as treatment facilities. For the Groundwater Replenishment System final design,
the proposed unit cost per drawing falls within these ranges.
The attachments include a detailed breakdown of Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team
responsibilities and fees. The Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team consists of 17 firms.
Overall management of the team will be the responsibility of Camp Dresser& McKee
Inc., with other firms lending expertise required for specialized tasks. Addendum No. 3
with Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. provides an annual cost of living adjustment for
remaining funds once a year, within limits of 0 to 5%, based on the consumer price
index, Los Angeles.
SCHEDULE
Included as Attachment 5, the project schedule illustrates the timetable for
implementation of the entire project. It is anticipated that final design will begin in
April 2001. Construction of the project facilities will begin with one of the early-start
contracts as soon as May 2001 and other contracts follow later in 2001 through 2003.
Construction of all facilities should be completed by April 2005. Testing, start-up, and
operation and maintenance manuals should be completed by May 2005.
COMPUTER SYSTEMS
At the November 13, 2000, Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative
Committee meeting, staff reported on the Integration of process control and information
systems. These information systems include financial, laboratory, purchasing,
warehousing, and document management. Examples of computer system components
include operating and water quality data, equipment databases for maintenance and
asset management, and cost accounting for each asset.
Staff has continued the development of requirements for the computerized information
systems and the integration of the systems. These requirements have been
incorporated into the scope of work for the final design of the Groundwater
Replenishment System.
1?Da en vPInL IGWRSUpe a&bmWIc12W1b 26 JCMT PROJECT IN.PLE SWATMI.000
RevlaW: a�� Page 9
Agenda Item No. 3
The requirements included in the scope of work have been reviewed with the
departments within Orange County Water District that would be responsible for the
computerized systems and information. Each department supports the proposed
implementation of integrated information systems. Orange County Sanitation District
has or is integrating their information systems and fully supports the requirements in the
scope of work.
To implement the computerized information systems, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. will
take prime responsibility for the development and integration of the systems. The Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc. Team will include a systems integrator early in the design
process to support the information technology and integration requirements of the
project.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Construction will be managed by a separate outside Consultant with the assistance of
key agency staff and Project Team members. It is envisioned that requests for
proposals for construction management services will be sent to qualify consulting firms
in April 2001.
This "third party" Construction Management Team will work within the project
management framework of the overall staffing plan. Staff will prepare a detailed
construction management plan after the "Go/No Go" decision. The preliminary
construction management plan incorporates the following major elements:
• In-house Project Staff will head the program. Certain engineering staff working
on the design element will assume construction support duties, following their
work through design, construction, and start-up. Certain Orange County Water
District operators and maintenance personnel will be assigned to the team as
inspection personnel.
• The Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Team will provide construction support to the
Construction Management Team, specifically reviewing equipment "shop
drawings" (manufacturers' submittals), answering contractor and equipment
supplier"Requests for Information", and witnessing equipment tests.
• The Construction Management Team will provide the bulk of the construction
supervisors, resident engineers, and inspectors. The Construction Management
Team will schedule materials and equipment testing and provide document
control and plan check services.
VALUE ENGINEERING, ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION, AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION SERVICES
Requests for proposals will be sent in April 2001 to qualified firms to provide value
engineering, ultraviolet disinfection, and public information services.
1. c monM PUeWWRSftM Bul"NW41i001NY®JLQi WiWEC!RIPLEMENTATIDN1.WL
R"vi . ar Page 10
Agenda Item No.3
INDEPENDENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
A subcommittee of directors, general managers, and groundwater producers was
formed to review the proposed consulting services. The subcommittee recommended
that competitive proposals be solicited for.
1. Structural and electrical design services for the advanced water treatment
facilities;
2. Architectural services;
3. Computer system integration;
4. Ultraviolet process design criteria;
5. Value engineering;
6. Public information; and
7. Construction management
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative Is to solicit statements of qualifications and subsequently solicit proposals
for the work from other design firms.
CEGA FINDINGS
The Program Environmental Impact Report/Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement
(EIR/EIS) for the Groundwater Replenishment System has been completed by Orange
County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. The Orange County
Water District and Orange County Sanitation District Boards of Directors certified the
Final EIR in March 1999 for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Final EIS and Record of Decision were completed in August 2000 for
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
A program EIR was certified in October 1999 for Orange County Sanitation District's
1999 Strategic Plan. The Orange County Sanitation District Strategic Plan included the
Groundwater Replenishment System.
In the Final Program EIR/EIS for the Groundwater Replenishment System, the
emergency river discharge outlet was not specifically sited. Since its certification and
completion of 30% design, staff has finalized the location of the Santa Ana River
discharge outfall. In the Orange County Sanitation District's 1999 Strategic Plan
Program Environmental Impact Report, the Groundwater Replenishment System had
not addressed the issue of a river discharge. Staff prepared an addendum to the
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Program EIRIEIS and the Orange County
Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan Program EIR addressing minor changes such as
the rare emergency discharge of treated, disinfected water to the Santa Ana River at
Garfield Avenue. One addendum addresses both documents.
I:IOO ern vPInV WWRSVgeMn SvbmJb1k C0110J 28 JCCV PROJECT IMPIEMEN7ATION1.DOC
R...M:rxiee Page 11
Agenda Item No. 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of Previous Submittals and Discussions
2. Organizational Charts
a. Figure 1 Overview of Project Implementation Organization Chart
b. Figure 2 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team - Overall Finn Organization
c. Figure 3 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Team —Overall Organization
d. Figure 4 Program and Project Management- Project Team Organization
e. Figure 5 Barrier Facilities— Project Team Organization
f. Figure 6 Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline— Project Team Organization
g. Figure 7 AWT Facilities —Project Team Organization
h. Figure 8 Transactional Systems—Project Team Organization
i. Figure 9 Construction Support and Start-Up Services
j. Figure 10 Technical Support— Project Organization
3. Project Team Qualifications, Roles, and Work Effort
4. Project Team Breakdown of Fees
5. Schedule
6. OCSD Budget Information Table
7. PSA Status Report for Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
6. PSA Status Report for Separation Processes Inc.
9. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Addendum No. 3 to Agreement
HOaeunan PNUe1GNR "s EMmN VWJWI20 JCC%7 PROJECT Wn ME ATON1.000
R.v a Page t2
1
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of Previous Submittals and Discussions
2. Organizational Charts
a. Figure 1 Overview of Project Implementation Organization Chart
b. Figure 2 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Team - Overall Firm
Organization
c. Figure 3 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Team— Overall Organization
d. Figure 4 Program and Project Management- Project Team
Organization
e. Figure 5 Barrier Facilities — Project Team Organization
f. Figure 6 Groundwater Replenishment Pipeline —Project Team
Organization
g. Figure 7 AWT Facilities— Project Team Organization
h. Figure 8 Transactional Systems— Project Team Organization
I. Figure 9 Construction Support and Start-Up Services
j. Figure 10 Technical Support— Project Organization
3. Project Team Qualifications, Roles, and Work Effort
4. Project Team Breakdown of Fees
5. Schedule
6. OCSD Budget Information Table
7. PSA Status Report for Camp Dresser& McKee Inc.
8. PSA Status Report for Separation Processes Inc.
9. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Addendum No. 3 to Agreement
v
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS
SUBMITTALS AND DISCUSSIONS
v Attachment 1
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS AND DISCUSSIONS
PERTAINING TO
FINAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND START-UP SERVICES
SUMMARY
Project implementation focuses on final design, construction management and start-up
services to complete the project and meet the objectives of producing water and
providing peak flow relief for the OCSD ocean outfall by 2005. The JCC has considered
and discussed the subject of project implementation at meetings on October 16,
October 30, November 20, and December 18, 2000 and January 8, February 22, and
March 19, 2001. Alternative methods for project implementation and staffing have been
presented and discussed. This summary recaps the Agenda Item Submittals and
discussions from those meetings.
