city of morro bay water reclamation facility...

C

WAITY OF MORRO BAY

TER RECLAMATIONFACILITY PROJECT

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

M A Y 2 0 1 7

M A R C H 2 0 1 7 D R A F T M A S T E R W A T E R R E C L A M A T I O N

Photo Credit: Aldryn Estacio, Cover Photo Credit: Aldryn Estacio

P R E P A R E D F O R T H E C I T Y O F M O R R O B A Y

- b y -

M K N & A S S O C I A T E SP O B O X 1 6 0 4

A r r o y o G r a n d e , C A 9 3 4 2 1

UPDATEThis is an executive summary of the Draft Master Water Reclamation Plan as of March 2017. At the April 2017 City Council Meeting, the Council directed staff to re-examine alternatives for potential cost reductions. This may include phasing the project and implementing the recycled water project in a future phase. The Draft Master Water Reclamation Plan will be updated as a result of this effort.

I N T R O D U C T I O NThe City of Morro Bay (City) is currently in the process of planning for a new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to replace the existing City of Morro Bay-Cayucos Sanitary District (CSD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The City and CSD have decided to pursue WRF projects independently. Major upgrades to the City’s wastewater treatment facilities are necessary due to increasing State and Federal regulatory restrictions on treated wastewater discharges and California Coastal Commission direction to relocate public works

facilities out of the floodplain and into areas consistent with Coastal Act policies. Through community input, the City Council adopted several goals for the WRF project, including to begin operation of a new treatment facility by 2021, and production of tertiary disinfected recycled water. Construction of the WRF will result in the City receiving a new sustainable water source, reclaimed water, which can be used around the community to offset potable water use and/or bolster the City’s water supply.

C O M M U N I T Y P R O J E C T G O A L S

D R A F T E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y - M A R C H 2 0 1 7 1

Operational Facility Within 5 Years

In June 2016, the City Council selected a preferred site and began the 5-year deadline clock. The project is on track to complete facility commissioning in June 2021. The existing permit to discharge treated wastewater to the ocean will likely expire in 2021, so maintaining project schedule is imperative.

Ensure Compatibility with Neighboring Uses

This critical goal requires that the Morro Bay WRF be compatible with its neighbors. The WRF will be engineered for low visibility and aggressive odor and noise control. Also, WRF buildings will be designed, perhaps in a ranch theme, to fit the surrounding character.

Produce Reclaimed Wastewater In A Cost Effective Manner

This is actually two goals in one. The first is to control costs to keep our water and sewer rates as low as possible. The second is to reclaim the nearly million gallons of water a day the facility will produce and reuse it to make our city water supply sustainable.

Treat For Contaminants Of Emerging Concern In The Future

This goal is to design and build a WRF that is positioned to remove contaminants that have previously not been a concern in wastewater treatment. For example, many new pharmaceuticals are not removed in traditional wastewater treatment processes, and may be regulated in the future.

Design For Energy Recovery

This goal envisions a renewable energy component of the project that produces much of the electricity required to operate the WRF.

Produce Tertiary Disinfected Water

This is one of the highest levels of treatment defined by the State of California and includes filtration and disinfection steps far beyond the existing WWTP. The safe, clean water produced by this process is used across the state to irrigate landscaping and food crops. It can be further treated to directly recharge the groundwater aquifers from which we draw our drinking water.

Allow For On-Site Composting

Composting is a process that decomposes the organic portion of the residual solids after water is removed from wastewater, resulting in a harmless biosolid that can be used for mulch and fertilizer. The Draft Facility Master Plan (FMP) (Black & Veatch, November 2016) recommends composting at a regional facility to reduce potential impacts on neighbors.

Allow For Other Municipal Uses

This goal envisions allowing for other City services to co-locate at the WRF site as appropriate. The intent is to improve the overall efficiency of providing such services, and potentially open up oceanfront property (where some of these services currently are) for more appropriate long-term uses. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will consider alternatives to accomplish this goal.

