The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 10/22/2014Water Reclamation Plant Feasibility Study Update October 22, 2014 Why Conduct a Feasibility Study? 2013 Wastewater Master Plan Update Evaluate existing system conditions and identify deficiencies Forecast future needs and identify required improvements Incorporate future development impacts Provide short term and long term planning Master Plan results identified $100 million in critical wastewater system constraints Current Capacity vs. Long-term Needs Current System Capacity Current Usage: 26,530 Units Remaining: 220 Units Approximately 6,000 units have been included in approved Land Use Agency Master Plan documents. Challenges We Face Today EVWD Master Plan Results Droughts Future Development Local Control Rate Structure Weighing the Policy Considerations CONTINUE WITH TREATMENT AT SAN BERNARDINO TREATMENT BY EAST VALLEY No new water supply New water supply Reliance on City of San Bernardino Improved local control Higher CIP pipeline costs Reduced CIP pipeline costs Feasibility Analysis has been Presented thru a Series of Board Workshops Site Selection Required Infrastructure Potential Uses Treatment Requirements Potential Partnerships Complimentary/Secondary Uses Costs and Financing Draft Report/Summary Final Report Continuous Outreach May June July August September October Evaluated Potential Plant Locations Near Headquarters Near Golden Triangle Area Sterling Between 3rd and 5th Available Flow Land Uses Impacts to Community Energy Impacts Site Availability Proximity to Reuse Sites Proximity to Recharge Sites Evaluated Three Potential Plant Locations 210 Near District Headquarters Near Golden Triangle Sterling Avenue Potential Plant Flow Varies by Area of Wastewater Contribution 210 Near Headquarters ADWF Projection: 2017: 0 MGD 2022: 1.3 MGD 2035: 1.35 MGD Potential Plant Flow Varies by Area of Wastewater Contribution 210 ADWF Projection: 2017: 0 MGD 2022: 1.3 MGD 2035: 1.35 MGD ADWF Projection: 2017: 1.30 MGD 2022: 3.53 MGD 2035: 3.85 MGD ADWF Projection: 2017: 2.65 MGD 2022: 5.13 MGD 2035: 6.09 MGD 210 Near Golden Triangle ADWF Projection: 2017: 1.30 MGD 2022: 3.53 MGD 2035: 3.85 MGD Potential Plant Flow Varies by Area of Wastewater Contribution 210 Sterling Avenue ADWF Projection: 2017: 2.65 MGD 2022: 5.13 MGD 2035: 6.09 MGD Evaluated Opportunity to Capture All or a Portion of EVWD Flows 210 Entire District ADWF 2017: 6 MGD 2035: 10 MGD Upstream Only ADWF 2017: 2.6 MGD 2035: 6.1 MGD Energy Required for Pumping 210 Near District Headquarters Near Golden Triangle Sterling Avenue 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Distance (Miles) Sterling Site Elevation Difference 580 feet Near Golden Triangle Elevation Difference 460 feet District Headquarters 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Land Use and Impacts to Surrounding Community 210 Residential Residential and Retail Industrial Site Availability 210 District Property Adjacent to Headquarters Limited Availability District Property at Sterling Evaluation Led to Selection of Sterling Avenue Site Near Headquarters Near Golden Triangle Area Sterling Between 3rd and 5th Available Flow Land Uses Impacts to Community Energy Impacts Site Availability Proximity to Reuse Sites Proximity to Recharge Sites Relative Lower Ranking Relative Higher Ranking Most Suitable Site – District-owned Property at Sterling Avenue between 3rd and 5th Evaluated Potential Uses of Recycled Water Urban Irrigation Commercial/ Industrial Groundwater Recharge Infrastructure Requirements Full Use of Available RW Ease of Implementation Cost to Implement Relative Lower Ranking Relative Higher Ranking Opportunities Exist for Using Recycled Water for Urban Irrigation From 2014 Water System Master Plan Using Recycled Water for Urban Irrigation Requires Major Infrastructure Sterling Avenue Plant Site Urban Irrigation Use Summary Infrastructure is very expensive Irrigation demand varies throughout the year – near zero in December and January Need someplace to put recycled water in winter months Commercial/Industrial Recycled Water Use Opportunities are Limited 210 Commercial and Industrial use Areas Greatest Opportunity is Groundwater Replenishment (Recharge) 210 Groundwater Recharge Areas Evaluation of Potential Recycled Water Uses Urban Irrigation Commercial/ Industrial Groundwater Recharge Infrastructure Requirements Full Use of Available RW Ease of Implementation Cost to Implement Relative Lower Ranking Relative Higher Ranking There are Strategic Benefits of Groundwater Recharge Reduces need for new infrastructure Augments existing recharge operations Contributes to local water supply sustainability Benefits all EVWD residents Examples of Groundwater Recharge in Southern California Project Years of Operation Recycled Water Volume AFY Montebello Forebay Project, Los Angeles County SD 51 55,000 West Coast Basin Intrusion Barrier, West Basin MWD 19 17,000 Dominquez Gap Barrier, Los Angeles County SD 10 5,400 Chino Basin Project, San Bernardino County 8 22,000 Alamitos Gap Intrusion Barrier, Los Angeles County SD 8 3,400 Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County WD 5 78,000 Title 22 Tertiary Treatment is Likely Level Required Title 22 – Tertiary Treated Water Fully filtered and disinfected water Meets Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations Multiple Alternative Treatment Options Conventional Secondary w/Filtration and Disinfection Membrane Bio-Reactors (MBR) Title 22 Tertiary Treatment is Likely Level Required Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) Most advanced technology Easily constructed indoors – no odors Compact footprint – smaller facility size Provides ability to blend with community Modular – easily expandable Evaluation Focused on Three Options Make System Improvements, All flow continues to San Bernardino 1. New Plant at Sterling, treat flows from East of Sterling only Remaining flow continues to San Bernardino To Recharge 2. New Plant at Sterling, treat all District flows To Recharge 3. The Treatment Options Require Different Plant Capacities 2 Option 1. Option 3. Option 2. 