Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Zn7 WaterConectnFees e e CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATENBNT City Council Meeting Date: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: proposed Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 Water Connection Fee Increases Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) / Letter from Zone 7 2) / Zone 7 Resolution No. 1653 accepting the camp, Dresser & McKee (COM) Water Supply planning Report and reaffirming the policy to pursue additional water supply sources to meet identified needs. 3) ~CDM Summary Water supply Planning Report 4) ~ Draft letter from the Dublin City Council to the Board of Directors of Zone 7 regarding the proposed connection fee increases. 5) Zone 7 staff will be at the meeting to make a presentation on the Report and on the proposal to raise connection fees. RECOMMENDATION: Hear presentation from Zone 7, allow public testimony, and (1. _~give Staff direction for letter to be presented at Zone 7's \\LAJ'O public hearing on March 16, 1994. FIJlAHCIAL STATEMENT: The City will incur higher connection fee costs in the future development of parks and other public facilities. The City will also need to pay the Zone 7 connection charge for the Heritage Center prior to the effective date of the rate increase. DESCRIPTION: The Alameda county Flood Control and Water Conservation District-zone 7 has taken the position to seek out and develop new water sources so that the projected expansion of the valley may go forward. To this end, Zone 7 contracted with Camp, Dresser & McKee (COM) to prepare a water supply planning report. COM has completed the report, Zone 7 has accepted it and is now in the process of carrying out the recommendations. The report identifies feasible additional water supplies and develops a strategy for procuring the additional water. Zone 7 has estimated the costs of these new supplies and proposes to increase the water connection fees substantially (by 3.7 times) to pay for the cost of developing new water sources~ It should be noted that Zone 7 has not raised their connection fees in 16 years. The upside of these actions is that Zone 7 is actively pursuing new water supplies, and it appears that these supplies will be available as development occurs. The downside is that it will be expensive. These new fees may also impact Dublin's already approved in-fill projects, such as the Donlon Canyon and the Hansen Ranch developments, which have already been delayed due to a downturn in the economy. The Dublin San Ramon Services District received a similar presentation by Zone 7 at their March 1st Board Meeting and took no official action. Staff recommends that the City Cbuncil hear the presentation and give Staff direction for a letter outlining the City of Dublin's position at the Zone 7 hearing of March 16, 1994. a:agenda94\watrsupl -' ::::-::~-~------::::::-::~--:::-:::::~-::::-:-------- Mike Gleason, Donlon canyon Marti Buxton, California Pacific Homes CITY J:iLe- -I e . ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE . PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94588 February 25, 1994 . (510) 484-2600 Mr. Richard Ambrose city of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RECEIVED FEB G 8 1994 CITY OF DUBUN Re: Zone 7 Water connection Charge Program Update Dear Mr. Ambrose: Enclosed is a report which recommends increasing the charges for connections to the Zone 7 water system to finance water supplies and water facilities for projected development. Since 1972, Zone 7 has been charging fees for new connections to the water supply system in the Zone 7 service area. These fees are used to fund improvements to the water treatment and delivery system needed to provide water to new development. Water supply Reports prepared by Zone 7 in February 1992 and April 1993 and the Water Supply Planning Report prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee, dated January 1994, all indicate Zone 7 needs to obtain additional water to meet future demands. This shortfall of supply in water is largely due to the decrease in yield of the state Water Project from uncertainties in regulatory requirements (Endangered species Act) and facilities limitations. At the same time water demands for the Zone 7 service area ~ill continue to increase. In order to finance the projects to develop new water, Zone 7 is proposing to increase the water connection charges. The new charge would be based on apportioning the cost of the expansion projects among the new users. This method is in accordance with the Zone 7 Board's policy of not burdening the cost of future water supplies on existing water users. Estimates by the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and the County of Alameda project the population in the Livermore-Amador valley to be about 275,000 in the year 2020. This is nearly double the current population. The additional demands will require Zone 7 to obtain about 25,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply. The Water Supply planning Report by Camp Dresser & McKee evaluated Zone 7 options and recommended F1<.'