OCTOBER 16, 2000 MEETING
Consideration of project implementation began in earnest when Mr. Dawes requested
that a special workshop be scheduled. The JCC scheduled the workshop for October
30, 2000.
OCTOBER 30, 2000 MEETING
Two alternative methods for program management, including project implementation
and scheduling, were presented. The first alternative would break the project into
components or facilities, each with a separate final design, construction management
and start-up team with its own separate Professional Services Agreement. The second
alternative would maintain the project as a whole and have a single final design,
construction management and start-up team with one Professional Services Agreement
for all the work. In either case, the core Project Team would handle oversight for all
program management. Mr. Dawes reported that there would be little difference in cost
between the two alternatives. Following discussion, the JCC requested that staff
assess the pros and cons of each alternative for consideration at the next meeting.
NOVEMBER 20, 2000 MEETING
The two alternative project implementation methods were described in greater detail at
this meeting. Schematics of the alternatives are repeated below for reference.
Under either alternative, your staff would manage the project, including coordinating
with your JCC, the Boards of Directors, working with outside interests environmental
and financial (loan and grant issues), conducting research/demonstration projects,
resolving permits and right-of-way issues, managing the Public Information Program,
and managing the design and construction operation.
Attachment 1
1
ATTACHMENT
March 28, 2001
Page 2 of 8
OCWD/OCSD
Boards of Directors
General Managers Joint Cooperative Committee
Program Manager
Program Staff
Alternative t or Altemative 2
Altemative No. 1
Alternative No. 1 would break the project into increments, grouping the projects by
process and geographical area. Some of the broad groups for the work could be the
GWR Pipeline; the Barrier facilities (wells and well pipelines); and Advanced Water
Treatment facilities and pump stations (product water/barrier). Our staff would be
assigned to each contracting phase to ensure the increments 'fit' together. Consultants
would be selected via competitive procurement to design and provide support services
during construction of the works.
Attachment 1
1 ATTACHMENT 1
March 28, 2001
Page 3 of 8
Alternative No. 1
Program Manager
Program Management Stag
PermltlEasamanta I Public Information
Environmental
InEepentlent Quality
control
AWT Facilities/Pumping Facilities Banlor Facilities =Pipellne
Consultant No.1 Consultant No.2 Consultant No.3
Design Design Design
Cenatruction 1contrumion
Alternative No. 2
Under Altemative No. 2, most coordination efforts would be managed under a
Consultant Project Team that would not only be in charge of designing the facilities, but
would include scheduling and coordination of contracts. Less direct staff would be
needed under Alternative No. 2 than under Alternative No. 1.
Alternative No. 2
Program Manager
Program Management Staff
Independent Quality Control
Consultant Project Team
Public Information Design Permitting Construction
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT
March 28, 2001
Page 4 of 8
Evaluation of Alternatives
When evaluating the two options for program implementation, there are several key
factors to consider. These include:
• In-house staffing requirements for coordination and management
• Cost of services
• Schedule impacts
• Project continuity
• Quality control/standardization
1. Staffing Requirements
Staff has attempted to quantify the "in-house" staffing requirements for the various
program alternatives. Again, there would be little 'savings' of staff between Altematives
No. 1 and 2, only a shifting of tasks between "in-house" and consultant services.
Approximate "In-House" Staffing
Position Siff g Alternative No. 1 Alternative No.2
Program Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0
Secretary 0.5 1.5 1.0
Permits/Easements 0.5 .25 .25
Independent Review Teams 1.0 .25 .25
Public Information 0.5 0.5 0.5
EIR, Environmental Issues 0.5 0.5 0.5
Construction Manager 1.0 1.0
Barrier Facilities, Design/Construct 1.5 1.0
Pump Stations, Design/Construct 1.5 0.5
GWR Pipeline, Design/Construct 1.0 0.5
AWT Facilities, Design Construction
Microfiltration Pre-purchase 1.5 1.0
Reverse Osmosis 1.0 6.5
Ultraviolet Pre-purchase 1.0 6.5
Electrical 1.0 6.5
SCADA 1.5 0.5
Site Work Misc. 1.0 0.5
Project Develo ment/Research Staff 3.0 3.0 3.0
TOTALS 7.0 19.0 1 13.0
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT
March 28, 2001
Page 5 of 8
When considering the two management approaches, it is necessary to recognize the
challenges involved in securing "in-house" staff required to perform this additional work
effort. In fact, OCSD has several positions filled with temporary contract employees to
address their current critical resource needs.
2. Cost of Services
The cost of providing program implementation is a consideration for the JCC in
determining the direction of the project. The budget for the program for Engineering,
Legal and Administrative (ELA) costs has been determined at approximately 15% of the
overall project budget. Both Alternatives can be implemented within this budgeted level.
The control of costs will be accomplished with either alternative through comprehensive
review of the proposal(s) received by appropriate staff of each agency and by
aggressive negotiations to ensure fair and reasonable level of effort and compensation.
3. Schedule Impacts
When weighing the advantages and disadvantages of Alternatives 1 and 2, the impact
to the overall schedule should be considered. With Alternative 1, a comprehensive
procurement of services program would need to be implemented. This would include
development and issuance of a detailed Request for Proposals, review of proposals and
interview process, and contract negotiations. In addition, the new consulting team(s)
would require time for review of previous work efforts to become familiar with the
detailed engineering and technical decisions provided to date. These steps could
impact (delay) the overall schedule by at least six months.
Alternative 2 provides for a timely transition from the 30% design efforts through final
design and construction, and provides for completion of the project by the 2004/2005
winter deadline.
4. Project Continuity
Alternative 2, with a single consultant team providing overall program management and
implementation, has several advantages. The Phase I team, headed by CDM, has
done an excellent job. The team, which was selected after an extensive competitive
procurement process, consists of a consortium of seventeen (17) firms, with CDM,
Brown and Caldwell, and ASL as principals. The team, with a local staff resource level
of over 400 people, has met schedules, performed the work under budget, produced
quality products, and worked well with both districts and our regulators
Attachment
0
ATTACHMENT
March 28, 2001
Page 6 of 8
By staying with the CDM led team, we gain project continuity. We avoid 'start up' costs
and time inherent with a new team and we have a team in place that we know can do
this job, and do it well.
5. Quality Control/Standardization
Quality control and standardization is critical to the success of the overall project. This
will be accomplished by maintaining rigorous standards for performance and quality
review. Staff recognizes that this duty is easier to perform with a single consulting team
than multiple teams, but could be accomplished with additional "in-house" staff as
indicated in Alternative 1.
JCC Considerations
The JCC discussed the two alternative methods for final design, construction
management, and start-up services and requested that more information on the
proposed team members and the level of effort be brought to the next meeting.