W H A T I S R E C Y C L E D W A T E R ?Recycled water is defined by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as “water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource (water code section 13050)”. The Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria was established by the SWRCB and are codified

in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, division 4, chapter 3. The criteria categorize recycled water based on treatment levels. Recycled water can be used for various urban, agricultural, commercial, and industrial to offset potable water use.

F R E Q U E N T L Y A S K E D Q U E S T I O N S

TABLE ES-1: TITLE 22 RECYCLED WATER TYPES AND ALLOWABLE USES

Recycled Water Type Allowable Irrigation Uses Treatment RequirementsDisinfected Tertiary Surface irrigation for food crops including

edible portion, parks and playgrounds, schoolyards, unrestricted access golf courses, roadway landscaping, and residential & commercial landscaping

Oxidation, coagulation3, filtration, and disinfection. Median total coliform of 2.2 MPN per 100mL, maximum total coliform4 of 23 MPN per 100mL

Disinfected Secondary-2.2

Irrigation of food crops where edible portion is above ground and not contacted by recycled water (ex. Drip irrigation is used)

Oxidation and disinfection. Median total coliform of 2.2 MPN per 100mL, maximum total coliform of 23 MPN per 100mL

Disinfected Secondary-23

Irrigation of cemeteries, freeway landscaping, restricted access golf courses, pasture for milk animals

Oxidation and disinfection. Median total coliform of 23 MPN per 100mL, maximum total coliform of 240 MPN per 100mL

Undisinfected Secondary

Irrigation for orchards and vineyards where edible portion does not contact recycled water (ex. Drip irrigation is used), non-food bearing trees, fodder crops and fiber crops, seed crops not eaten by humans, ornamental nursery stock

Oxidation

Notes:

1. Median total coliform content based on bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses were completed.2. Maximum total coliform content cannot exceed requirement in more than one sample in any 30 day period3. Coagulation is not typically required if membrane filtration is used and/or turbidity requirements are met.4. For Disinfected Tertiary maximum total coliform limit, no sample shall exceed 240 MPN/100 mL.5. Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, July 16, 2015 Edition

M O R R O B A Y D R A F T M A S T E R W A T E R R E C L A M A T I O N P L A N2

The Master Water Reclamation Plan (MWRP) was prepared to determine the recycled water opportunities in and around the City. The effort is centered on identifying the best and most effective methods of utilizing recycled water produced by the City’s new WRF. The MWRP reviews historical records and future projections of water supply, water demand, wastewater flows, wastewater loading, and the proposed treatment technology and facilities and compares suitability of various recycled water project alternatives to the City and the specific community project goals.

The MWRP is different from previous recycled water studies prepared for Morro Bay as it was developed during the planning stages of the City’s new WRF and considers the proposed design components of the WRF for recycled water projects. The Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan (FMP), developed concurrently with the MWRP, was the basis for anticipated treatment technologies, treated effluent quality, and costs. User outreach conducted and previous outreach reviewed during the MWRP provided information on potential recycled water users’ willingness to participate in a partnership with the City. Additional recent studies investigated the capability of the City and its surrounding hydrogeologic features, such as streams and groundwater aquifers, to be utilized as part of a recycled water project. The MWRP reviewed information from historical and recent resources to develop feasible recycled water project alternatives and evaluate the potential benefits to the City.



THE DRAFT FMP BY BLACK & VEATCH, NOVEMBER 2016 , IS AVAILABLE ON

THE PROJECT WEBSITE www.mor robaywr f . com

1Source: California’s Water: Water Recycling Imitates Nature. http://www.acwa.com/content/water-recycling/californias-water-water-recycling-imitates-nature. Accessed March 2017.