!~.l1~~l ....".C'''' "~~., '~~~ 'F~j~. ~ ~!1:; ~ t~~\ ~,~ :fi"" :~~ ~~. ''iA,tU1 11 ~~:; I -- . /. - e . February 25, 1994 Page 12 projects necessary to develop water supplies from 1) water conservation (demand reduction), 2) recycled water, and 3) imported surface water. The facilities needed to import, treat, store and distribute the water are intended to maintain the level of reliability, peaking ability and water quality currently provided to Zone 7 residents by the existing water system. However, the projects selected still need feasibility and engineering studies, CEQA documentation and Zone 7 Board approval before implementing. In order to fund the projects Zone 7 will need to raise the water connection charge for a basic 5/B-inch meter connection from $830 to $3,050. The Zone Board will hear comments on the proposed connection charge and consider adopting the new charge at its regular board meeting on March 16, 1994. We would be available to discuss this proposed increase with you, your staff or the city council. Vif ~C5F' am Dl.xon General Manager DHG:bkm Enc. cc (wjenc): Lee Thompson Larry Tong ~ e - ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO.7 RESOLUTION NO. 1653 INTRODUCED BY DIRECTOR FIGUERS SECONDED BY DIRECTOR HAGEMANN WHEREAS, Zone 7 is the primary agency to supply water for the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton and surrounding areas in the Livermore-Amador Valley; and WHEREAS, the long range water needs of the Livermore- Amador Valley have been provided principally by the State Water Project; and WHEREAS, the State Water Project cannot currently meet its long-term contract commitments to Zone 7; and WHEREAS, the future demands for water for planned development in the Livermore-Amador Valley will exceed the current supply; and WHEREAS, the cities and water retailers served by Zone 7 have requested the Board of Directors to seek additional water sources to supplement the State Water Project and to meet the future water needs; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 has retained a consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee, to prepare a Water supply Planning Report to evaluate Zone 7's potential water supply options, and to recommend steps needed to obtain additional water; and WHEREAS, Camp Dresser & McKee has prepared such a report which concludes that Zone 7 has a number of diverse and feasible options involving water conservation, recycled water and imported surface water, that Zone 7 can pursue for additional waterj NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors accepts the Water supply Planning Report, dated January 1994, and prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKeej and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Zone 7 reaffirms its pOlicies as stated in Resolutions No. 1357 and 1629 to pursue additional water supply sources to meet identified needsj and ~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is authorized and directed to undertake the following steps recommended in said Water supply Planning Report necessary to develop future water supply: . Develop a comprehensive water conservation program. . continue to monitor and advocate State Water project improvements. . continue to pursue permits and studies for water recycling projects. 1 of 2 r-'~l~~!~~l" A;:." '\' f., )}' I..,t. 11'> ., h!"-;j. ," ,.,;. ~-'" rs. ,~1".1 ," '" <.' .~ I ' ~' ~ Illii:;,';l ~. e - . continue to pursue water transfer opportunities. . Pursue the future contractor share of the existing South Bay Aqueduct capacity. . Conduct a groundwater management study to define guidelines for managed use of the groundwater basin, inclUding recharge capabilities and salt balance. . Develop a plan to expand groundwater recharge program. . Conduct an operations study of the existing water supply system to evaluate groundwater, imported surface water, and South Bay Aqueduct operations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager be directed to develop financing methods to accomplish the development of future water supplies that will not be a burden on the existing water users. ':.' ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: NOES: DIRECTOR CONCANNON, FIGUERS, HAGEMANN, LAYTON, MARCHAND, "(RACY NONE ,::. ' AYES: ABSENT: DIRECTOR WENTE ABSTAIN: NONE > i ~.. ". '...... . ...