DECEMBER 18, 2000 MEETING
Options for proceeding with final design were reviewed and discussed. Staff
recommended an alternative under which the CDM-led Consultant Team would
complete the final design, provide construction support, and start-up phases with overall
project management provided by the OCWD-OCSD Project Team. The CDM Team will
include about 20 firms. Staff also recommended that the in-house Project Staff Team
manage the construction program with technical assistance from the CDM Team. The
need for Specialty Consulting Services was reviewed for specific tasks, such as
membrane process design, ultraviolet process design, water quality evaluations,
permits, rights-of-way, environmental compliance, independent technical review, and
public information.
The JCC members engaged in considerable discussion about needed construction
services and management options, including a "third-party" construction manager. Mr.
Dawes noted that about six OCWD employees, displaced by the demolition of Water
Factory 21, would be used for inspection, working under the direction of resident
engineers.
The JCC authorized staff to negotiate professional services for:
Attachment 1
1 ATTACHMENT
March 28, 2001
Page 7 of 8
• Amendment No. 3 with CDM for completion of final design and provision of
construction support, start-up, and training services.
• Preparation of an EIR/EIS Supplement or Addendum with Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), the firm that prepared the EIR for the OCSD Strategic Plan.
• Specialty Consulting Contracts with:
o Separation Processes, Inc. (microfiltration and reverse osmosis)
o Carl Nelson (permits and rights-of-way)
o Jim Williams (independent review)
o Water Quality Independent Advisory JCC (professors and industry leaders
for oversight)
JANUARY 8, 2001 MEETING
Mr. Dawes reported that, after evaluating the matter of construction management
further, staff recommended that proposals be solicited from consultants for a "third-
party' construction manager.
FEBRUARY 22, 2001 MEETING
An overview report was presented on the project final design, construction management
and start-up services. Mr. Dawes reviewed organizational charts showing the
implementation team members; qualifications, roles, and work effort; scope of work and
fees; schedule; computer system integration; and construction management services.
Several special services have been added to the project, which include 17 studies and
evaluations of fire protection, safety, power, Green Acres Project upgrades, warehouse
space requirements, construction laydown areas, and other related items.
During the discussion that followed, the JCC requested that Mr. Ron Linsky, National
Water Research Institute be added to the Independent/Technical Review Committee.
The JCC also requested that the line items for the Transactional System Integration and
Business Plan be reviewed in terms of cost sharing between OCSO and OCWD. In
addition, a Subcommittee (consisting of Directors Anthony and Anderson plus the
OCWD and OCSD General Managers) was formed to conduct an independent check
and validation of the consultant fees for the CDM Team. Other information regarding
amounts paid to date for consultants and research on legal issues related to contract
employees was forwarded to the JCC following the meeting
Attachment 1
' ATTACHMENT
March 28, 2001
Page 8 of 8
MARCH 19, 2001 MEETING
The proposed final design, construction support, and start-up services were reviewed
and discussed. The Subcommittee of Directors, General Managers, and groundwater
producers that reviewed the proposed consultants and fees reviewed their findings.
The Subcommittee recommended that competitive proposals be solicited for: (1)
structural and electrical design services for the AWT Plant (under the CDM Team), (2)
architectural services (under the CDM Team), (3) computer systems integrator (under
the CDM Team), (4) ultraviolet disinfection design criteria (separate specialty
consultant), (5) value engineering (separate specialty consultant), (6) public information
(separate specialty consultant), and (7) construction management consultant (separate
specialty consultant).
The groundwater producers and Irvine Ranch Water District expressed their views that
design services should be solicited through a competitive proposal process and also
recommended that accountability milestones and conditions for implementing the
project be established and updated. In response, the Joint Cooperative Committee
committed to an ongoing dialogue with the groundwater producers. A New groundwater
producer Advisory Committee will be formed to review progress and make
recommendations to the Joint Groundwater Replenishment Cooperative Committee on
the project.
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
(Figures 1-10)
s
OCWD/OCSD General Managers
(ManagementAdvisory Team)
Tan Dawes,PE.
Kellene Bum-Roy,P.E. Debra Bums,P.E.
Wendy Sevenandl,OCSD Mlcrofiltrstion Reverse Dsmoes
Doug Biglen,P.E..OCWD Mike Markus,P.E.,OCWD Separation Processes,Inc.
OCWD/OCSDTeam Ultraviolet Disinfection George TchaUCDavis Ph.D.,P.E.
OCWD/OCSDRsory TTeam TBD UC Davis
(Technical Advimry Team) Construction Management Firm Permlmn Jim Williams,PE.
17 Firms CDM Team g
( I CDM Team Supped Services Carl Nelson Margie Nellar,MS.
Seplet Processes,Inc. LACSD
Ultraviolet (TBD) Separation Processes,Inc. Permim
- -- — Jim Williams,
s,PE. Rick Sakai,Ph.D.
ComputeTSyatems Department of Heath Services
Jerry Jones John Hills,City of Anaheim
Electrical Eddie Wei,Ph.D.
Laura Thomas,P.E. UC Berkeley
Value Engineering Hope Smythe
TBD Regional Water Quality Control
Public Information Board
TBD
Ron Linsk
Nafional Water Research Institute
Figure 1
Groundwater Groundwater Replenishment System
'-Replenishment System Overall Project Organization
7P.E.
Profes't 9,JOf linJtJf
Debra Burris,PE.
IIatlJ Jer
Ile,P.E.(CDM)
I%Ill 1:Jeulmi
i!gly9A
CDM
lar fie Jiel Lll ("olil Jfll:Jf )%3tilili ti)rUlf Llalnn'�ll;);llrS
alml)fllrl4l)J3f'/l:va
talldi,OCSD Wendy Sevenantll,OCSD
Mike Markus,P.E.,OCWD
IM CDM CDM
Ir1 isgnlll)1) J!labusa Plan AdNurjneil NuWr &urivr r64'IH4IPA
COM CDM -frl:llulult CDM
CDM ASL ASL ASL
Integrator SEE(TBD) --
9i1:lrvparinn -frilinin�8 7lar?wp
CDM CDM
ASL
dl; 1Ulir1violai 0131l11e;?!,Jill -:i!plyod F:Isllllia,J
P➢al) 31uii,Juo
CDM
nlsali U13rr/idle! Pomp 0?:i!ious --ill31PI;/InD cIquideul O,JIiullilon
Dloblieuil Jtl CDM CDM
M
UV(TED) ASL
=)!1;1;J9fS Pil*o:uld r'ollii tilloil
Geotechnical HVAC/Plumbing
M/P
Surveying Surge Analysis
SHI FS
ASL Corrosion
Instrumentation DeC
CDM Noise
E: WA
Figure 2
Groundwater Replenishment System
CDM Team
Overall Firm Organization
rmj7;r
Tom D
>\x;t3ion?Jrggrmi i5l;til;lJur
Kellene Burn-Roy,P.E.CDM)
Richard Corn
QuAly r..Jniful
-7)dln[M-aa
CDM
ASL
Dag Bli P.E.,OCWD Doug Bigler,P.E.,OCWD Wendy Sev
ASL sc C
'i7§IL 4'/ llii�u8 ?Ij�llna - 9diFd °9ali lP' Ihlii]ll
CDM CDM ASL ASL
:tf9iliieshii illi uulll im Ulu n ;tevar49nnun14c" 4u)
TBD CDM CDM
(Ydl;l J(Jf% Pe(ul JinYtli fi9vgf;:9�riuill rail
Sllsroiiliraiian 'Misrufilimilni SPI
CDM CDM
SPI SPI
Legend 7:nimir
Camp Dresser&McKee Mones/Pham Associates Structural ElectricalPlow science CDM
Tetra Tech ASL DeC CDM
Structural/Electrical Engineer(TBD) Wieland Associates
C'.az Yourman ASL ASL
TJC&Assocates Haley&Aldrich TBD TBD
Lynn Capouya Architects Berryman B HenNgar MIP
Saf-R-Dig Architect - Potholing
Ultraviolet Consultant(TBO) Integrator Landscape Architecture S-R-D
Separation Processes,Inc. Not part of COM Team _CA
&undveter
iijat Repl shrmmnt S stem
To.Dams,P.E.