W H Y S H O U L D W E R E C Y C L E W A T E R ?Water recycling provides a water source that is dependable and locally-controlled, which can allow communities to be less depended on groundwater or imported water. The State of California has experienced significant drought for several years, with conditions improving slightly from the large amount of rainfall experienced in winter 2016/2017. Mandatory conservation efforts attempted to mitigate the effect of the drought on agricultural and other industries, but could only limit how the State’s water supply could be used. To increase the available supply of water, other methods such as reclamation or desalination would need to be utilized. According to the California Department of Water Resources, over 525,000 acre-feet (over 170 billion gallons) of wastewater is reclaimed each year, half of which is used for agricultural irrigation (ACWA, 20171 ). Projects throughout the state provide recycled water for various uses, including delivery to agricultural users to reduce demands on overdrafted groundwater basins, industrial users for use in processes from cleaning to oil refining, and large high-rise buildings in urban areas for flushing water in toilets and urinals.

After input from community workshops, the City Council adopted several goals for the WRF project, including production of tertiary disinfected recycled water. This goal exceeds regulations in place for discharge to the existing ocean outfall and meets regulations for a variety of reuse methods.

The City currently relies on imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) as the primary source of water. During times of low deliveries, or when the annual SWP maintenance occurs, the City

utilizes brackish groundwater from the Morro Valley Groundwater Basin, treated through the BWRO at the Water Treatment Plant. Currently, only groundwater from the City’s Morro Valley wells can be treated at the BWRO facility, and there is no treatment available for the Chorro Valley wells, which have recently tested high in nitrates and total dissolved solids. Reducing dependence on imported water by offsetting demand or supplementing with recycled water would increase reliability of the City’s water supply and could reduce

long-term costs. The SWP consists of a complex network of reservoirs, aqueducts, powerplants and pumping plants. Increasing the City’s local supply of water provides additional resiliency and reduces the risk of interruption of an imported water supply due to damage caused by earthquakes, climate change, or some other natural disaster. The costs of SWP are anticipated to rise with required improvements as facilities age and critical projects are identified. The City may be able to maintain their SWP allocation, and arrange to transfer or lease their allocation of water to other SWP customers.



I N C R E A S I N G T H E C I T Y ’ S L O C A L S U P P LY O F W A T E R

P R O V I D E S A D D I T I O N A L R E S I L I E N C Y A N D R E D U C E S T H E R I S K O F A N I M P O R T E D

W A T E R S U P P LY

HOW COMMON ARE RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS?Water reuse can provide communities with a reliable water supply that will reduce vulnerability to droughts and other water supply challenges. The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) provided a list of water recycling programs2 that are currently applying for or receiving state funding in December of 2016. A total of 118 recycled water projects are listed with a proposed recycled water demand of over 300,000 acre-feet (97.75 billion gallons) per year. Some projects were listed as having insufficient information to determine proposed recycled water deliveries and others yet were listed as having their recycled water delivery volume included in another phase or segment of the funded project. Additionally, some of the funding provided was intended for planning and development of recycled water projects, so the anticipated recycled water deliveries were not included in any of these listings. Consequently, the projected amount of recycled water production may be higher than 300,000 acre-feet annually.

RECYCLED WATER PROJECT EXAMPLES:

San Luis Obispo, CA Water Resource Recovery Facility – Urban Reuse: The City of San Luis Obispo completed and implemented a water reuse project in 2006 consisting of an initial eight miles of distribution pipeline to provide recycled water for urban irrigation and other approved uses. The City delivers water for irrigation of urban landscapes and parks throughout the City.

Oxnard, CAAdvanced Water Purification Facility – Urban and Agricultural Irrigation and Reuse: The Oxnard recycled water program, completed and implemented in 2014,

provides advanced treated wastewater to city properties (including two golf courses) and agricultural land. The City also offers discounted recycled water in exchange for user groundwater credits.

Monterey, CAPure Water Monterey - Indirect Potable Reuse: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, and California American Water Company have developed a groundwater replenishment project designed to provide 3,500 acre-feet per year for injection into the groundwater basin and transform as much as 5,600 acre-feet per year of run-off to treated water for farmland irrigation. The project is set to be completed by May 2019.