-, ~.. I certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District . ...t'. on JAN 1 9 1994 A TrEST: By:~/~J.-f c::7 , ;." 2 of 2 e . I, I " November 1993 ACCEPTEDJANUARV1994 ZONE 7 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Water Supply Planning Report Summary COM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Water Transfer Associates Public Affairs Management EX~' I~~~~~ 3 ' ' , ~~'!'N/I;:~ ~ . ,~ G ~~~;.~; ~ 8 ~~- ~ '. \ r'~'~~r',~~~;'~~!r.~;?1~(;~~(<~YJ/~'.~,i,~',;\:~'~",~'.~,;: /Y<.\'\I: ".. :"::,," " ',., I '." l " ,< ,. ' ,". ,." , :.' . ." ,.; ,. r. ,. '.'. r' " ': " '(' : ~. ; . :'. ~ .';. ,:. , r J.,' I.".; , .;? .' . ,I..,.. I e Purpose of Report Recent cutbacks in deliveries of contracted surface water from the State Water Project underscore the State's inability to meet its immediate and long-term contract commitments to Zone 7. The cutbacks occurred due to the recent drought and also new environmental requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, Zone 7 undertook preparation of this water supply planning report. In addition to this Summary Report, a separate expanded report presents the information in more detail. The purpose of the report is to identify feasible additional water supplies (which are e largely to replace those lost for environmental needs) and to develop a strategy for procuring that additional water. The report is based on available information from Zone 7 and previous related studies. The feasible options identified in this report will require further study to develop specific water supply projects; enhance the reliability of Zone 7's existing supply; and meet future demands. Zone 7 Zone 7 is one of the ten active zones of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which is a special district established by the State legislature in 1949. Zone 7 was established by popular vote From Clifton Court ....1 Forebay "" ....,~ "'1' ................... ~ Delta. ol.lny.... Pumping I GO~ - Plant I nl r ~.... I.l nl i G~ daGo ' .... Il'a __ "Ia '1' north I -- --.... ,_ Zone 7 Transmission Facilities , Figure 1 Water Facilities and Retail Service Areas Patterson Pass WTP "- ~::;,>v >>e ~c:: Main Groundwater Basin Boundary California Water Service Company 1-580 I", "'I'~ ~ ,~ '" " " u U I.'.: ~ I'~ e <> III -, :;;:1; I~ I I 1 I I ~ ..... -- --.., " L \ Alameda County J --------------------- Santa Cla,a County 1 ." : . , ~ I . ' , I " '.,.,' , ,,' \ I,""." "' e of the residents of the Livermore-Amador Valley in 1957 under an amendment to the District Act. Today Zone 7 serves a population of about 140,000 in a service area comprising approximately 425 square miles in eastern Alameda County, as indicated on Figure 1. As the major water supply agency in eastern Alameda County, Zone 7 has an ongoing corrunitment to planning for existing and future needs, implementing needed projects, maintaining a reliable water delivery system, and providing a quality product. Water Del'nancJs Zone 7 supplies treated water to retail water agencies for municipal and industrial use, as well as untreated water for irrigation to farmers, golf courses, and others in the Livermore-Amador Valley. The major retail water agencies contracting with Zone 7 for treated water include: The City of Pleasanton, the City of Livermore, the Dublin San Ramon Services District, and the California Water Service Company. The total existing water demand in 1992 for all users was 40,200 acre-feet (AF). The total future water demands are anticipated to increase to about 66,500 to 87,000 acre-feet per year by year 2020. The range of future demands are based on varying levels of municipal and industrial use, which is the largest component (70 to 80 percent) of the total demand. The municipal and industrial demand is based on the projected population and per person water demand rate (gallons of water per day per person). A range of population projections and per person water demand rates are considered to allow for uncertainties in actual future water use. Low and high population projections are based on the current or prospective General Plans prepared by the Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin, and Alameda County. The per person demand rates range from a low of 190 to a high of 210 gallons per person per day. e Existing Water Supply Water for the Livermore-Amador Valley currently comes from three primary sources: lIS Local groundwater . Local runoff from the Arroyo del Valle . Imported surface water from the State Water Project (SWP) The primary water facilities are indicated on Figure 1. The Livermore-Amador Valley has a large groundwater basin with a relatively large storage capacity of over 240,000 acre- feet. The Main Basin is characterized by abundant well yields and good quality