Kellen Burn-Roy.P:E �CDM) Dean,Burns,RE
Richard Ile PE
,PMP(CDMI III
Doug B;glen,PE OCWD Doug Bil PE OCWD Wendy-Sevenan'dt OCSD
Wendy Seven.odt,OCSD 1[
I Enrol Bos(Cc )
Bruce Chalmers, P E
Legend
Figure 3
Groundwater Replenishment System
GrDlmdwater CDM Team
Replenishment%krn Overall Organization
. .
Tom Dawes,P.E.
•Kellene Burn-Roy.PE.(CDM) ! Debra Burris,PE.
Richard Corneille,P E.,HAP(CDM)
:e�4.Clt4+/wusaA�+:t�utdlti,= I lzuaet:}�.u�t«;;,�;qunc
J.Price.PE.(CDM Dri Coordinator
P.Meyerhdter,P.E.(AM) I R.Uchimure(CDM)
D.Brown,P.E.(CDM) Scheduling
Jeff Monaief,P.E.(CDM) J.Santos.P E.(CDM)
D.Schroeder,P.E.(CDM)
P Anwar,RE.(BC) Cost Accounting
Ll A.nderruon,P,7.(BC) D.Koors(CDM)
M.Hoover,P.E.(ASL) Document Control
L.Yu,P.E.(ASL) K.Paulson(CDM)
... .__.: .. Cost Estimaing
P.Davis(CDM)
Duality Management
L8g8Dd W.Cooper,P.E.(CDM)
Presentation Support
Camp Dresser 8 Mc1lae T Borrena(CDM)
Brown antl Caldwell ,.
Figure 4
Groundwater Groundwater Replenishment System
Groun watent Ssfim Program and Project Management
R2pbProject Team Organization
Doug Biglen,P.E.,OCWD
Steve Tedesco,PE.(ASL)
S.Rowe,R.G.,0 H.G.(CD e L Hamann,P.E.(COM) T.Epperson,P.E.(AS
YRDM) J.MDUand RE(CDM) FM.Bush PE (ASL
Stone M Collings(ASLW.Grove, G R.Lopez(CUM)
M.Hoffman(CDM)
2 M 1
-4 b
eL
Legend
Camp Dresser&McKee
Tetra Tech ASL
Figure 5
�.Groundwater Groundwater Replenishment System
Barrier Facilities
`�W Replenishment$stern Project Team Organization
.r J OMTOWW � :ut LWSC
M f .,3UyJ.,aaj(•uL
Doug Biglen,P.E.,0CWD
POL F;,
j '�r` UiaLWI
J.Nichols.P.E.(EC) J Nirhol;.P[ (SC) S.Agor,PE.(ASL)
I
q
R.Fakhourp.F.F.,!90) LFinnery.P.E.rFS� M.Farmer(ASL)
M.Wmi)o(BC) I?Jameal.PE (FC', B.Icenogle(ASL)
Legend
&own and Caldwell
Tetra Tech ABL
Figure 6
Groundwater Replenishment System
1 Groundwater GWR Pipeline
,;,o Replenishment 5/stern Project Team Organization
Ullr�'4olelJYmiys<)Idleaa �l!ryn)r?i°aslllllaa
Dorman.PE ICD"1
Fred Soroushian,P.E.(CH2MHill)
Ultnrvlola{ Yniiip Ililisiri laarls;d lilea,lrhl Foun+.ftlldn Jeiiwll{Iin
E Nakamura,P.E.ICDMI
D.Rammell(CDMI S.Slone(CDM)
�ilb)Iriping
Site Plan Traffic Ware,
S.Symbomki,P.E. P Kim.PE. S Slane
*,d Pipinp Algap PS. SewerA4asta
R.Subramahian.P.E. J.Olsen.PE. J. hlouawad,PE.
Figure 7
Groundwater Replenishment System
AWT Facilities
Project Team Organization
Advdro;a-1 rhigr rnmturmt
Wendy Sevenandl,OCSD
Brace Chalmers,P.E.(CO
M)
Aroilltaol!Iro Mls" 'AI AIon tteva(a:s i):inw:slill;irmllsal:s
TBC D.Cutler PE ICDhI) C Crux PE (CDM)
rmo dllenulNtlllod Itovecso 9ario>sia r,;rnnb slo
W.O'Neil,P.E.(CDM) R.Subramahian,P.E.(CDM) K.Alexander,PE.(SPI) R Lange(CDM)
J.Mckeo,P.E.(SPI) P.Lange(CDM) G.Bradshaw,P.E.(CDM) B.Graham,P.E.(CDM)
D.Dy(CDM) P.Lange(CDM)
J.Vickers,P.E.(SPI)
Legend
Camp Dreecerd NcHea
Tatra Tech ASIL
Arch led 8N Flgurr.fl
Separation ProuasaF lna Not Part of CDM Teen
Ullraviolal Combat(TBD)
�j Groundl ✓ater
Replenishment SMm
Wendy Sevenandt OCSD
Errol Boa(CDM)
P.Clorsetto,P.E.(CDM) P Fairchild(CDM)
Drafting Standards Documents
A.Taylor(CDM) D.Sues(CDM)
Financial Data Storage
S.Rideout(COM) C.Vtaaovic(CDM)
K.Hadow lBC) Maintenence Management
Organlexgona Development P.Freeman(CDM)
P.Fairchild(CDM) W.Muirhead(CDM)
Control Sysem Dabbaselgystem Architecture
P.Ciori RE,(CDM) B.Dougherty(CDM)
Laboratory Operations Dab
B.Welb(CDM M.Atendida(CDM)
P.Maynard(M) ProgmmminglAmlyst
System one go. J.Persons(CDM)
Caldwell,P.E.(J.CaldCOM) Mapping
S Line;BC) M.Carrillo(CDM)
Legend -. -
Camp Dresser&McKee
Brawn and Caldwell
Figure 8
Groundwater Replenishment System
Groundwater Transactional Systems
kpleriis ri Systern Project Team Organization
b•
Mike Markus,PE.,0CWD
Dan S<hulenburg.PE.(CDM)
r:J�A�;-,.L�UIc_u19lltGiui.Le4nx. dJ.uuaeJ:'jtitC�rlrr�eiu�ic �at� SLt4:l'r�x
r,
B.Chalmers,E (CDl1) T TedeEppersco.on PE (ASS)
D.Hutton(CDM) D.Cutler,PE.(CDI.1) T.Epperson,PE.(ASL)
C.Cruz,PE.(CDM) S.Rowe,RG(CDM) S.Agor,PE(ASS)
M.Daman,P.E.(CDM) I.Hamann,PE.(CDM)
manuals
S.Hoffman(CDM) K.Alexander,P.E.(SPI)
L,Leine(CDM)
d PeeVP.e(EG)
J.Poole(SPI) j)s:;y jr1z.SUi
TnMing
S.Hoffman(CDM) 0.Dumola(CDL1)
L.Leine(CDM) Li.Ellasmk(CUV.n
J Fenes(W')
J.Poole(SPI)
SMl
M.D.Du ck, t(C(CDM)
D.Dumont(CDM)
B. (BC)
efer(CDM)
CDM)
Pool (
J.Poole(SPI)
see Flguro 10
Legend
Camp enaaera MCKae
amwn a Cali+au
Tetra Tech
ASL
Sepanean Processes,Inc. Nol Part of CCM Team
Figure 9
Groundwater Replenishment System
A Groundwater Construction Support and Start-Up Services
Replenishment Slstem Project Team Organization
L Seuclural Electrical Geetechnical HVACIPIumbing
C.Wilcox,S.E.(CDM) C.Lindquist,P.E.(CDM) C Z.Pham,P.E.IMP)
I I.Navamora(CDM) C _ ver.