El Dorado Hills, CAEl Dorado Irrigation District – Urban Reuse: Since the late 1970s, separate irrigation and reclamation distribution systems have been operated in El Dorado Hills. Initially, the system provided recycled water to the local golf course and a nearby construction yard. The District developed a recycled water system at the community’s other wastewater treatment plant and later mandated that all new subdivisions and developments use recycled water for landscape irrigation. Over 4,000 residential homes and 100 businesses participate and make use of roughly 2,760 acre-feet per year.


2Source: Water Recycling Project Table: Projects Receiving/Applying for Water Recycling Funding http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/docs/wr.pdf


W H A T I S I N C L U D E D I N A R E C Y C L E D W A T E R P R O J E C T ?Components of a recycled water project vary case-by-case, but in general they are made up of treatment facilities and distribution facilities (pipes and pumps), and depend on permitting requirements and stakeholder interest and involvement. Recycled water opportunities are identified by reviewing the potential

recycled water market, determining the water quality needs, and evaluating the treatment requirements. Outreach is performed to assess user interest and specific requirements. Modeling, research, and other analyses are performed as needed to inform specific project plans.


W H A T R E C Y C L E D W A T E R O P P O R T U N I T I E S W E R E C O N S I D E R E D A S P A R T O F T H I S S T U D Y ?The MWRP reviewed historical recycled water studies and updated the recycled water market assessment and evaluation of opportunities based on the community goals and the new WRF project. Various recycled water opportunities that could benefit the City’s water supply were considered in the MWRP. Reuse for irrigation in both the urban and agricultural setting as well as indirect potable reuse projects (described in response to the next question) were considered.

Historically, groundwater withdrawals in the upper Morro Valley have resulted in a lack of supply at the City wells downstream during the growing season, when State Water Project demands are at their highest. To address this issue, multiple opportunities for agricultural use of reclaimed water were investigated involving various exchange and pumping agreement scenarios. In addition, offsetting the use of potable water for irrigation and by commercial properties throughout the City’s service area was investigated.


V A R I O U S R E C Y C L E D W A T E R O P P O R T U N I T I E S T H A T C O U L D B E N E F I T T H E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R S U P P LY W E R E C O N S I D E R E D


TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REUSE OPPORTUNITIES

Alternative Evaluated Further Comments

No Recycled Water Project ✔

• No water supply benefit to the City

• Lowest treatment requirements of all alternativesUrban Reuse

✔

• Distribution system to urban irrigation opportunities within the City Limits would need to be constructed by the City

• Potential to offset City potable water demand and fertilizer costs

• Generally lower treatment requirements than agricultural irrigation

Agricultural Irrigation • Costly distribution system would need to be constructed by the City

• Does not increase City’s potential water supply, only increases likelihood of withdrawing full allocation from Morro Valley

• Initial outreach indicated general unwillingness to participate

• Additional treatment for removal of salts necessaryExchange of Recycled Water with Agricultural Users for Reduced Groundwater Pumping

• Distribution system to Morro Valley would need to be constructed by the City

• Basin-wide groundwater management plan would be required to receive full benefit

• Does not increase City’s potential water supply, only increases likelihood of withdrawing full allocation from Morro Valley

• Initial outreach indicated general unwillingness to participate.

• Additional treatment for removal of salts necessaryExchange of Recycled Water with Agricultural Users for Riparian Rights to Withdraw Groundwater

• Distribution system to Morro Valley would need to be constructed by the City

• Complex legal issues surrounding Riparian Rights

• Initial outreach indicated general unwillingness to participate

• Additional treatment for removal of salts necessaryExchange of Recycled Water with Agricultural Users for Pumped Groundwater Delivered to the City

✔

• Distribution system to Morro Valley and return pipeline to water treatment facilities would need to be constructed by the City

• Initial outreach indicated agricultural users would only be interested if delivered water was less expensive than their current costs or higher quality