groundwater. It is used to supply numerous municipal wells and to store high quality imported water. Zone 7 holds water rights for flows in Arroyo del Valle. Local runoff from the Arroyo del Valle is captured in Lake Del Valle under agreements with the State Department of Water Resources. This runoff is either treated and used directly, or recharged into the groundwater basin for later recovery. Imported water from the State Water Project currently provides about 70 percent of the water used in the Zone 7 service area. Under a 75-year contract with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Zone 7 receives water from the Feather River watershed (Lake Oroville) via the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta and the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA). Zone 7's contracted amount of water increases to an annual entitlement of 46,000 acre-feet in 1997. However, the actual amount of water received in anyone year is dependent upon many variables; and indications are that the State will not be able to meet its full contract corrunitments. The imported water is generally of good quality, and lower in total mineral content than local groundwater. It is treated at the Del Valle and Patterson Pass Water Treatment Plants before delivery. Some imported water is also released to the arroyos for groundwater recharge. 2 e Sustainable Annual Yield of Existing Water Supply The sustainable annual yield of the existing water supply is its long-term average annual yield. The sustainable annual yield of Zone 7's existing water supply ranges from 48,900 to 56,000 acre-feet per year. It includes the safe yield of the groundwater basin (13,400 acre-feet per year), the average yield of local runoff from Arroyo del Valle (7,000 acre-feet per year), and a range of estimates for deliveries from the State Water Project (28,500 to 35,600 acre-feet per year). A range of values is considered for State Water Project deliveries to allow for future uncertainties due to regulatory requirements (Endangered Species Act) and facilities limitations. For planning purposes, a total average annual supply of 52,100 acre-feet per year is used for Zone 7's existing water supply (median supply). During dry years, groundwater storage is used to balance reduced surface water supply, and then replenished during e wet years when excess surface water supply is available. Future Water Supply Requirements Figure 2 graphically compares the projected water demands from 1995 through 2020 with the average annual yield of the existing water supply. As indicated on the figure, Zone 7 could need additional water by year 2000 based on a median level of demand (halfway between low and high demand). If Zone 7 could get its full contract entitlement from the State Water Project, it could almost meet the projected low water demands through year 2020 and could meet the projected high demands through year 2005. However, the Zone has little control over the many variables associated with actual deliveries from the State Water Prpject. Therefore, Zone 7 cannot base its planning on its full contract entitlement from the State and must identify other sources of water supply. 90 90 85 85 >. 0- 80 80 0- ::l ~~ en 'Ii 75 "0 75 Supply with Full Contract Qe~ c ro Entitlelnent from .~ "O~ 70 State Water Project X'-~ 70 ffi<( Eo 65 65 CllO 00 ... T""" 60 60 Q)....... co 3: 55 55 (ij ::l 50 c 50 c <( 45 45 40 40 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Figure 2 Comparison of Existing Supply and Future Demands Through Year 2020 3 , ,\ ~ ,. . ,:'1 , e Potential Future Water Supply Options Zone 7 has spent considerable effort to investigate potential options for increasing its water supply. This information provided the basis to identify potential feasible options for additional future water supplies as shown in Table 1. Alternatives for new water facilities needed after year 2005 to convey and treat future imported supply were also identified, as shown in Table 2. e Water Conservation (Option A) Water conservation measures, such as public education and low water use appliances and landscaping, can help to reduce water demands. Water conservation measures do not actually provide additional water; however, they reduce the need to obtain additional water since demands are lower. Table 1 Potential Water Supply Options Potential Water SUDolv Option Option A Water Conservation Savings Option A -I Baseline Program (5-10 percent reduction in demand) Option A-2 Intensive Program (additional 5 percent reduction in demand) Preliminary Estimated Ouantity (acre-feet/year) 3,000 - 6,000 1,500 - 3,000 Option B Recycled Water (Reclaimed Wastewater) Option B-1 Direct Reuse of Recycled Water for Irrigation Option B-2 Groundwater Recharge of