HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 01/30/2008 East Val ley
Water District
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 30, 2008 - 8:30 a.m.
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
3654 HIGHLAND AVE #12, HIGHLAND, CA.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
I'LFDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Pubiic Comments
Discussion and possible action regarding the request of Federai
funds for East Valley Water District's perchlorate project.
3. Discussion and possibie action regarding the approval of the
District's Water Master Plan
4. ADJOURN
Pur>uant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disability-related
modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in order to
participate in the above agendized public meeting should be directed to the DistricYs
,Administrative Manager at (909) 885-4900 at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.
AMENDED AGENDA 0 U25/08
s
Execixfive Summary ~
ES.1 Overview
Tlus East ValIey Water District (EVWD) Water Master Plan was prepazed to assess the cvnent
water system a~.1d to develop a plan to ensure that EV WD will be able to serve users given
projected neaz-term and ultimate buiid-out water demands. The work conducted in developin~
this Water Master Plan induded:
~ Summary of current consumption and unaccounted-for water losses
~ Projec:tion of future water demands
~ Evaluation of deficiencies in the current water system's annual production capacity
o Analysis of capacity of existing pump stations to transfer water beiween pressure zones to
meet ultimate maximum daily demands
¦ Evalu.ation of eatisting storage facilities for operational, emergency, and fire flow demands
¦ Detesmination of capacity of current transmission facilities to convey ultimate maximt+m
daily demands
~ ¦ Devetopment of a facility plan including upgraded or new supply sources, inter-zonal '
~ pumping capacity, sturage, and transnussion fac:iliEies
¦ Preparatio~z of a prioritized Capital Improvement Plan (CII') based on facIlity plan
recornmendations
These tasks were completed by using a series of technical workshops to facilitate EV WD's active
role in plaruling for ultimate build-out within the service area. Following each workshop,
meeting minutes were prepazed and then used as critical technical o idelines in each task of the
plannin€; process. A series of technical memoranda were developed to summarize the work
complet<>d on each task. EVWD reviews of each of these technical memoranda w=r~
incorpozated into this Water Master Plan. The technical memoranda that were developed ove*
the cour:ae of the Water Master Plan include:
a Tect~nical Nlemorandum 1: Summary oi Data Coi_lecnon
e TecYulical Memocandum 2: Water Demand
e Tectuucal Yemorandum 3: VJate= Sepp?y Sou*ces
~ Tec}uucal Mea~ora~dum 4:1~later Syst=m Evalua~ion
t i eciin_cai ?~!emo~~ndur_~ Fac;i; r~ ?la~
^ _ 8G1TLCd1 ~?T*10=Z-?C~I_? `_Vd~llcLiC?1 vi ' ~~L;^55-0=1'~Q~'_T:?5
~"~L
s r
~ Executive Summary
a Technical Memoraztdum 7: Capital Improvement Plan
ES.2 W'atex De~nand
System-wi.de annual water consumption was estimated by extracting data from the EVWD
billing database. To estimate water demand for future development, Equivalent Consumption
Unit (ECi:') flow factors for the different land use types were estimated based on the
d'uiribution of baseline. consumption (2003-2005). This process involved a staiistical analysis
that is furiher described in Section 3. Projections of consumption were developed by applying
the ECU f ow factoxs to undeveloped pazcels based on their oeneral pla~-~ land use and dens;ti-<s
of deveIopment. Annual water consumption was compazed to annual production (from
0 oundwater and surface water sources) for the yeazs 2003-2005 to estimate unaccounted-for
water losses (Table ES-1). Unaccounted-for water loss within the distriburion system ranged
from 7.8 to 10.4 percent of total water demand. Therefore, a factor of 10 percent was added to
projections of consum'ption for neaz term (2012) and ultimate build out conditions.
Table ES-1
7'otal Azinual Water Consumprion and Producrion in 2003 through 2005
; Y,. _ . ; .