• Additional treatment for removal of salts necessary


TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REUSE OPPORTUNITIES

Alternative Evaluated Further Comments

Indirect Potable Reuse, Groundwater Replenishment Using Surface Application

• Limited water supply benefit, especially during wet years

• City must acquire land for percolation ponds

• City must staff and maintain percolation ponds

• Higher treatment requirements than all alternatives but groundwater injection

Indirect Potable Reuse, Groundwater Replenishment Using Subsurface Application at the Narrows

✔

• Injection wells in the Morro Valley Aquifer at the Narrows

• Pilot testing and additional modeling required for permitting and refined supply benefit estimates

• Highest mandated treatment requirements of all alternatives

• Highest potential water supply benefit

Indirect Potable Reuse, Groundwater Replenishment Using Subsurface Application at the Narrows Near Bike Path Adjacent to Lila Keiser Park

✔

• Injection wells in the Morro Valley Aquifer near the bike path at Lila Keiser Park

• Pilot testing and additional modeling required for permitting and refined supply benefit estimates


• Highest potential water supply benefit

Groundwater Injection for Seawater Intrusion Barrier

• City would likely need to install new injection wells

• Limited water supply benefit as majority of injected water lost to ocean


Streamflow Augmentation

• Regulatory challenges in present and future

• Long term or permanent commitment to dedicated stream discharge

• Requires expansion of water treatment facilities to treat surface water

• Majority of streamflow in Chorro Creek goes to ocean with minimal percolation

Direct Potable Reuse• Not currently legal in California

• Future regulatory challenges



Photo Credit: Luke Tyree

WE FORGET THAT THE WATER CYCLE AND THE LIFE CYCLE ARE ONE.

- JACQUES COUSTEAU


W H A T I S I N D I R E C T P O T A B L E R E U S E ? H O W C O M M O N I S I T ? Indirect potable reuse (IPR) is a water recycling application in which highly treated municipal wastewater is discharge directly into groundwater or surface water with the intent of augmenting drinking water supplies. Cities with limited water resources are adopting IPR projects as a means to sustainably manage their water supplies without relying on rainfall. Through planning, permitting, and design, IPR projects are capable of meeting drinking water standards and guidelines.

Unplanned use of treated wastewater for drinking purposes has taken place throughout history. While unintentional, this is a very common occurrence. Often wastewater discharged from a WWTP into a surface water is used as a drinking water source for a community located downstream. These unplanned IPR projects, as well as planned IPR projects, make use of environmental buffers such as rivers, lakes, aquifers, or other naturally occurring hydrology, which have a high capacity to further purify water (US National Research Council, 1998).

IPR projects in California are becoming more widely accepted in recent years. In the 1970s and 1980s IPR projects were limited to seawater intrusion barriers and very strict guidelines. Since then, research has been conducted to determine standards for potable reuse alternatives and various issues have been identified and addressed. The state has established water recycling goals and multiple large scale projects have been implemented.

Source: Indirect potable reuse: A Sustainable Water Supply Alternative March, 2009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672392/



P R O P O S E D I N D I R E C T P O T A B L E R E U S E ( I P R ) P R O J E C T

W A T E R R E U S E

L I F E C Y C L E


EXTRACTION WELL

INJECTION WELL - GROUNDW

ATER RECHARGE

RAIN AND CREEK

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (WRF)

WAT

ER TREATMENT PLANT

WAT

ER D

ISTR

IBUTION SYSTEM

AQUIFEROCEAN

H O W W E R E T H E R E C Y C L E D W A T E R P R O J E C T A L T E R N A T I V E S E V A L U A T E D ? The MWRP developed evaluation criteria based on the WRF project community goals adopted by City Council.