Demineralized Recycled Water Option C Imported Surface Water Option C-I Additional Water from Zone 7's State Water Project Entitlement Option C-2 Water Transfers Option D Managed Use of Groundwater Basin for Short-Term Balancing During Dry Years and Later Replenishment with Artificial Recharge 2,500 - 6,000 1,000 - 13,000 8,400-14,000 1,000 - 50,000 Based on Augmented Recharge from Additional Supply Table 2 Facilities Alternatives for Option C Imported Surface Water Supplyll) Facilities Alternatives for Option C Imported Surface Water Sum;,ly Groundwater Recharge Additional Storage of Surface Water at Lake Del Valle Future Contractor Share of Existing South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) Capacity Enlarged South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) Additional Surface Water Treatment Plant Capacity Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alt/?rnative 5 Preliminary Estimated Capacitv (acre-feet/vear) 4,000 - 10,000 18,000 - 20,000 15,000 10,000 - 30,000 12,500 - 30,000 (I)Needed after year 2005 to implement Option C Imported Surface Water Supply. 4 " 1:.(rs.~~~~ '\~:' :~~i.) +:l: 1."~" :.. \-.< ,:.~'" . .',.... "."( ""1". ~~\,- :"pl;lI!"~~";:"*"~ ~, e Recycled W<lter (Option [3) Demineralized recycled water (reclaimed wastewater) can be used for replenishing (recharging) the groundwater basin and for irrigation of agricultural lands, golf courses, parks and other landscape areas. Nondemin- eralized recycled water can be used for irri- gation over certain portions of the ground- water basin. Recycled water would be treated to meet water quality requirements of the State Health Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Imported Surface Water (Option C) Imported surface water remains an important component of Zone 7 water supply. But, the timeframe is uncertain for construction of State Water Project improvements needed to increase the average annual supply available from the State. Zone 7 can also purchase surface water that currently supplies other users, such as irrigation districts and farmers, by contracting for water transfers. Severe shortages during the most recent drought have focused considerable attention on water transfers as a water supply source. Managed Use of Groundwater Basin (Opt. D) Zone 7 also has the option of managing the use of the groundwater basin to meet changing water supply needs. Due to the relatively large groundwater basin, Zone 7 can pump in excess of the safe annual yield on a short-term basis to balance temporary shortfalls in other sources of supply. The temporary borrowing would be replenished by recharge when other water supplies are available. This option must be implemented in conjunction with procuring imported water and/or recycled water for replenishing the groundwater basin. Additional production wells will be added in the future as part of Zone 7's normal operating criteria for peaking and emergency reserves. Facilities l\.equirements for Option C After year 2005! the imported surface water options will require new facilities for e conveyance, storage and treatment. These facilities could include: groundwater recharge facilities! such as basins or injection wells; a new reservoir at Lake Del Valle; additional South Bay Aqueduct capacity; and additional treatment plant capacity. Evaluation of Potential Water Supply Options The potential water supply options and facilities alternatives were evaluated with respect to the following key economic and non-economic factors: . Economic (unit cost per acre-foot of additional supply or additional capacity) . Reliability (good, fair, poor) . Implementability (good, fair, poor) . Flexibility (good, fair, poor) . Environmental Impacts (minimal, moderate, severe) These criteria were used to provide a preliminary screening level comparison of the potential options based on qualitative evaluations. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the evaluation findings for the potential water supply options and facilities alternatives. The tables present the unit cost per acre-foot of additional supply, and the overall rating for each non-economic evaluation criteria. As indicated on the tables, there are a number of viable options for Zone 7 to consider as part of a long-range plan. Water Conservation (Option A) Reducing demand through water conservation savings would be a low cost means of reducing the total amount of additional supply required in the future. Water conservation programs are an integral part of state and regional resource management efforts, but are developed and implemented locally. Water conservation is an important element to consider in long-term water supply planning, and will probably be required before water transfers are approved. J 5 <t e e Table 3 Summary Evaluation of Potential Water Supply Options I J Noh-Economic Criteria Economic Reliability Implement- Flexibility Environ- Supply(l) Potential Water Supply Option ability mental Unit Cost Impacts ($/ AF) A Water Conservation Savings A-I Baseline Program Good Good Good Minimal 20-200 (5-10% savings) A-2 Intensive Program Good Fair Good Minimal 200-600 (additional 5% savings over baseline program) B Recycled Water B-1 Direct Reuse of Fair Fair Good Minimal 830-880 Recycled Water for Irrigation B-2 Groundwater Recharge Good Fair Good Minimal 710-950 with Demineralized Recycled Water C Imported Surface Water C-1 Additional Water from Fair Fair Good Minimal 20-40(~) State Water Project Entitlement C-2 Water Transfers Good/Poor Fair/Good Good Moderate/ 75-265(~) Minimal D Managed Use of Groundwater Good Good Good Minimal 20-900(3) Basin for Short-Term Balancing with Augmented Artificial Recharge' (I) (~) Based ,on annualized capital and O&M costs Uuly 1993) Cost of purchasing the water including conveyance costs within existing available capacity of the South Bay Aqueduct (approximately an additional 10,000 acre-feet per year). For greater amounts, which would not be needed until about year 2005, the total unit cost for additional imported water would increase about $70-$190/ AF for additional conveyance costs as indicated on Table 4. Cost would depend on the supply source used for replenishment (imported surface water or recycled water). (3) r 0,1, \ Recycled Water (Option B) demineralized recycled water has the additional benefit of reducing the salt loadings to the groundwater basin. Groundwater recharge of demineralized recycled water would provide a highly reliable, long-term supply source. As with water conservation, water recycling is an important element of a comprehensive resource management program. The potential water recycling options have a relatively high unit cost. These costs would be offset to some degree by reduced costs for conveying sewage out of the Valley. Water recycling projects can be developed and implemented locally, and can be staged to respond to actual future needs. The use of 6 ~.~I~r~(J.&~~...(~~~ ~~~~,.:~')}&~~f \ ~~~~nr~.'t~?~r:~\"~::.~\~~:~:. :,:? ',. "'" .,.;1,.' . " . " ,< ,\. ,. '.~, . ::: I "::.'! ..'....~~: :<',~,,~'~~;";'\:(, ~.~:.: :1,~X(.I' . ....' I.'.; e . Table 4 Summary Evaluation of Facilities Alternatives for Option C Imported Water Supply(') Non-Economic Criteria Economic Reliability Implement- Flexibility Environmental Fadlities Facilities Alternatives (for Option C) ability Impact:; Unit Cost ($/ AF) Water Facilities (for Option C) 1 Groundwater Recharge Good Good Good/Fair Minimal 0-280(2) 2 Increased Surface Storage for Poor Poor Good Severe 190-310(2) Imported Water/Local Runoff (for treatment! direct use or could be used for recharge) 3 Future Contractor Share of Good Good Good Minimal 130(2) Existing SDA Capacity 4 Enlarged SBA with Existing Popr Good Good Moderate 70-190(2) Reservoir 5 Additional Treatment Plant Good Good Good Minimal 110-120(2) Capacity for Imported Water/Local Runoff (I) Needed after year 2005. (2) Does not include cost of urchased water. Imported Surface Water (Option C) Receiving additional water from the State would still provide one of the lowest cost sources of additional supply. Zone 7 should continue to monitor and advocate the State Water Project improvements to get additional water under their entitlement. However, the Zone has little control over the ability of the State Water Project to meet its conunitmentsi and cannot rely on getting additional water. The water transfer options as a group represent a significant opportunity to convert water from agricultural use to urban use. Water transfers are relatively new as a water supply option. They have a specific window for negotiations and approvals, a relatively low and identifiable cost, and a potentially reliable supply based on existing water rights and facilities. They can also be structured to protect against future costs when water supplies are reduced to meet environmental needs. " " I" ""..~,' .....~,......'~: . I' ~ 'I-". , .". . '! . I, ,..,.:.....:'". '. ','" ".:" .\. ' " , ,',",1. Managed Use of Groundwater Basin (Opt. D) Managed use of the groundwater basin would provide the Zone with the ability to balance temporary shortfalls in other supplies, particularly during dry years. It would also provide valuable storage capacity for recycled water and for imported water and local runoff when available, particularly during wet years. Zone 7 could manage the groundwater basin for balancing and storage. Facilities Requirements for Option C Additional water facilities will be needed after year 2005 for conveyance, storage, and treatment of imported water. The timing of these facilities will depend on the specifics of the water transfer agreements. For example, if the transfer must occur over a 3-month period, the transfer facility must be larger than if the transfer could occur over a 12- month period. 