?~t~';`:~!~ :?~:^.~ie~'~.n"'~.:'1q~7ciYVat2rDe:mat3_d~.(ac-Rr'~:ttt~!v~SF4~~~..~~Y'.t?:
a ~P4Y'~%F+~'~~~" ~~~,20034,c~ X~ 200~{~#,~ ^S~"~2005 ~v' s
Productfon (Deman~ ~ ~ ~
Ground Water 20,568 22,726 j 22,24'I
SurfaceWater-Plantt34 I 2,968 2,298 , 2.~72
Imported from Ciry of San Bemardino ~ 741 i 752 424
ExoortedtoCityofSanBemardino •1,149 i •1,658 -964
Total 23,128 24,118 23,873
Consnmotfon I
Bllled Consumptlon 1 19,427 ~ 20,874 20,927
ConsWction Meters / Plant Water 583 497 ~ 305
Oihar 715 i 76~
ToWI~ 20,725 22,134 ~ 22,077
t/naeeountodForWater ~ ~
Production - Consumption (aaft) 2,402 ~ 1,984 ~ 1,856
PercentofTotaiProduction 10.4% ~ 82% I 7.8%
Annual vrater demands used in this report aze presented below and illustrated in Figure ES-l.
@ Current: 23,900 ao-ft
3 ~eaz-term (2012): 27,600 ac-fi
~ Z~Itimzte 3uildout (2030): 22,400 ao-rt
rrO~ECi2(~ ~Tll'llldl WHie? de?ncnd was convertzd to d P_1dXLT?lUT?L C3c1~ J dET_R3TlQ ~~T.~..~ij ~Jv
QEl'?TIIll?LTlj tY72IdR0 OI~W3TE7 pZOC{12CROI11Zl+Il2 -pE2K MO?lLYl OI LP.E Vc'a_T T'21dt1V° to the dYQTc~E
T.OPi~'i dl~ LR° prociucron on C!tE a°cK CtdV Oi LR° ZSteXiIPll,il IIiOZ1i.F Y°=dPVZ LO T.1E ¢`%°°_~G~E CG~~
i'C!d` Sfei=:E :i:0~ Tr. .~~Sased o- ~*o~LC-o-: -record5 ~rC?Z`: ~~~~J iiLCU°~'i ~v~~, ~'1E T@i=G ~
Y.Y~~ . ~
V.`~1'!L ~ _
J
Executive Summary
~
productioxi in the peak demand month to the average demand monttt was greatest in July of
2005 at 1.54. The MDD was estimated by adding an additional factor to account for the greatest
day to day fluctuations in demand over the course of a high demand month. The additional
factor wa:~ determined to be 1.16 by comparing daily demands to average monthly demands fox
select summer monttti in 2005 and 2006. Therefore, the MDD factor was computed by first
estimating; the maxim~am month demand (Asuiual Demand * 1.54 / 12) and then using this to
compute the M1~D (Maximum Month Demand * 1.16 / 31). The resulting MDD factor is ?.75.
so,coo ?
~
so.ooo
40,1H10
S
V
9
C
N
m 3~ ~
~
R
~
C
C
Q
ZOr~~ -
Q . . . . . . . . . .
1960 7970 1980 1990 2000 2070 2020 2030
Figure ES-1
Historical (1957-2005) and Projected (2006-2035) Water Demand
~~.3 Wa~~:r ~u.~pY~ S~a~e~~
Existng water supply sources are not sufficient to meet projected water demand; thereiore an ,
evaluation and comparison of potential new supply sources was completed. The t~get water
supply capacity was set to be 10 percent ~ eater then the ?vIDD (Table ES2). This additional
capacity is recomme~ded to account ior the poteniial of supply iaciliiies bei ~~g oni of service
during the hi~h pealcing summer days.
Crincal to this evaluation oi potential water supply sources is the impzct o* w~ie* qu21_i'ry or: il-~e
cost o* ~vaie* produc:t~on. Potential_ water sources evaluated inciude new b oundwaier wells;
?'lant 2?4 upgrade, ion exchange aeatment pizn_s p*oposed for Ptasit ? 50 ~nd 152, a*?ew
~ ound r~2ier TT2cTl2Sl? D~wT1L LTl LLlE SL1Ti52 R~TlC}l 'cIEc, d SUr{cC2 Wd?°7 L_*EBLL?lER'i Pld^i L*' T!lE
St:nnse Ra,~ci:~ z:°~, ~na p~ticipziion i~
~ che 8±~nice* i-'-:iI Z=j ona: SNat2* Su_ ~~y ?rojec:
.