TABLE ES-3: WRF PROJECT COMMUNITY GOALS

Community Goal Applicability for WRF Applicability for Recycled WaterProduce tertiary disinfected recycled water WRF project is to be designed accordingly Allows for multitude of recycled water uses and

provides basis for advanced treatment

Produce reclaimed wastewater cost-effectively Draft FMP considered costs in treatment evaluation

Project alternative assessment will include capital and operating costs and consider total amount of recycled water produced

Allow for on-site composting

Reviewed as part of Draft FMP. On-site composting is not recommended, regional facility composting will be more cost effective and more compatible for neighbors

Not Applicable

Design for energy recovery Draft FMP considered energy recovery for WRF Project alternatives analysis will consider energy usage

Design to treat for contaminants of emerging concern (CECs)

Draft FMP included consideration in treatment evaluation

Advanced treatment would provide additional treatment for CECs

Allow for other municipal uses Draft FMP considered for WRF site planning Not Applicable

Ensure compatibility with neighboring land uses Draft FMP considered for WRF site planning Consideration for major infrastructure siting

Operational WRF within five years WRF project is on schedule Project alternatives analysis will consider potential challenges that could delay the project

N

SEAWATER BARRIERS (1960-1990) IPR (1990-2010)1 2

1970 1980 1990 2000

Seawater barriersOrange County Water Factory 21

Opposition to IPR (LA, San Diego, San Gabriel)

West Basin barrier and Chino Basin barrier

Research Needs for the Potable Reuse of Municipal Water NRC report: Issues in potable reuse

WRRF NWRI State Water Recycling Goals

Criteria and Standards for potable reuse and alternatives

HISTORY OF POTABLE REUSE IN CALIFORNIA



The recycled water project alternatives were evaluated based on the following criteria, aligning with the community project goals:

• Comparative capital and operating costs

• Compatibility with neighboring land uses and impact during construction

− Total pipeline length

− Land acquisition

• Reliability of recycled water uses and potential for schedule delays

• Potential to benefit the City’s potable water supply (as described below)

This evaluation also considered the potential to benefit the City’s potable water supply, either by offsetting potable water demand through delivery and use of recycled water or by a more direct method of supplementing the City’s groundwater supply using injection wells (indirect potable reuse).

A qualitative comparison of the four recycled water project alternatives was performed with the main criteria being based on the community project goals. The “no project alternative” was not included, since it would not provide a recycled water project. The tables included below contain the community goals and how they apply to recycled water and the result of the qualitative comparison. Each alternative was assigned a score from 1 to 4 for each criterion. The results of the comparison and the project scores are included in Table ES-4 and Table ES-5.

IPR (1990-2010) IPR-DPR PROJECTS (2010-2016)3

2010 2014 2016

OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System

Senate Bill 918

Several DPR reports (NRC, WRRF, NWRI)

DPR workshop

Water Reuse DPR Initiative

DPR Research continuesNRWI Advisory Panel submits comments to Expert Panel

DPR system (Big Springs, TX and Witchita Falls, TX)

Pure Water San DiegoSilicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center

Padre Dam Advanced Water Purification CenterPure Water Monterey

Expert Panel reports to CA Legislature

Expert Panel draft recommendations due



TABLE ES-5: COMPARATIVE QUALITATIVE RANKING

CriteriaAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Urban Reuse Agricultural Exchange IPR East IPR West

Potential City water supply benefit 1 2 4 4

Pipeline length 2 1 4 3Land acquisition 4 3 1 2Reliability 1 1 3 3Total 8 7 12 12

Estimated capital and operating costs were developed for each of the recycled water project alternatives. Cost comparisons were made in context with the costs for the City’s proposed WRF to inform the City’s financial planning.