7 .!." t'I,'::::'(~;>',;, )/. :::'I'>::;,<,::{' '~:;'~::~:;;:~'~:;j,':!(':~'::". . e Enlarged facilities will be needed when the transferred amount exceeds the existing capacity of the South Bay Aqueduct. Storage would also be needed since it is likely that water transfer deliveries would occur primarily in the winter months when State Water Project deliveries are lowest. This storage could either be in the groundwater basin, or surface storage in an expanded Lake Del Valle. However, groundwater storage would be easier to implement than a new surface water reservoir. Treatment would also be required for imported water that is used directly. Action Plan Zone 7 is in a good position with respect to' its water supply. The Zone has adequate existing supply to meet its demands for the "0 c: ctl E 60 Q) 0_ -eu.. ~ <( 50 ~8 0.0 g.....: 40 (/)-- (ij ~ c: c: <( I i I I I I I I J~~~_y,.......... -rr~":',~-"1":--rr~f/,:~.i"..~'),,.\4?!l:f'\.:\"""'l'\'H.":r;}(" .,,1, ' I, 90 80 70 30 20 10 o l() 0) 0) ..... o o o C\l . next five to ten years. To meet its future needs, the Zone has a number of diverse and feasible options that it can pursue for additional water. Rather than having to rely on a single source, the Zone can pursue several options as a hedge against future uncertainties. In particular, the groundwater basin is a valuable resource for Zone 7 which other local agencies may not have. Zone 7 also has available capacity in the South Bay Aqueduct for additional surface water supply. To maintain this good position and minimize future costs, Zone 7 must plan for the additional supply now. The potential phasing of the incremental future supply needs is shown graphically on Figure 3. The existing median annual supply of 52,100 acre~feet per year is adequate to 90 80 70 60 Legend ( Based on Median Demand) Additional Supply 5th Phase (Year 2020) Additional Supply 4th Phase (Year 2015) Additional Supply 3rd Phase (Year 2010) Additional Supply 2nd Phase (Year 2005) Additional Supply 1st Phase (Year 2000) Existing Median Supply 50 40 30 20 10 l() o o C\l Year o ..... o C\l l() o C\l o C\l o C\l o Figure 3 Potential Phasing of Future Water Supplies 8 . I ;1, ",. , ',. . meet Zone 7's water demands until about the year 2000 based on median demand (halfway between low and high demand). Zone 7 will need from 15,000 to 35,000 acre-feet per year of additional supply to meet year 2020 water demands, depending on the actual level of water use and the availability of State water. Zone 7 has the opportunity to develop a balanced program for water supply from a number of sources, including the State Water Project, groundwater, recycled water, water conservation practices, and water transfers. In general, Zone 7 seeks to develop a strategy to meet the demands with the best reliability, and at the least cost. However, lower reliability with lower cost could be considered because of Zone 7's ability to store water in the groundwater basin. Zone 7's access to these different types of water supply provides the potential for a diverse and, hence, reliable supply. The potential water demands that Zone 7 will face can be met with an economically feasible and implementable program. The program should be based on providing additional supply from a number of sources, rather than relying on a single source. This strategy will help to protect against future uncertainties affecting anyone source. As a baseline, implementing water conservation measures assures increased control of demand. The staged development of demineralized water recycling projects would provide Zone 7 with experience at limited initial cost, so that this water supply source could be available in the future. In the near-term, Zone 7 should pursue carefully selected water transfer options, coupled with managing the use of groundwater storage, and firming up the South Bay Aqueduct capacity availability. Zone 7 is particularly fortunate in having use of a groundwater basin that can offer a hedge if a dry period should occur simultaneously with a delay in obtaining a transferred supply, or other supplies. A major advantage is that transfer of water to replenish the basin can be done during wet years following a drought period, when supplemental water supplies are more readily available. . Planning for water supply now looks at a shorter period of 10 to 15 years; versus past planning goals which have looked at a 50 to 100 year timeframe. Regulatory and environmental requirements are constantly changing, which