~CY.:~2i: _ J
~ Executive Summary
.
(BHRWSI'). Each of these potential water supply sources is further chazacterized in Section 4 of
this Watex Master Plan Report.
4
~ ~ a :P~,.Y.~,~ ~ ~BD ..,.~Pn , ~
~ +}r r~as.ss~{'w»'w1 ~c u>v~i~+::yt
~ ..~e~n,rya~~ w~G,~efh~(~.00„~ e~r~,.~Te..mF.(24 8u~d~ut~?036~s
Annual Demand (ao-ft) 23,873 .I . , 27,595 L~~ ~,:42,4~6
Maximum Month (ac-ft) i 3,064 j 3,541 ~ 5,443
Maximum Month (gpm) ~ 22,370 ~ 25,850 ~ 39,73~
~7azimumDay(ac•ft) i t'IS ~ 133 ! 204
A~aximum Day (gpm) 25,950 j 29,990 46,088
PAargin of Safety ' 8% j ~0% ~ 10%,
SupplyCapacity(gpm)~~~ ~ 28.100 ; 33,000 ; SD,700
Q) Current B ectual cipadly in 2005. Intartnad~ata and Bu'dtl-Oul are pmlections a/ capatiry Nat wil be ntttletl ~
Based on this analysis of supply sources, there is a large range of potential costs associated with
the evaluated supply projects (Figure FS-2). Cost estimates shown for the Plant 134 and Sunrise
Ranch surface water treatment plants will vazy depending upon the ability to use Santa Ana
River (SAR) water in the future, as opposed to using imported water sources. In addirion, the
cost of groundwater treatment in the Sunrise Ranch azea will depend upon the quality of ~
0 ound`n~ater, which is not yet known for this pazt of the service azea.
~
~COStoflmportaOWater . . ' .
BTreatmentCost . . ~99 5620 ~ ~ ~
5600
F500
""5474"_'
$ 431
5407
~ 91400 . . . . . . _ _ ' " . ' . . _ ,c.;~ .
u
N
¢ .
b
m 5300 . . . 3283..... ~
0
U
x'
:6200 .
5157 ' ;
~ _ " _ , E
~,oa 1.. ~ ~
~ ~
_ ~
~ 50- ~
8 New Wells Plant 13C Plant 150 Plant 152 Sunrise Ranch Sunrise Ranch 98RW SP y
; Grountlwaler Suriace WTP ~
W7P
~ Supply Sourw $
! ~
Figure ES-2
Cdst Corrpar'sson cs `darious V~aEer S~ppfy So~!rces ~:vaila4le Yc ~V~JIP~
-
= g-_
Executive Summary
. ^
Considering that pluuung level estimates aze within an accuracy of 20 pexcent and
potentially greater depending upon water quality and availability, it is difficult to discern which
of these altematives will be the most cost effective for EVWD to implement. It was determined
that most of these sup~~ly projects will need to be developed in order to provide EV WD with
sufficient supply to meet projected MDD.
Two water supply scenarios were developed to meet projected water demands for ultimate
build-out conditions. The main difference between the scenarios is related to the source water
for the 7,fi00 gpm (10 zngd) supply capacity requirement for the Sunrise Ranch developmen~.
o Under Scenario 1, it was assumed that 3,000 gpm (4.3 mgd) would be available from
b oundwater wells within the Sunrise Ranch area, which may require ireatment. Additional
supply sources that would be needed to meet the projected demand in Sunrise Ranch would
be m<ide u~ by in<xeased groundwater pumping from the Lower pressure zone. To provide
~ sufficient capacity for this demand and other throughout the water service azea, EV WD
would need to construct two addirional wells in the Lower pressure zone, with a combined
supp:ly capacity of approximately 3,400 gpm. Also, this scenario would requi.re an
additional 3,000 to 3,400 gpm of pumping capacity and larger transmission pipelines from
the Lower pressure zone to the Sunrise Ranch azea, as further discussed in Section 5,
Facilzties Plan.
a Und~°r Scealario 2, both groundwater and surface water will be developed to meet the
~ ultimate supply capacity xequirement for the Sunrise Ranch development. It was assumed
that 3,000 gpm (4.3 mgd) would be available from groundwater wells within the Sunrise
Ranch azea, which may require treatment: In addition, a surface water treatment plant will
be d~esigned to treat 3,400 gpm of imported sarface water. In this scenario, addirional wells
would not be required in the Lower pressure zone, which would reduce the ultimate design
capacity of Plant 150. In addition, several of the proposed new pvmp stations would require
less pumping capacity, and diameters of proposed new transmission pipelines along
Gree:nspot Road could be reduced.