TABLE ES-4: RECYCLED WATER PROJECT QUALITATIVE COMPARISON

Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4


Potential City water supply benefit (AFY) Limited: 45.4

Half the amount of recycled water available:

442

More than recycled water amount: 943

More than recycled water amount: 1,119

New pipeline length (LF) 19,200 43,000 15,100 15,200

Land acquisition No additional easements

Several easements required

Land required for siting new injection wells near

the Narrows

Land required for siting new injection wells near

power plant property

Reliability

Only interest expressed from golf course; relies

on contracts with potential users

Limited interest based on outreach to date;

relies on contracts with potential users

City controlled City controlled



TABLE ES-6: COMPARISON OF TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS

Alternative 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4No Recycled Water Project (Secondary

only)


WRF Capital Costs

Estimated WRF Capital Construction Cost

$79,350,000 $89,710,000 $89,710,000 $89,710,000 $89,710,000

Engineering/Design (WRF) $7,730,000 $8,740,000 $8,740,000 $8,740,000 $8,740,000

Procurement (4% WRF) $3,174,000 $3,588,400 $3,588,400 $3,588,400 $3,588,400

Project Admin & CM (12% WRF)

$9,522,000 $10,765,200 $10,765,200 $10,765,200 $10,765,200

Permitting, monitoring, and mitigation (1% WRF)

$793,500 $897,100 $897,100 $897,100 $897,100

Existing WWTP Demolition $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000

Property Acquisition (WRF) $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

Recycled Water Project Capital Costs

Estimated Recycled Water Project Capital Construction Cost

$0 $8,940,000 $18,440,000 $17,820,000 $18,110,000

Engineering/Admin (RW) $0 $2,630,000 $5,430,000 $5,250,000 $5,320,000

Subtotal Program Capital Cost Opinion (rounded)

$104,200,000 $128,900,000 $141,700,000 $140,400,000 $140,700,000

Construction Contingency $19,320,000 $24,040,000 $26,370,000 $26,220,000 $26,290,000

Total Program Capital Cost Opinion

$123,520,000 $152,940,000 $167,570,000 $166,620,000 $166,990,000

Notes: 1. Estimated WRF Capital Construction Cost includes the WRF Project (lift station, pipelines, and treatment plant) without any recycled water components,

based on costs presented in the Draft FMP, not including construction contingency or engineering/design, which are shown separately. 2. Cost assumptions for Alternative 0 are based on secondary treatment only, SBR option as described in Section 7.3. Alternative 0 does not fulfill the com-

munity project goals to produce tertiary disinfected wastewater or to produce reclaimed water.3. WRF costs for Alternatives 1 – 4 assume the MBR option from the Draft FMP. Based on estimates in the Draft FMP, the total program capital cost opinion

for Alternatives 1 – 4 would be approximately $2M less with the SBR option. Construction contingency consists of 25% of construction cost subtotal(s).


Annual cost estimates were developed to review operation and maintenance costs and the estimated cost of water since the recycled water alternatives may impact the City’s water supply. Estimated annual water costs in the table below assumed an annual demand of 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY). The Urban Reuse option could reduce water demand by approximately 45 AFY. Agricultural exchange would supply approximately 440 AFY, and it is assumed the remainder of the

supply would come from the State Water Project, at an estimated cost of $2,200 per AFY. Estimated annual water costs for the IPR alternative assumes no State Water, and between 900 and 1,100 AFY of groundwater, pumped and treated at $1,000/AFY, and the remainder of the supply is made up by desalination of seawater at the City’s existing Water Treatment Plant for $1,600/AFY.


TABLE ES-7: ESTIMATED TOTAL WRF PROGRAM ANNUAL COSTS

No Recycled Water Project Urban Reuse Agricultural

ExchangeIndirect Potable

ReuseAnnualized Program Cost 1 $6.3M $7.8M $8.5M $8.5M

Estimated Annual O&M $1.4M $1.8M $2.0M $2.3MEstimated Annual Water Cost 2 $2.6M $2.5M $1.7M $1.6M

Estimated Total Program Annual Cost

$10.3M $12.1M $12.2M $12.4M

Notes: 1 SRF financing assumed with a 30 year loan and 3% interest rate 2 Water cost assumptions: Demand= 1200 AFY, SWP = $2200/AF, Groundwater = $1000/AF, Desalination of seawater = $1600/AF