affects the ability to plan effectively for the very long-term. A strategy for Zone 7 to undertake in developing future water supply projects over the next 25 years is shown on Figure 4. This strategy will allow Zone 7 to plan and meet its identified near-term needs to about year 2005. It also identifies potential long- term needs after year 2005 and sets a framework to meet those needs. The recommended steps are phased in 5-year stages corresponding to future requirements for additional water supply. It is anticipated that planning for long-term needs would be re-evaluated periodically with updated information. Over the next five years, Zone 7 should: . Develop and implement a comprehensive water conservation program. . Continue to monitor and advocate State Water Project improvements. . Continue to implement permits and studies for water recycling projects. . Continue to pursue water transfer opportunities. . Obtain the future contractor share of the existing South Bay Aqueduct capacity. . Conduct a groundwater management study to define guidelines for managed use of the groundwater basin, including recharge capabilities and salt balance. . Develop a plan to expand groundwater recharge program. . Conduct an operations study of the existing water supply system to evaluate groundwater, imported surface water, and South Bay Aqueduct operations. 9 I ~., . ., I . : ' ':"", ::1 (.i"". " .~. e . Develop and Implement Water Conservation Program - Baseline Program - Intensive Program . Monitor and Advocate State Water Project Improvements . Conduct Groundwater Management Study - Initial Study - Updates . Conduct Operations Study of Existing Water Supply System - Initial Study - Updates . Pursue Water Transfer Opportunities - Initial Contracts . Additional Contracts . Implement Water Recycling Permits, Studies and Projects - Initial Permits, Salt Management Plans, Demonstration Projects - Additional Water Recycling Projects . Develop Plan and Expand Groundwater Recharge Program - Instream Releases, Injection Wells . Off-Stream Spreading Basins ( Chain of Lakes) . Obtain Additional South Bay Aqueduct Capacity . Future Contractor Share of Existing Capacity . Enlarged South Bay Aqueduct ( Regional) . Update Water Supply Planning Report . Add Treatment Plant Capacity ~:~.~ '~,:~~~'\~:~f~' ,t>; I:'!~' :'~-;I':~' ';:, :'~~~r~:~ .;:~.'.~ ~,: ~~; >.~.:~ ~ ~~? ,\ ..1":,1""" ~ .., ..1 ~"., .t:('::J~,'I:'}/.. .1_ , e 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I I I I I I : r ~t'tJ:"'(J[L;' 1F v > 1 . ".," H' ~'1 AI Needed ~'" ~ "l .,~... . ~ I, . I ~f " ., " , )\ '~"'"~"'.'''''~~'''P~~'fJ!:''\'\~W ~'1"",,~,< I",! f-:,\ IA""~-. ..._,j 111I>,""",," .,,"a_, r~i"'''nr'lI\ ~'I'~ _i'II' \, I 1995 I 2000 I 2005 I 2010 I 2020 I 2015 Figure 4 Timeline for Development of Future Water Supplies 10 e e ~ ;' ~.) t. ;' i i,: ZONE 7 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE PLEASANTON, :CA 94588 (510) 484-2600 BOARD OF DIRECTORS . James J. Concannon . Sands H. Figuers . August M. Hagemann, Jr. . David W. Layton . John P. Marchand . Margaret J. Tracy . Philip R. Wente ~~ \: I' i I t r i [. r GENERAL MANAGER · Jim Dixon COM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. in association with Water Transfer Associates Public Affairs Management ,"'. ,~'I>t~=--.v';~!:)~':!.:7:':::J'Vy.~~~~:~r:~:':.: t!~;l:}~~~::;i:.l'~: (1:',~"I~'ir ,',~'.~~,l;,,~L': \::,' ..v,',; ;-""'.',. '.. ""\ ::.." ~'>., ::.,/", "': I', .\ "~I ~;~:.::: ~,{; ';~:.~::T{;t.;'t~_:'~/.~l''':~~;~~ '.~:~.,.:r~,~'.;>':'::;:"~ ',~r~< ~<.t:~:[.~:::;'~:;.(;:I~, /~~~\~':J;:j}:~l) ~).)y.~.; ..j'.i~.r/ ,"I <'~ ' ,,:.~-/::~,,'~ ' e e March 8, 1994 DRAF~f Chairman & Members of the Board Alameda county Flood Control and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 5997 Parks ide Drive Pleasanton CA 94588 SUBJECT: proposed Increase in Zone 7 Water Connection Fees Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: This letter serves to state the Dublin City council's position on the proposal before the Board to increase water connection fees. The City of Dublin appreciates Zone 7's continuing efforts to find and develop new water supplies for the orderly development of the Valley so that Dublin's expanded planning areas may proceed as envisioned in the City's General Plan. Our immediate concern is that Dublin does have some in-fill projects which have been approved but have been delayed due to the downturn in the economic climate. It would be greatly appreciated if these projects could be given a reasonably long window of opportunity to pay applicable connection fees prior to the increase going into effect. Very truly yours, Peter W. Snyder Mayor PWS/LST/mb a:mar\8zone7 EX- H: tn~T' . . , 41~'1 -. . .~~,?~ >Ii< . ,., ... .,.' fJi 1: