Recycled Water Facilities
Planning Study
Technical Workshop – December 6,
2010
Foothill Municipal Water District
Overview





History
Facilities Planning Study Grant
Draft Paper Review
Recommendations
Next Steps
History




John Morris Study
Bookman-Edmonston Study
RMC Study
Water Resources Plan
Facilities Planning Study Grant




Up to $75,000 in matching funds
Draft due December 15.
Final due February 28, 2011.
Outline in grant forms.
Draft Paper Review
A.
Introduction
Draft Paper Review
B.
Study Area Characteristics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrologic Features – Raymond and Verdugo
Basins
Historic extractions and recharge
Water quality of groundwater and surface
water
Land Use
Population Projections – Draft UWMP – Retail
agencies (Please see handout)
Beneficial Uses and effluent discharges
Draft Paper Review
C.
Water Supply Characteristics and
Facilities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Description of all wholesale and retail entities
Sources of water, facilities, costs, prices
Capacities of facilities and flows
Groundwater management, recharge,
overdraft
Water use trends, projections (see handout)
Quality of Supplies
Sources of additional water and plans for new
facilities
Draft Paper Review
D.
Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Description of wastewater entities
Description of facilities, flows, etc.
Water quality of effluent and seasonal
fluctuations
Additional facilities needed
Source of industrial or other problems
Existing recycling
Existing rights to use of treated effluent
Wastewater flow variations
Draft Paper Review
E.
Treatment requirements
1.
2.
3.
4.
Potential uses water quality
Health related water qualities (see
handouts)
Discharge requirements – no
discharge other than beneficial use
RWQCB requirements – General
Permit
Draft Paper Review
F.
Recycled water market
1.
Description of assessment procedures
Draft Paper Review
G.
Project Alternative Analysis
1.
2.
Planning and design assumptions
Alternatives to be evaluated –
By geography:
-
Arroyo Seco Alternatives
Verdugo Basin Alternatives
Eaton Wash Spreading Ground
Alternatives
Arroyo Seco Alternatives-.25 mgd
Alternative
Description
Cost
(millions)
A-1
Irrigation customers, 48 AF, JPL tanks
$1.7
A-2
A-1 plus spreading, 280 AF
$1.73
A-3
A-1 plus cooling tower, 160 AF
$1.7
A-4
A-2 and A-3, 280 AF
$1.73
A-5
A-1 plus injection, 280 AF
$1.9
A-6
Injection only, 280 AF
$1.21
A-7
A-1 but Pasadena supply, 48 AF
$.14*
A-8
A-2 but Pasadena supply, 280 AF
$.27*
* Plus purchase cost of Pasadena water - $1,500/AF
Verdugo Basin Alternatives - .25 - .5 mgd
Alternative
Description
Cost
(millions)
V-1
Irrigation customers, 97 AF, .25 mgd
MBR plant
$1.63
V-2
Irrigation customers, 97 AF, Glendale
water, .25 mgd sizing
$1.2*
V-3
Injection in Raymond Basin, 560 AF, .5
mgd MBR plant
$1.51
V-4
Injection in Raymond Basin, 560 AF,
Glendale water
$1.02*
V-5
Irrigation and injection, 560 AF, MBR
$2.2
V-6
Irrigation and injection, 560 AF,
Glendale water
$2.05*
* Plus purchase cost of Glendale water - $530/AF
Eaton Wash Alternatives - .5 mgd
Alternative
Description
Cost
(millions)
E-1
Spreading, 560 AF, MBR
$1.06
E-2
Spreading, 560 AF, Pasadena
$1.14*
E-3
Spreading, 560 AF, GRIP
$3.75**
* Plus purchase cost of Pasadena water - $1,500/AF
** Plus purchase cost of GRIP water - $1,000/AF
Draft Paper Review
3.
Non-recycled water alternatives



4.
5.
6.
Debris basins and infiltration galleries
Pasadena spreading ponds
Devil’s Gate Dam water transfer project
Conservation
No project alternative
Groundwater impacts –




TDS: 800 mg/l
Total nitrogen: 12 mg/l
TOC: 10 mg/l
Turbidity: 0.5 NTU
MWD Projections
Year
$/AF
2010
$
701
2011
$
744
2012
$
794
2013
$
833
2014
$
877
2015
$
920
2016
$
970
Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
$/AF
$ 1,023
$ 1,079
$ 1,146
$ 1,214
$ 1,287
$ 1,364
$ 1,446
$ 1,533
Year
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
$/AF
$ 1,625
$ 1,722
$ 1,825
$ 1,935
$ 2,051
$ 2,174
$ 2,305
$ 2,443
Source: MWD Draft 2010 UWMP, 10/4/2010
Alternatives Present Worth
Alternative
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
$7,052
$1,429
$2,139
$2,335
$1,354
$855
$2,248
$2,024
V-1
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
$4,534
$4,686
$665
$822
$985
$1,080
E-1
E-2
E-3
Per AF Present
Worth
$690
$2,134
$2,198
Alternative
MWD
Per AF Present
Worth
$1,334
Per AF Present
Worth
Alternative
Per AF Present
Worth
Alternative
Recommended Alternatives
Alternative
Description
A-6
Injection only, 280 AF
V-5
Irrigation and injection,
560 AF, MBR
E-1
Spreading, 560 AF, MBR
Addition of 4rth phase based on CVWD negotiations with
Glendale regarding adjudication & extension of Glendale
system to Deukmejian Park
Recycled Water Costs
Alternative
Reclaimed
Water
Sales, AF
Total Capital
Cost $
Annual
Capital
Cost $
O&M Costs
$
Total
Annual
Costs $
Unit
Costs
$/AF
A-6
280
$ 1,274,370
$ 78,236
$ 105,081
$ 183,316
$ 655
V-5
560
$ 3,756,420
$ 230,612
$ 211,733
$ 442,345
$ 790
E-1
560
$ 1,404,240
$ 86,208
$ 206,807
$ 293,015
$ 523
Total
1400
$ 6,435,030
$ 395,056
$ 523,620
$ 918,677
$ 656
* Based on an interest rate of 4.5%, 30 year financing
Energy Savings
Reduced Imported Deliveries (AF)
Average Power on East Branch (3200 kwh)
Average Power to Pump to FMWD (600 kwh)
Total kwh saved
1,400
4,480,000
840,000
5,320,000
1 meter3 = 264 gallons = 1.44 kwh for MBR
2,488,691
570 kwh average to produce groundwater
798,000
Total recycled energy use
3,286,691
Net savings (kwh)
2,033,309
Average annual California home energy use (kwh)
# of Homes supplied annually from energy savings
7,044
289
Next Steps









Submit draft to SWRCB
Revise based on comments
Decide on phasing
Submit final planning study to SWRCB
Other funding
Engineering/CEQA
Construction
Operation
Continue discussing 4rth phase with
Glendale
Discussion