A N N U A L C O S T E S T I M A T E S W E R E D E V E L O P E D T O R E V I E W O P E R A T I O N A N D M A I N T E N A N C E C O S T S A N D T H E E S T I M A T E D C O S T O F W A T E R S I N C E T H E R E C Y C L E D W A T E R A L T E R N A T I V E S M A Y I M P A C T T H E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R S U P P LY



W H A T I S T H E R E C O M M E N D E D P R O J E C T ?Based on the analyses presented in the MWRP, the recommended recycled water project is IPR, (Alternative 3 or 4) with the main difference consisting of the locations for injection and extraction wells. The IPR alternative provides the highest potential water supply benefit. Supplementing the potable water supply with highly treated recycled water is the highest form of allowable beneficial reuse, and will allow the City to reduce or eliminate reliance on imported water.

The capital cost for the recommended recycled water project is anticipated to be $26M, including a 25% construction contingency. The full WRF program is anticipated to cost $167M including WRF lift station and pipelines, treatment facilities, full IPR recycled water project, permitting and environmental mitigation, WRF property acquisition, engineering and design, construction administration, and a 25% construction contingency.

INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE GROUNDWATER AUGMENTATION


411

1

1M O R R O B A Y D R A F T M A S T E R W A T E R R E C L A M A T I O N P L A N18

I N D I R E C T P O T A B L E R E U S E P R O J E C T C O N C E P T U A L L A Y O U T

Preliminary modeling indicates the ability to inject approximately 800 acre-feet per year

of highly treated water produced by the WRF into the Morro Valley aquifer and extract

approximately 940 to 1,100 acre-feet per year of blended water through existing City wells

HOW IT WILL WORK

Morro Rock

Proposed Injection Well Areas

Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Morro Bay Estuary

MORRO BAY

411

1

1D R A F T E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y - M A R C H 2 0 1 7 19

Proposed WRF Site

Recycled Water Pipeline Alternatives

To Atascadero

To Los OsosTo San Luis Obispo


W H A T A R E T H E B E N E F I T S O F T H E R E C O M M E N D E D P R O J E C T ?Preliminary modeling indicates the ability to inject approximately 800 AFY of recycled water into the Morro Valley Groundwater aquifer, and extract approximately 940 – 1,100 AFY of mixed groundwater and recycled water through existing City wells. An IPR project could reduce or eliminate the need for State Water. Increasing the City’s local supply of water provides additional resiliency and reduces the risk of interruption of an

imported water supply due to damage caused by earthquakes, climate change, or some other natural disaster. The costs of SWP are anticipated to rise with required improvements as facilities age and critical projects are identified. Additionally, the City may be able to maintain their SWP allocation, and arrange contracts to transfer or lease their allocation of water to other SWP customers.

SANDwater table

natural recharge through precipitationnatural recharge through stream

injection well for groundwater recharge

GROUNDWATER RESERVOIR/AQUIFER -- SAND AND GRAVEL

BEDROCK

SOIL

SUBSURFACE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE



W H A T I S T H E R E C Y C L E D W A T E R P R O J E C T S C H E D U L E ? W H A T I S N E X T ?To further refine the project assumptions and costs, the recommended next steps are summarized as follows:

• Environmental assessment (currently underway)

• Rate study update (currently underway)

• Continue consultation with regulatory agencies

• Siting study for injection wells

• Pilot study for injection and extraction

• Groundwater modeling update (after/with pilot study)

• Assessment of groundwater treatment and blending options at existing Water Treatment Plant

• Design of recycled water system, including advanced treatment, injection wells, pumps and pipelines

Following the update of the Rate Study, the City will be able to pursue financing opportunities and more specifically define the project schedule. Results from additional modeling and consultations with regulatory agencies will steer the project accordingly.


Photo Credit: Janelle Wahl

city of morro bay water reclamation facility...

Documents