D.Wah,S.E.(ASL) P.Rammall(COM) V.Nadesv......
D,Kuang,S.E.(ASL) G.Karnataka,P.E.(BC) G.Raines,P.E.(HA) Surge
Structural Engineer(TBD) h1.Pucclo,P.E.)BC) R.Cook,P.E.(HA) J.List,P.E.(FS)
' _ J.Nash(ASL) T.Tamall,P.E.(HA) S.Foster,P.E.(FS)
C.earpizo,Pr_,iSP: C.Tran(ASL) M.McKenna,P.E.(HA) D.Axowonhy,Ph.D.(FS)
T.Cavanagh,S.E.(rJC) Electrical Engineer(TBD)
J.Morass,P.E.(MP) Surveying Comildam
Landscape Archilochus M.Foreman,PLS IBH) G.DeCado,P.E.(DeC)
L Capouya,ASLA(I-CA) Potholing B.Stires,PLS(SH) R.Geving,P.E.(DeC)
G.Chia,ASLA(LCA) R.Hernandez(SRD) A.Beal,PLS(BH)
L.Bateman,PLS(ASL) Nate
D.Wieland(WA)
instrumentation J.Van Houton,P.E.(WA)
P.Glorsetto,P.E.(CDM) C.Bordash(WA)
S.VD IBC)
J.Morass,P.E.(MP)
Legend
Camp Dresser&McKee MoraeslPhem Associates
Brovm and Caldwell Flow Sclence
Tetra Tech ASL Dec
StruclurallEleclrical Engineer(TBD) Wieland Associates
.. Diaz-Yourinan
TJC&Associates Haley&Aldrich
Lynn Capouya Architects Berryman&Hennigar
Saf-R-Dig Architect
separation Processes,Inc. Integrator
Figure 10
Groundwater Replenishment System
A, Groundwater Technical Support
v� Replenishment 5/stem Project Team Organization
ATTACHMENT 3
PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS,
ROLES, AND WORK EFFORT
2OUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
PROJECT TEAM
\LIFICATIONS,ROLES AND WORK EFFORT
WORK EFFORT,
LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK Hours
sting Huntinglicat Beach Program Manager 40 hrsrweek
Irvine Proect Coordinator 40 Kest ..k
Design Services Include preparation of 100%contract documents,assistance during bidding,
See below engineering services during construction,and startup services 235,528
Irvine Prdect management,AWT Facility,Banter Wells&Wellheads Design Services
Irvine AWr Fadlity&GWR Pipeline Design Services
we AWT FaCifity.Barrier Pipeline&GWR Pipeline Design Services
To Be Determined AWT Facility Structural&Electrical Design Services
To Be Determined AWr Facility Architecture Design Services
Tustin AWT Facility&Barrier Facilities Geolechnlcal Design Services
San Diego GWR Pipeline Geotechnical Design Services
Carlsbad AWT Facility HVAC ,OOsite Electrical/Instrumentation Design Services
Newport Beach AWT Fadrty(Landscape Architecture Design Services
San Diego AWr Facility SWdural Design Services
Pleasant Hill AWT Facility(Structural)Design Services
una Hills AWT Facility Noise Design Services
San Diego AWT Facility.Barrier&GWR Pipeline Corrosion Design Services
Pasadena AWT Facility(Pump Station Surge Analysis)Design Services
Santa Ana Barrier Wells,Barrier Pipeline.&GWR Pipeline(Surveying)Design Services
Palm Springs AWT Facility,Barrier&GWR Pipeline(Potholing)Design Services
To Be Determined Computer System Design Services
San Marcos Mkro0ltratron&Reverse Osmosis Process Design Services IZ919
aict Fallbrcok Permits,Rlghtsot•Way,Plan Review,Construction Support 4,000
Tustin Permits,Rlghtso4Way,Technical Review 1,600
Tustin Technical Advisory Team Captain for Electrical 40 hrsNieek
Nevada IvAll relocate Computer systems and data bases 20 hrshveek
iator To Be Determined Value Engineering Workshops
To Be Determined Ultraviolet System Design Criteria
To Be Determined Public Information
To Be Determined Consnudion Management Services
Ilue engineering,u1113videt disinfection,public information,and construction management services.
ATTACHMENTS
a
CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS
Thomas Dawes Pm ec*experience.Fortner OCSD Dlr of En i
Oebm BuRa Project experience.civil engineer
CDM Team See breakdown below See breakdown below
Cam Dresser&McKee Pm ect experience.technical Expertise
Brown&Caldwell Project experience,technical expertise
Tetra Tech ASL Project ex enence,technical expertise
SWcbu l/Electiwl D Structural&electrical expertise
Architect D Similar architecturat experience
Diaz Vouman Pm ect experience eotechnical expertise
Haley and Aldrich Project experience,geotechnical expertise
Morass Pham Project experience.HVAC expertise
Lynn Capouya Project Experience,landscaping expertise
Beyaz&Patel Project experience,structural expertise
TJC&Associates Project e% enence.structural expertise
Wieand Associates Project experience, noise expertise
DeC Consultants Pmjod experience,wrtosion expertise
Flow Science Hydraulic s stems expertise
rn&Heni ar Local sumeying experience
-R-Dig Loral potholing experience
Integrator(TBD) Computer systems&integration experience
Separation Processes,Inc. Membrane e%pertme,pmject experience
Carl Nelson Former Chaf,Oange County Flood Cwiuol D
Jim Williams Farmer County of Orange Design Manager
Laura Thomas Electrical Engineer
Jerry Jones Fomer OCSO
Value Engineering Team(TOD) Stale Certified Value Engineering Team Coom
Ultraviolet Disinfection Consultant(TBD) Ultraviolet expertise,similar pmject e%penena
Public Information(TBD) Similar prSectexperience
Construction Manager(TBD) Similar Construction management experience
Proposals will be solloted for structualfelectrical engineering,architectural.Computer systems Integrator,
iE4N OUP S,SCOPES A HOURS 3201N 2 U
ATTACHMENT 4
PROJECT TEAM
BREAKDOWN OF FEES
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
FINAL DESIGN COST PER DRAWING
CONSULTANT WORK PHASE
DESIGN
CDM Team $13,704,129
Separation Processes, Inc. $497.555
Construction Manager(TBD)
All Others t't $336,300
TOTAL $14,537,984
Unit Cost Per Drawing 12) $6,178
NOTES
1. All other consultants include Tom Dawes, Debra Burris, Carl Nelson,
Jim Williams, Laura Thomas, and Jerry Jones, plus specialty
consultants to be selected based on competitive proposals for value
engineering, ultraviolet disinfection, and public information services.