~5.4'~I~ter Syst~m Ev~luafioaa
Current storage capacity was compazed to demand based on the sizing criteria, which accounts
for operational storage (25 percent of MDD), emergency storage (100 percent of MDD), and `nre ,
flow (land use dependent) storage in each pressure zone. Based on the existing storage
reservoirs in the EVWD water system and these requirements, it was deternuned that storage is
the o e~~test deficiency in the EVWD water system, with additional capacity needs of 21.7 '
million gallo:ns (MG), 29.1 MG, and 58.7IvIG for current, neaz term, and ultimate demand
conditions, respectively. This is signiiicant as the current storage capacity is only 28.56 t~hG;
fhereiore, a doubling of the storage would be required to meet current storage needs ~n ihe
system.
!
he v,~ater system evalnation also assessed the ability for existin~ pump stations to mov= wace*
betwee~n p=°ssure zones, *or cunent, neaz-ter??~~ znd ultimzte water demands. This was
accoT olisned by assessin~ supply and demand in each pressure zone ~nci by compuan~ cnz
tiplum~ Oi Vvci2: TP.d"t Y~iGL'~Q ~'c°°(ZeG to be p~,~:l~eQ ?TOI?: IOWE= ~7°°~Si:_T° zones, bc5?C `J'! °aC^.
c., :
a
~ ' Executive Summary
.
of the two wate:c supply scenarios. Transfer capacity needs were developed by also considering
the irnpact of a shutdown of the lazgest water supply source in each pressure zone. The greatest
txansfer re~quirement given alternative supply shutdowns was compazed to the existing
pumping capacity into each of the pressure zones. The results of this evaluation showed that
additional pumping capacity is needed to move water from lower elevarions into the following
pressure ::ones:
a Transfe~r into the Interrnediate Pressure Zone
a Transfer Capacity Needed: ? 3,000 ~m (Supply Scen~.ro No. l;
9,700 gpm (Supply Scenario No. 2)
~ Current Transfer Capacity:
Fi,rm Capacity: 2,500 gpm
Backup Capacity: 2,500 gpm
~ TrazL~fer into the Upper Pressure Zone
o Transfer Capacity Needed: 16,000 gpm (Supply Scenario No. l)
12,600 gpm (Supply Scenario No. 2)
e Cwzent Transfer Capacity:
~ Firm Capacity: 4,250 gpm
" Backup Capacity: 1,450 gpm
v Transtes into the Foothill Pressure Zone
a Transfer ('..apacity Needed: 16,000 gpm (Supply Scenazio 1)
13,000 gpm (Supply Scenario 2)
ui Cunent Transfer Capacity:
Firm Capaciry: 10,800 gpm
Backup Capacity: 6,650 gpm
e Tr~nsfer into the Canal East - Stinrise Ranch
Transfer Capacity Needed: 13,900 gpm (Supply Scenazio 1)
? 0,900 ~m (Supply Sc~nazio 2)
~ Cuzent Transfer Capzcity:
Firm Capacity: 5,47~ ~r*m
Backup Capacity: ~ ~%5 ~m
~~~o~ L"~~:fl~~~~s,, ~~~a`
1 h° T2!iL]l'S Or ~hc W'diET S}~SL2m cV_!13`~O?`. W"e?° A>2~ LO Ce?JEIO,'v c 71cP. IOT_ i1D~eC~°5 ~°XiS_'.:J
?cQ_i1:25 07 T~i0D052C ^<W 'dC1SI.=~~. __TICIL'l't5>:J D:,-l1i? ST.ci!Ci>>,, >LOLC~ __~`Ti Ji:>~ Y\'21c. DI:~:J-~+
Rs~Sj _
9J'?L
a
' Executive Summary
. ^
projects, aztd transmiss~on pipelines. In addition to identified deficiencies, other criteria were
used to develop facility recommendations, including site limitations, property acquisition,
ground ele:vation, and overall performance of the water system. The facilities recommended in
this Water Master Plan Report were also developed with significant input from EV WD staff
during sev eral planning workshop meetings.
The follov?ing projects are recommended to increase EVWD's water supply capacity to 110
percent of the .NtDD for the ultimate buildout condition:
~ Plant 150. T'his plant will house ireatment facilities to remove perchlorate and blend for
nitrates from three existing wells in the Lower zone and a future well to be developed on-
site. In adclition, Plant 150 will be used to pump water from the BHRWSP into the Lower
and/or Intermediate pressure zones.
¦ Plant 1°i2. Similax to Plant 150, this plant will be u'sed to remove perchlorate and nitrate from
four existing wells in the Intermediate pressure zone and pump into storage facilities at
plants 33 and 39.
m Expan`.ion of Plant 134. This surface water treatment plant is anticipated to Ue expanded in
the ne~az future from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd to supply parts of the Upper, Foothill and Canal
zones. A supply capacity of 8.0 mgd is used in this study for Plant 134.
^ o Bunke~- Hill Regional Water Supply Project. The District plans to pazricipate in this xegional ,
projec:t to obtain up to 5,000 gpm of groundwater sources into the Lower pressvre zone.
This flow rate is used in this study for regional supply sources.
¦ Additional g,roundwater production from the east side of the service area, which may require
-.~rwep...--
treatrnent.
¦ Additi.onal g,roundwater production from the west side of the service azea to be treated at
Plant 150
e A ne~v surface water ireatment plant in the Sunrise Ranch azea.
An addi'donal 43 MG of storage facilities has been ideniified to increase the storage capacity in
the futw~e to gzeater than 75 percent of MDD. This would not bring EVWD to the required
storage r.apacity for the system; therefore it is aiso recommended that the Bunlcer Hill
groundwater basin be used as a pazt of EV WD's storage capacity by providing for on-site
emergeiicy power generation at several key facilities as well as a series of mobile generators ~o
be transported 'co faclities during power outa~es. The proposed 1_ocaho"~ox new above a ound
storage were selected in coordinanon wiih EW1D st~ff, and are described below.
o nlant 143. The ~ ound elevation at this plant is *avorable for the const*ucrion o? a stor~je
reservoi ~n the (ntermediate preseure zone (HWL:1,366 ft). A storage rese*_voir(sj wieh a
toial c~pacity oi 10 MG is *ecomLnended at ths i_ocation.'I'h° plant si4e is 1.ocated south o<
~e;-r?s Screei and east of Church Sceet, ~~d has sufficienc space (-10 aa~s) for ih=
-ecorn?ne,de~.?0?~G o~ ~~0_Tdoc Tl-~S ~n?0~1ni 0? ito_a~e v~-cu3d ~c SA'iCl?'_'!L LC _m_,cE`
~Tl°.:!Cl~c:°^_. 5?0=c~o ~cn~;~nC'_°S il'!c i ON,°' 2_ ~!Aicr=tcQiB:E 7Trj~~r9 Z0.t°_c.
„'i.n,:n.- =j-
v'%y_.'_
. a '
. Executive Summary
.
e S Curve~ Plant. The g;rovnd elevation in fhis azea is favorable to the construction of storage
facilities for the Foothill pressure zone (HWL:1,700 ft) as EV WD owns over 15 acres of land
on the souttt side of Greenspot Road at this location. A storage reservoir(sj with a total
capacity of 3.0 MG is recommended at tlus location to provide storage to the Foothill Zone
and some portions of Sunrise Ranch. A pump station to pump into the Seven Oaks Dam
Road :Plant is also recommended at this location.
m 5even Oaks I)am Road Plant. EVWD owns over 15 acres at this new plant site, located neaz
the intersecaon of Greenspot Road and the road that goes to Seven Oaks Dam. The Sevez
Oaks'Dam Road Plant would provide storage to some portions of the Sunrise Ranch
development. A storage capacity of 10 MG is recommended at this location.
~ Sunrise~ T2anch Additional Storage Sites. Additional storage sites would have to be developed
in the Sunrise Ranch azea depending on the configuration of pressure zones in that area
when developed as well as the density of development. An additiona113 MG in storage at
varioiis locations in the east end of the service azea is recommended. These facilities would
most :likely be paid for by the developer(s).
To inaease the capacity to pump water between pressure zones, upa ades to existing tacffities
and new pump statioxis aze recommended at several locations throughout the EVWD water
system, as described below:
a Plant 127 - Lower to Intermediate. This plant consists of two 1,500-gpm pumping units with
one oE the iurits used as the main unit and the other as a backup unit. The addition of a
third 1,500-gpm unit is proposed for this plant to increase the firm capacity to 3,000 gpm.
u Plant 150 - Lower to Intermediate. This future plant, when constructed, will be one of the
most impoxtant facilities in the District as it would include production, treatment, and
pumping facilities. Under Supply Scenario No.1, this pump station should have a firm
capa<:ity of 12,000 gpm and a backup capacity of 3,000 gpm. Under Supply Scenario No. 2,
the firm capacity of this station would be reduced to 9,000 gpm. An on-site 1,000-kilowatt
(KT^~ power generator is recommended at this plant to power the pump station and on-site
well during emergency conditions. The District may also want to consider having trailer-
mounted generators to power some or all wells that would pump into this plant for
~ treahnent.
o Plant "!3~. It is recommended that the pumping capacity from the Surface Water Treatment
Plani: (VJT1?) at Plant 134 into the Foothill and Canal pressure zones be upo aded io convey
mosi of the ireated water to higher pressure zones. Upjrades to this plant consist o#
increasing the pumping capacity of the two existing units pumping inio the Canal pressure
zone to 1,?SO gpm. Thi.s improvement would provide the facilities needed to pump the iuil_
treatment capaciiy oi the surface WT1_' (5,500 ~m) izio higher pressure zones; 3,000 opm io
ihe F~ootlill, a.nd 2,500 gpm to the Cznal pressure zone.
_~1g7';i Z5 - LRt2II?lEQln[E T6 UDD2T. T71?S ~Iant consists of a si~gle 800-~pm pur!mpi~~ t:u~ii L'P.e[
~2sed f_*eq~ien*~y Yo ?nove wa~er _40*_± che Lntermediate oressu*e ,one to ihe Up~e= p*ess~ze
-
;
:
:~uE~7L C..v
s .
Executive Summary
zone, This station is recommended to be upgraded by increasing the capacity of the existing
pnatpir~g unit to 1,000 gpm and by adding a second 1,000-gpm pumping unit as a backup.
¦ Plant 39 - Inteimediate to Upper / Foothill. This plant consists of four pumping units; flu'ee
of the units cuxrently pump into the Foothill pressure zone while the fourth unit pumps into
the Upper pressure zone. Due to hydraulic constraints at this site, it is recommended that
the exi:~ting 2.,900 gpm pump station to the Foothill pressure zone be replaced with a new
pump :station, with a firm capacity of 3,000 gpm and a backup capacity of 1,000 gpm. Also, a
second pump station is recommended to ~ump into the Upper pressure zone. This new
station will have a firm capacity of 4,000 gpm and a backup capacity of 2,000 gpm. A 750-
KW power generator is recommended at this site io power the pumping units to the Upper
and Foothill pressure zones.
a Plant 40 - Intermediate to Upper. This plant consists of two 750-gpm pumping units with one
~ of the units considered as a backup. Upgrades to this plant consist of increasing the
pumping capacity of the two existing units to 1,000 gpm and adding two additional 1,000-
gpm units, one to be used as a backup.
m Plant 193 - Intermediate to Upper. Upgrades to this plant would provide storage to the
Interuiediate pressure zone on the east side of the system and also be used to pump water
into the Upper pressure zone at Plant 129. The new plant should be designed to house four
pumping uiuts with a combined firm capacity of 6,500 gpm and a backup capacity of 2,500
gpm.lJnder Scenario 2, the Plant 143 pump station would be designed to house three
pumping uiuts with a combined firm capacity of 3,000 gpm and a backup capacity of 1,500
gpm. .A 600•• KW power generator is recommended at this facility to power this future pump
station during emergency conditions.
e Greenspot and Piunge Creek Plant - Upper to Foothill. This new plant would pump from the
Upper pressure zone to the Foothill pressure zone. The new plant should be designed to
house~ four pump~ng units with a combined firm capacity of 6,200 gpm and a backup
capacity of 2,206 gpm. Under Scenario 2, the Plunge Creek pump station would be desio
ed
to ho~ise three pumping units with a combined firm capacity of 3,200 gpm and a backup
capacity of 1,600 gpm. A 600-KW power generator is recommended at this site to maintzin
staiion operation during emergency conditions.
e S-Curve Plant - FootYiill to Canal. This new plant would pump from the Foothill pressure
zone to the Canal p=essure zone. The new plaa-~t should be desib ed to house four p~vmping
units with a combined firm capacity of 9,000 gpm and a backup capacity of 3,000 ~m.
UndE>.r Scenario 2, the S-Cusve pump staiion would be desio ed to house two pumping
i~nit~ with a combined fim capacity oi 6,000 ~pm and a backup capacity of 3,000 gpm.
The Facilities Plan also ~cluded evaluzrion oi existing ~ansmission pipei_ines and deveioped
reco~mendznons for pipeline improvements. 1`he evaluarion consisieci of ihe developmeni o? ~
sche*natic to project ihe uitimate transmission of waier o ven the location o* supplies, demands,
~r,d puiaping siziions. The Water Maste* °laz stucy a?so dev2loped a skeletalized hydraulic
~?odel o? +!?e i~W~ *r~ns*_*~ission svstem. Th_s *nod°1 Wn5 S,S?1pI1I12d TO OP~y ~Vc~ ud?° inE
~ . . .
P'cZLSI~:>SiOR 6? Wd?cr WtLr1- ~•lQividUdl DT255U22 70~c5. Li?rp~ Jn ih=S c~Jc~li3iiC~, i..:1:5?''155:_~'.
Executive Summary
nnprovements were identified to convey ultimate demands throughout the service area. The
analysis of fxansnvssion facilities was conducted for both supply scenarios. Recommended
transmission facility improvements are summarized in Table ES-3.
- . - . ...w~T`s1e~S; . . , r_~
• ` '
. ~ . . ~-~-Y;r< . b ~ ' - . - ' . ° _.~F.;^
eeo me ~q yfo~,~ra~sm , o. Fa tlitjKim~,r~o;~ii7~.., , _ a~*
, _ H~. :
eres~s`~~re~a, yb
a~ ~R -n~ an '
"r _ ~`Zona~?!~?t~ln~ ~v v+" ~~a^- ;a~;'uxq„,._ .
C` . s,. -~~k . •a~ m!i.:,`:'tS~ -M~..'": `-~.'*.1,"`~.,,'~"5 ~ve, .S".:v ' .
~ SBVMWD Wa[er Irnport and Well I Lower 1 F 30 4,700 I~dd 30' pipaline along 6N Street from MUNI intertie z!
17q, 72A to Plant t50 ~ ~ ~ Pedleylo Plant 150 _
i { ~ Atld t6' rawwaler pipeline wesl on Court St from Planl
We1128A to Plani ~50 ~ Lower i 16 2,~0~ i 28 and norN on Dal Rosa Dr to Piant'I50
Plant 127 PS Upgrede ~ Lower ~ 7p ; p,~pp ~ AOE 12' O~Peline east on 9th St hom Del Rosa Dr to
~ ~ ~ , S1eAing Ave
I ~ ~ East on 6'" St hom Plant 750 PumD StaliQn to PIan1 t 43
Plant 1501o Plant 143 Reservoir ~ I~~ermediate ~ 30 : 2~,000 ~ Reservoir
i
Exlension of StaAing PiO~~~e Alignmenk East to Piant 39
SteAing Fipeline Extension ~ Intertnediate ~ 30 ~ 4.800 I Reservoir
f
~ ~ ~ Defe Street Pipeline Project trom Piant 152 W7P to
DateStreetPipeline ~ Intermediate ~ 20 ~ 4~~~I StedingAve
~ ~ ~ North on Cortez St from Plant 143 Pump Station, East on
Plant 5Q~ PS b Plurge Craok PS j Upper 20 I ~•2~~ Greenspot to Plunga Creek Pump Station
' Conversion of ebsting Intermediate Zone pipelirie to
Plant 39 PS lo System Upper i 20 i 5,900 Upper _
~ ~ Atld 12' D~Deline souM on Eucalyptus Dr hom Pumalo St
Piant 39 PS to System I UvPer ! 72 ~ 1.000 I to Highland Ave
~ ~ East on Greenspot Rd from comei of Calie Del Rio to 5-
Greenspot & Galle del Rio W
5•~i p4 ~ 5,300
Curve R~3servoir Curve PIaM Reservoir
Plant 131 PS Pipoline Foothil6 Canal~ 72 i 1,500 Adtl 12" pipelines for both Foothil4entl Canal on suction
Improveinent ~ and gef-eway side oF Plant 131
~ Plant 134 PS get-away piping; as on ighland from
Plant 734 to Canal 2one ~ Canal ~ 16 i 2,500 p~an1134 outtbw 16' pipeGne to Orchard Rd.
~ I 1
East on Greenspot Rd fi'om S-Cune PumD StaGon to
S-Curve PS to Sunrise Ranch i Canal ~ 30 ~ 5,100 Seven Oaks Dam Road PIanFReservoit
~5.6 ~a~i~al Inn~~oweanent ~l~xa
Five types of improvements including storage reservoirs, pumping £acilities, supply faciliries,
transmission pipelines, and emergency power supplies have been identified and developed in
this EVtND Water Master Plan. As summarized in Table ES-4, the Capital Improvement
Program (CII') estimates capital costs and proposes implementation priorities for *he idenniied
improvexnents. The estimated capital costs for the proposed system improvements zre ;n 2007
dollars. T'he rec:ommended staa g and prioxitization of the proposed facilities is.based on the
projected. waier demands, and is coozdi~~ated with sVW7's development plans.
?*iority C inchzdes the planned faciities which are currenily eiflier in desio or ~ cons~rucyon
~hase. F'rio*ity 1 includes the system ?mprovements whose impieLnentation s planr.ed `o* fne
nex't five years, i.e. from 200% through 2012. i'*io*i'ry 2~~~ciuctes ihe system improvemenis
~lazuied for che time frazn= beiween 2012 aT1CI ZG~O. !'TIOIlt~~ 3 includes chz sys*er?
FISIDSOVEIREItiS *~IaTLned io: t~e 'r_me ncLne bevone ZO %0. ?rio*i'ry D incl.ude_ >yst?r';
i--. " '
',::r'=+ipve'_ .
_~a~'~
Executive Summary
e
unprovements whose iuiplementation will be the responsibility of developers coniracted to
build the Sunrise Ranch development
o
Y~ . ~ , ~ a6Te~,F~,~, . o - • ~ -~-a
..~,~,e,;~ N aq,~.,.mpiovelnea'tyP~ro~~am~nSum~nar~.o~Cos ' „~~f' r~±;
PrioriGes
CIP F~acilities ~ ~ Total
Current (C) Prioriry'I Prioriiy 2 Prioriry 3 Developer (D)
Storage R¢servoirs ~i $0 ; $0 1 310,700.000 ~ ~ b0 ;$38,200,000 ! 548,900,000
Pumpinq Facilities SO ! 51.200,000 53,500,000 ~$3,300,000 i 56,500,000 i~~4,500,000
SupplyFactili6es• ~ S'1,430,000 ' $35,500,000 ; 810,690,000 ! $29,000,000 i $5,720,000 582,340,000
TransmissionPipelines $5,100,000 ! $6,100,000 't $'12.200,000 ; SO ; 58,800,000 ' R32200,000
Emergency Power 80 ~$2,100,000 i$2,500,000 5900,000 I 5900.000 ~$6,400,000
• ToWI Capital Cost 56,530,000 $44,900,000 $39,590,000 $33200,000 560,120,000 $184,340,000
' Dxs not indude wst of Survisa Ranch WTP: Costs (w iNS taality is b be Eetertninetl
1
~ ~.y,~'.; _ n .