6 8 4 10 MG D All Flow To San Bernardino Partial Flow To San Bernardino EVWD Treat All Flow Comparing the Options Capital cost Annual operations and maintenance cost Value of water produced 20-year total cost analysis Cost must be allocated between existing and new connections Relative Comparison of Available Options Indicates Treatment of All District Flows is Best Option 1. All Flow to San Bernardino 2. Partial Treatment at Sterling 3. Treatment at Sterling for Entire District 20-yr Cost to EVWD for Treatment at San Bernardino $221 Million $136 Million - 20-yr Cost for Treatment by East Valley - $120 Million $200 Million 20-yr Cost of New Treatment Facility $61 Million $103 Million 20-yr Cost of Infrastructure to EVWD $34 Million $29 Million $45 Million 20-yr Value of Water to East Valley - ($89 Million) ($148 Million) Percent Increase to Existing Cost 24% 19% 7% Costs represent total costs over 20 – years of operation Impacts to New Development – Relative Comparison New Development Costs 1. All Flow to San Bernardino 2. Partial Treatment at Sterling 3. Treatment at Sterling for Entire District Capacity Cost for 4 MGD Treatment at San Bernardino $30.1 Million Treatment Impact of Future Demands $34.4 Million $41.3 Million Collection System Impact of Future Demands $34.6 Million $17.5 Million $8.9 Million Relative Savings per EDU -$725 -$1,685 How Could we Develop the Sterling Avenue Site to be Compatible with Community? There are Opportunities for Multi-Use Development at Sterling Existing Dry Swale Enhances Opportunity For Partially Buried Facilities There are Opportunities for Multi-Use Development at Sterling There are Opportunities for Multi-Use Development at Sterling There are Opportunities for Multi-Use Development at Sterling Potential Job Creation from 10 MGD Facility and $100 to $120 Million Capital Investment Direct Jobs Indirect Jobs Total New Jobs Job creation estimates based on information from SRRI, Sacramento, CA 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 Direct Indirect Total 800 600 1,400 Constructing a Recycled Water Facility Enhances Local Economy Direct Benefits Indirect and induced benefits Total Economic Benefits $118 Million $ 97 Million $215 Million Economic Benefits estimates based on information from SRRI, Sacramento, CA Implementation Will Require Numerous Concurrent Tasks 2014 2015 2016 2017 Feasibility Study Supplemental Studies Preliminary Design Environmental Docs. Regulatory Approval Financial Public Outreach Institutional Construction Initiate Operations Environmental and Regulatory Processes can be Expedited with Concurrent Activities 2014 2015 2016 2017 Supplemental studies Environmental documents Regular meetings with SWRCB and RWQCB Regulatory approval process Design and Construction can be Combined to Accelerate Project Delivery 2014 2015 2016 2017 Develop D/B selection documents Select D/B team Development of preliminary design Procurement of materials and equipment Construction Initiate operations Reaching Out to the Community 6 Public Workshops/Meetings 5 Monthly Print Advertisements Ran a total of 11 times 5 Monthly Bill Inserts +110,000 pieces 7 Newspaper Articles Website Content Neighborhood Meetings by Request Tours Looking to Others That Are Good Neighbors District visited three facilities Anaheim Water Recycling Demonstration Facility Lighthouse Water Reclamation Facility Brightwater Reclamation Campus Selection Criteria Process must be completely enclosed Active steps taken to reduce/eliminate odors Must utilize 100% membrane treatment technology Anaheim Water Recycling Demo Facility Tour Highlights Local example of odorless, noiseless facility Within 15 feet from Anaheim City Hall Designed in a way visitors can walk around the facility and learn Lighthouse Reclamation Facility Tour Highlights Limited space for site No odors/noise Environmentally sensitive area Designed to fit seamlessly within harbor Lessons learned from their design/construction process Brightwater Water Reclamation Campus Tour Highlights Extensive community engagement throughout similar feasibility evaluation process Incorporated multi-phase equipment expansions in design Zero odor threshold from community Passive/educational uses incorporated throughout site Project Decision Timeline Site Selection Required Infrastructure Potential Uses Treatment Requirements Potential Partnerships Complimentary/Secondary Uses Costs and Financing Draft Report/Summary Final Report Continuous Outreach May June July August September October Recommendations Review and Accept Recommendations Presented in the Executive Summary Direct General Manger to Proceed toward Implementation Engage Environmental Consultant for CEQA compliance Engage Community Development Consultant Engage Design-Build Team Engage in Regulatory Approval/Permitting Questions? Contact Us wwstudy@eastvalley.org | www.eastvalley.org/wwstudy (909) 885-4900