2. Unit Cost based on an estimated total of 2,353 engineering drawings
(2,193 drawings by the CDM Team plus 160 drawings by SPI)
(for all 12 construction contracts)
FINAL DESIGN COST PER DRAWING_032801W3120I2001 ATTACHMENT 4
Groundwater Replenishment System
Professional Services for Design,Services During Construction and Start-up Services
Services Labor Hours Year 2001 Costs OCwD Costs Total Costs
Baseline Services
CUM TO
Program/Project Management 19,210 $ 2472,610 $ 2,47Z610
Prepare Comma Documents 137,501 $ 13,70Li29 $ 13,7K129
BiddN$Se. 4,YI2 $ 445,5% $ 445,594
Comtrucdon Aashtance/Record Drawings 40,475 $ 4,2$6,924 $ 4,256,924
Start-up Services 7,819 $ B2 M $ 922,971
Subfntal CDM Team 209a10 $ 2L70ZZ$ $ 21,702,22B
Other Prufesdonal saoima
S mayin&PothoLn&Geoucladcal,Naha,Cmroslon,
Architectural Renderings $ 1,222,643 $ 1,22ZM5
Other UlmctCmts $ 1,M,97/ $ WMS $ 1,519,100
Total Baseline Services 209,310 $ 231998,750 $ 445,M 6 24,443,973
Other Required Special Services
CDM Team 9,378 $ 961,556 $ %1,556
Other IXtect Comm $ 67,= $ 67MO
Total Other Required Special Services 9137$ $ I'MAM $ 114106
Transactional System Integration and Business Plan
CQ Team 16,840 $ 1b79,IM $ 1,6"'IM
IXM1er D' tCosts $ 117,500 $ 117,5%
Soewardlindwamand handlallon $ - S2,287,719 $ E267,]19
$,Moms❑0emats $ 3,100.000 $ $ 3,100p00
Total Transactional System Integration and Business
Plan 16,840 $ 4,896,601 S2,267,719 $ 7,164,320
AB Survives $ 29,924,187 5 2732942 $ 32657,129
SUMMARY OF FEES 6 PERCENTSM13eot ATFACXMEW4
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
BREAKDOWN OF ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
CONSULTANT WORK PHASE
PROJECT SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT DESIGN BIDDING CONSTRUCTION START-UP SERVICES") EXPENSES TOTAL
CDM Team $2,472,610 $13.704,129 $445.594 $4.256,924 $822.971 $6,963,302 $1,258.657 $29,924,187
Separation Processes,Inc. $87.755 $497.555 $46.320 $344,530 $237.350 $127.420 $115,600 $1.455,530
';a 5VuSo Manager TED) $9.000.000 $500.000 $500.000 $10.000.000
All Otherett $1,700,000 $336,300 $1,348,300 $92.350 $3.476,950
TOTAL $4.260.365 $14.537.984 $490,914 $13,601.454 $1,560,321 $8,439.022 $1,968,607 $44,856,667
TUDI ercen o
Estimated Construction Cost
113) 1.4% 4.7% 0.2% 4.4% 0.5% 2.7% 0.6%1 14.6%
NOTES
1. Special services include surveying,potholing,geolechnlcal,noise,corrosion Investigations,architectural renderings,technical studies,Independent technical review,
computer systems(transactional system Integration)and business plan,permitting,environmental compliance,value engineering,&public information
2. All other consultants include Tom Dawes,Debra Burns,Carl Nelson,Jim Williams.Laura Thomas,and Jerry Jones,plus specialty consultants to be selected based on
competitive proposals for value engineering,ultraviolet disinfection,and public Information services.
3. Percents based on: Estimated Construction Cost(Including contingency)_ $308,000,000
and
Estimated Total Capital Cost=$352.000.000
FEES AS A PERCENT OF CONSTRUCTION_032801103/20/2001 ATTACHMENT 4
�UNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
PROJECT TEAM
BREAKDOWN OF FEES
SCOPE OF WORK LABOR EXPENSES TOTAL FEE %OF OVERALL
EFFORT
$600,000 $0 $600000 1.3%
Of 100•/,contract tlocumenta,assistance during bidding, $700,000 $0 $700,000 1.6%
lion,and start, services $28 665,630 $1,258 657 $29,924187
3amer Wells&Wellheads Design Services $10,785,476 24A%
1 Services $6.391,382
14.2%
i Pipeline Design Services $3,579.174 g 0e
Oesl n Services $1 773,940 4.0%
ervices $1.000,000
2.2%
Xechnip Design Servkes $139,000 0.3%
1 Services $345,000 0.8%
aVlnstrumentation Design Services $264,000 0.6%
e Design Services $200,000 0.41%
vices $319,275 0.7%
vices $159,638 0.4%
's $29,000 0.1%
,e Corrosion Desi n Services $54,895 0.1%
.nal sis Design Services $60,000 0.1°
JR Pi eline(Surveying)Design Services $128,000 0.3%
ie(Potholing)Design Services $336,750 0.8%
$3.100,000 6.9%
$1,258,657 2.8%
recess Design Services $1,339,930 $115,600 $1,455,S301 3.2%
r,Construction Support $371,000 $0 $371,000 0.8%
evim $148,400 $0 $148,400 0.3%
r Electrical $400,000 $0 5400,000 0.9%
$80,6001 $16,800 $97,400 0.2%
$33,696,517 7SJ%
Estimated' Estimated' $161,250 0.4%
Estimated' Estimated' $398,900 0.9%
Estimated' . Estimated' $600,000 1.3%
Estimated' Estimated' $10,000,000 22.3%
$11,160150 24.9%
$44,856,667 100.0%
itegrator, value engineering,ultraviolet disinfection, public information, and construction management services.
ATTACHMENT
G
CONSULTANT
Thomas Dawes Pro ram Mans er
Debra Burds Pro Coordinator
Design Services include prepars
CON!Team See breakdown bellowen ineerin services during con
Camp Dresser&McKee Project management AWT Faci
Brown&Caldwell AWr Facility&GWR Pipeline D
Tetra Tech ASL AWT Facility,Barrier Pipeline&
Shuctural/Elecbical D AWr Facility Structural&Electr
Architect D AWr Facility Architecture Deal!
Diaz Yourman AIAT Facility&Barrier Facilities
Haley and Aldrich GWR Pipeline Geotechnical Os
Morass Pham AWr Facility(HVAC, Offsite Ele
Lynn Capouya AWr FarAity(Landscape Archile
Beyaz&Patel AWr Facility(Structural) Design
TJC&Associates AWr FaciO (Structural)Design
Wieland Associates AWr Facility Noise Design SEn
DeC Consultants AWT Facility,Barrier&GWR Pi
Flaw Science AWT Facility(Pump Station Surg
Berryman&Heni ar Barrier Wells, Barrier Pipeline,&
Sa(-R-Dig AWr Facility, Barrier&GWR Pip
Integrator(TBD) Computer System Design Servia
Other Direct Costa CDM Team Other Direct Costs
Separation Processes,Inc. Microfibration&Reverse Osmosis
Carl Nelson Permits, Rights-of-Way, Plan Ref
Jim Williams Permits,Rights-of-Way,Technic
Laura Thomas Technical Advisory Team Ca tair
Jerry Jones Computer systems and data be
TOTAL THIS AUTHORIZATION:.
Value Engineering Team(TBD) Value En ineeri Worksho
Ultraviolet Disinfection Consultant TBD Ultraviolet System Design Critem
Public Information(TBD) Public Information
Construction Manager TBD) Construction Management Semic
TOTAL ESTIMATED FUTURE AUTHORIZATION
ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL
Proposals will be solicited for structural electrical engineering,architectural,computer systen
Estimated budgets are shown for these services.
TEAM SCOPES.FEES 6 PERCENTS 0]3901bY10 I
ATTACHMENT 5
SCHEDULE
g luaw40044V
�_. fieuwn5 ca{dd ��
sMsgl mu.a3
uAs
i
{
f
1
i
f f W Y W a f U N f f M tl W a f O N Y f f W tl W a f OIN101
SOOT N]pZ EVOZ
3sw
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
FINAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND STARTUP I
=I 2002
J F M P M J J A 5 ON D J FMAMJJA
N Too
k
Naas
1 ek 1:PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
p 2Teek2:TEMPORARY164FANDSREPIPINGDESIGNSERVICFS
23 3Task 3:SITE POWER DISTRIBIfTION DESIGN SERVICES
37 4 Task 4:GTEGORY I DEMOLITION
ag 5 Took 5:PILES AND FOUNDATION PREPARATION DESIGN SERVICES
61 6 Teek 6:EQUIPMENT PRESELECTION DESIGN SERVICES
T2 ]Task T:ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN SERVICES
92 aTeek e:BARRIER WELLS ORIWNG DESIGN SERVICES
10fi 9Teek 9:BARRIER WELLHEA45 FACILff1E5 AND PIPELINE BRANCHES DESIGN SERVICES
116 10 Took 10:BARRIER PIPELINE DESIGN SERVICES
I= 11 T4as 11:GWR PIPELINE REACH I,DESIGN SERVICES
t'< 12 Teelt l2 GWR PIPELINE REACH DESIGN SERVICESNEW
157 13 Teek 13:GWR PIPELINE REACH 3 DESIGN SERVICES
IN 14 Took 14:OTHER DESIGN SERVICES
IN 15TAek15:8IDDING SERVICES
=1 16TW 16:EARLY START AWTF CONSTRUCTION SMWCES
20] 17 Took 1T!ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
217 16 Task 1e:BARRIER CONS.RUCDON SERVICES
222 19 Took IS:GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PIPELINES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
22B 20 Task20'.START•UP AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCESERWCES .
24S 21 TAek21:TRANSACTIONAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION
263 22Tkek22:9USINESSPLAN
2m 23 Took 29:OTHER REQUIRED SPECIAL SERVICES
Took Mllestene ♦ RPke0 UP C00d1 Tooks
Dal::T:S X1=12
Oe1e:Tue 2/13N1 CnkW Talk Summery ^ RWMe UP MYoo1PM O
Pngnss RWIeE U0 Task RWe UP Pmpress ev
Peps 1 al 1
ATTACHMENT 6
OCSD
BUDGET INFORMATION TABLE
BUDGET INFORMATION TABLE
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM
JOB NO. J-36
ORIGINAL CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED FUNDS THIS PROPOSED TOTAL TED it
PROJECTRASK AUTHORIZED PROJECT BUDGET REVISED AUTHORIZED TO AUTHORIZATION E%PENOITURE EXPENDED
BUDGET BUDGET INCREASE BUDGET DATE REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO DATE TO DATER%I
Project Development $ 700.000 $ 1000 $ 4.000 $ 4.000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 100%
SludewPBrmDln • 4,000.000 $ 4.000.000 S 4,000.000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4.000,000 100%
Consultant PSA^ $ 7500,000 $ 17,500.000 $ 17600000 $ - $ 18,848,259 $ 16,848,259 8 0%
Design Staff $ 2,349.000 $ 1,349.000 $ 1,349,000 $ 1349000 $ 1,349,000 $ 450.000 33%
Construction
Contract $ 88,487,500 111 137500000 5137500,000 It 3.900000 $ 3,900,000 S 0%
Construction
Administre0on $ 2,853900 $ 6,021,OOD $ 6.021,000 $ $ - $ 0%
Construction
Inspection $ 9,345.600 $ 326,000 $ 326,000 $ $ - $ 0%
Contingency IS 12,896.000 $ 16,000.000 $ 16,000,000 It $ - $ 0%
PROJECT TOTAL 3 121,925.000 $ 182,700.000 $ - 5102,700,000 $ 9,253,000 $ 18,848,259 $ 26,101,259 $ 4,454.000 17%
Reimbursable Coets 1 $ - $ 28,000,000 1 $ 28,000,ODD I 1 $ 750.000
PROJECT NET $ 121,925.000 1 41 154,7G0,000 1 $154,70 M 11$ 9,253,000 $ 16.848,269 $ 26.101.259 1$ 3.704,000 14%
Funds aulhoaved to date Includes multiple contracts Issued under the terms of the Coopesatbe Agreement for Project Planning for the Groundwater Replenishment
System with the Orange County Water District
Funds requested Include multiple contracts to be Issued under the berme of the Ccopentsw Agreement for Project Planning for the Groundwater Replenishment
System Wth the Orange Count'Water District as described in the Agenda Report.
B:MP.4wmNVsssmmwaseY>'eUss BUDGET TABLES S2sa1.%LSImplemmpaLbn
ATTACHMENT 7
PSA STATUS REPORT FOR
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC.
Professional Services Agreement Status Report
Groundwater Replenishment System
Project Development Phase
Job No. J-36
Total Project Budget: $182,700,000
Consultant: Camp Dresser& McKee Inc.
Start Date of Project: May 1994
Date Addendum Description Cost, Accumulated
Costs
6/23/99 Original Provide engineering services for the Project
PSA Development Phase of the Groundwater
Replenishment System consisting of preparing
design memoranda to the 30% design level. $ 4,810,300
3/2200 1 Provide additional engineering services for costs
containment work. $ 172,650 $ 4,982,950
12/20/00 2 Provide engineering services for the early design
of a section of the GWR Pipeline to be installed
prior to Sheriff Department construction work along
Santa Ana River levy. $ 56,970 $ 5,039,920
Pending 3 Provide final design, construction support and
start-up services for the Groundwater
Replenishment System. $29,924,187 $34,964,107
'The full amount of the PSA is reported. OCSD will contribute 50% of the total amount shown.
C:\TEMPWSA STATUS REPORT CDM AD03 3-01.DOC 03/13/01
Revised 0&14/98
ATTACHMENT 8
PSA STATUS REPORT FOR
SEPARATION PROCESSES, INC.
Professional Services Agreement Status Report
Groundwater Replenishment System
Project Development Phase
Job No. J-36
Total Project Budget: $182,700,000
Consultant: Separation Processes, Inc.
Start Date of Project: May 1994
Date Addendum Description Cost* Accumulated
Costs
Provide engineering services for the Project
Original Development Phase of the Groundwater
6/23/99 PSA Replenishment System consisting of preparing the
30% pre-selection specifications and design of the
microfiltration and reverse osmosis components of
the GWR System. $ 403,280
Provide additional engineering services for
9127/00 1 microfiltration and reverse osmosis demonstration
program documentation. $ 42,600 $ 445,880
Pending 2 Provide engineering services for the membrane
pre-selection and final design of the GWR System. $ 1,455,530 $ 1,901,410
*The full amount of the PSA is reported. OCSD will contribute 50% of the total amount shown.
QATEMPIPSA STATUS REPORT SPI ADD 3-28.01.DOC 03/13/01
Revised 05114/98
ATTACHMENT 9
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC.
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT
THIS ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT, is made and entered into to be
effective the_day of March 2001, by and between the ORANGE COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as"DISTRICT', and CAMP DRESSER&MCKEE INC.,
for purposes of this agreement hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT'.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, DISTRICT and CONSULTANT have previously executed an Agreement
dated July 7, 1999,for professional services to prepare the Project Development Phase of
the Groundwater Replenishment System; and,
WHEREAS, DISTRICT and CONSULTANT have previously executed Addendum
No. 1 dated March 15, 2000 and Addendum No. 2 dated January 24, 2001 to said
Agreement, adding engineering charges for changes and additions to said project; and,
WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors for the Orange County Water District and the
Orange County Sanitation District have voted on March 28,2001,to proceed with the final
design of the Groundwater Replenishment System; and,
WHEREAS, staff has negotiated the scope of work and fees for the final design,
construction services, and start-up services of the Groundwater Replenishment System;
and,
CDM Addendum No.3 -1- GWR System
Project Development Phase
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to provide the necessary services in
connection with these additional requirements based on its demonstrated competence and
has agreed to provide the necessary engineering services, and has been selected in
accordance with the DISTRICT selection policy regarding professional services; and,
WHEREAS, DISTRICT,acting through its Joint Groundwater Replenishment System
Cooperative Committee at their March 19, 2001 regular meeting has negotiated with
CONSULTANT and has certified the final negotiated fee for said services as reasonable;
and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has accepted the recommendation of the Joint
Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee (JCC), has approved this
Addendum No. 3 between DISTRICT and CONSULTANT.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual benefits, which
will result to the parties in carrying out the terms of this Addendum No. 3, it is mutually
agreed as follows:
1. Article 1; Scope of Work, is amended as follows: CONSULTANT agrees to
provide final design services, construction services,and start-up services necessaryforthe
final design, construction and start-up of the GWR System as detailed in the
CONSULTANT'S proposal dated January 30, 2001, and the Scope of Work attached
hereto as Attachment "A" and by this reference made a part of this Addendum No. 3 to
Agreement.
2. Article 2; Compensation of that certain Agreement dated July 7, 1999,
between DISTRICT and CONSULTANT is hereby amended to increase the total
CDM Addendum No.3 -2- GWR System
Project Development Phase
compensation by$29,924,187 from$5,039,920 to an amount not to exceed $34,964,107,
all in accordance with CONSULTANT'S proposal dated January 30, 2001, and the same
terms and conditions as otherwise specified in Article 4 and the other provisions of said
Agreement. Each year, an adjustment to the total compensation will be allowed based on
the Consumer Price Index, Los Angeles (CPILA). The compensation adjustment shall be
calculated using January 1 CPILA,and adjusted effective April 1"on remaining funds only.
The adjustment shall not be applied to direct costs. Compensation adjustments are
limited to the range of 0%to 5%.
Article 3; DISTRICT, through the OCWD General Manager shall have the right to
approve a reallocation a total of 1% of the total compensation, provided that the total
compensation is not increased. Reallocation greater that 1%shall require approval of the
JCC.
3. Article 4; CONSULTANT invoices shall include costs expended for each task,
estimated percent complete for each task, and the overall earned value for the project.
The overall earned value shall be shown in graphical form and show time variance and
cost variance against the baseline cost schedule plan. Invoices shall be all in accordance
the same terms and conditions as otherwise specified in Article 4 and the other provisions
of said Agreement.
4. Article 5; CONSULTANT as well as the sub-consultants Tetra Tech ASL and
Brown and Caldwell shall meet the following insurance requirements:
General Liability: $2,000,000
Automobile Liability: $100k/300k/50k
Professional Liability: $3,000,000
Excess Professional
Liability, Umbrella Form: $7,000,000
CDM Addendum No. 3 -3- GWR System
Project Development Phase
all in accordance with the same terms and conditions as otherwise specified in Article 5
and the other provisions of said Agreement. All other sub-consultants shall meet the
insurance requirements of the original Agreement.
The DISTRICT's Construction Program Manager will be required to report changed
conditions, design changes, errors and omissions, work not related to contract, and other
for all change orders. Reimbursement shall be sought from CONSULTANT for errors.
Reimbursement from the CONSULTANT shall not be sought for omissions, since the cost
would have been included in the original bid if known.
5. Article 15; Substitution of Engineers is amended as follows: DISTRICT'S
approval,through the GWR System Program Manager shall be required for substitution of
Kellene Burn-Roy as the Assistant Program Manager, Richard W. Corneille as the Project
Manager, and the following task leaders:
Barrier Facilities Steve Tedesco
GWR Pipeline Bob Finn
Advance Water Treatment Bruce Chalmers
Computer Systems Errol Bos
Construction Services Dan Schulenburg
and Start-up
6. Article 16; Schedule is amended as follows: the work shall be completed by
July 7, 2005.
7. This modifying Addendum No. 3 is supplemental to the Agreement, dated
July 7, 1999,Addendum No. 1 dated March 15,2000, and Addendum No.2 dated January
24, 2001, and is by reference made a part of said Agreement. All of the terms, conditions
CDM Addendum No. 3 4- GWR System
Project Development Phase
and provisions thereof, unless specifically modified herein, shall continue in full force and
effect.
8. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this
Addendum and any of the provisions of the original Agreement and Addenda No. 1 and
No. 2, the provisions of this Addendum No. 3 shall in all respects govern and control.
1.10amm Mdv PIn11e1GWRSWge0a SubmhaLv@001m128 JCC1cDM ADDENDUM NO.3 032801.DOC
CDM Addendum No. 3 -5- GWR System
Project Development Phase
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Addendum No. 3toAgreement has been executed in
the name of the DISTRICT by its officers thereunto duly authorized and executed by
CONSULTANT as of the day and year first above written.
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
By
Jerry King
President
By
William R. Mills Jr.
General Manager
Approved as to Form:
Clark Ide Date
General Counsel
Camp Dresser& McKee Inc.
By
CDM Addendum No. S -6- GWR System
Project Development Phase
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to Califomia Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that
the Notice and Agenda for the Regular Board Meeting of Orange County Sanitation
District to be held on � `4i 7,r— , 20.�2/was duly posted for public
inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on_ X&af, Ji 201
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this�nAay of
20 al.
Penny M. yle, Secrete
Board of Directors
Orange County Sanitation District
11RADONIDATAIIWP.DTAIADMINISSIFORMS\AGENDA CERTIFICATION.DOC