HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7634
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7634)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan
Title: Approval of the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan Guidelines
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council approve the
updated 2017 Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) Guidelines.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current season’s deluge notwithstanding, the past several years have brought
unprecedented drought conditions and regulatory action by the State Water Resource Control
Board (SWRCB), including the first-ever mandatory potable water use reductions. During this
time, much focus has been placed on the sustainability of water supply in California. The WIRP
Guidelines, which were last updated in 2003, are a roadmap for the City of Palo Alto’s future
potable water supply.
In this WIRP, the following potable water supply alternatives were evaluated: 1) water from the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); 2) groundwater (with or without
groundwater recharge); 3) treated water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD);
and 4) Demand Side Management (DSM). Recycled water is being evaluated outside of the
WIRP in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan process that will include an evaluation of direct and
indirect potable reuse as well as the feasibility and advisability of expanding the existing non-
potable recycled water distribution system.
The evaluation concluded that DSM is the best resource, but potable water supplies are still
needed. While SFPUC water is more expensive, it has higher water quality than groundwater or
treated water from the SCVWD. In addition, groundwater and SCVWD treated water supplies
may increase in cost and aren’t likely to offer additional protection in droughts.
In summary, the proposed 2017 WIRP Guidelines are:
1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation;
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the
use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and water
incidentally produced in an excavating project;
3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the
demand for imported water; and
4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus
blended water.
The WIRP Guidelines will need to be revisited after the Recycled Water Strategic Plan is
completed so that a comprehensive, regional water strategy can be developed.
BACKGROUND
The City prepared its first WIRP in 1993 when the City was faced with a decision to participate
in a regional recycled water expansion program. The 1993 WIRP assessed the costs and benefits
of the recycled water project compared to other supply alternatives, and ultimately concluded
that recycled water was not cost effective relative to existing supply.
In 2003, the City updated the WIRP. The 2003 WIRP indicated that supplies from the SFPUC
were adequate during normal years, but additional supplies were needed in dry years to avoid
shortages. The key conclusions from the 2003 WIRP analysis were:
The City’s existing contractual entitlement with the SFPUC provides adequate supplies;
The cost to connect to the SCVWD treated water pipeline was prohibitive;
Continuous use of groundwater was not recommended;
The City should continue to evaluate recycled water; and
Continue the current Demand Side Management programs and explore additional
measures.
In December 2003, Council adopted WIRP Guidelines (Attachment B) for the development of
new water resources and the preservation of existing supplies, which are summarized below:
1. Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies
2. Continue to advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and SCVWD
3. Participate in the development of cost effective regional recycled water programs
4. Scope water conservation programs to comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs)
5. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts
6. Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions
7. Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource
portfolio
As a first step toward updating the 2003 WIRP, a Preliminary Assessment (Attachment C) was
completed and provided to the UAC in February 2013. The Preliminary Assessment provided a
general evaluation of the following water resources: 1) water from the SFPUC; 2) groundwater;
3) treated water from the SCVWD; 4) recycled water; 5) DSM; and 6) sale of the City’s Individual
Supply Guarantee. No recommendations were made based on the Preliminary Assessment,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
although staff found that groundwater, SCVWD treated water, recycled water and the sale of
the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee merited further evaluation.
At its November 2, 2016 meeting, the UAC reviewed the draft 2017 WRIP guidelines. The UAC
was generally pleased with the report, but expressed a desire to represent more SFPUC water
supply availability scenarios in the future. The minutes from the UAC’s November 2, 2016
meeting are provided as Attachment D.
The WIRP was revised with an expanded description of the short and long term threats to
SFPUC water supply availability, the most significant of which are climate change and state
regulation1. The revised plan was unanimously recommended for Council approval by the UAC
at its January 11, 2017 meeting. The minutes are provided as Attachment E. Additional
questions were asked at that meeting about long term climate impacts to water supply and
about the taste and odor impacts of using groundwater. With respect to climate impacts on
water supply, these are highly uncertain, and an in-depth analysis is not included in the WIRP.
In addition, the City is well positioned to handle potential impacts given its robust water supply
and efficiency achievements. Any impacts would materialize gradually, allowing time for the
City to respond, and untapped resources like ground water and recycled water would provide
additional measures of security. However, staff is aware of the concern and will likely be in a
better position to analyze these types of impacts when the WIRP is revisited after the Recycled
Water Strategic Plan is completed. The taste and odor concerns arose due to a recent incident
where the SFPUC’s water supply was affected by a release of algae during a routine blend
change, which led to the greatest number of taste and odor complaints in recent years.
Blending ground water with SFPUC water would not result in this magnitude of taste and odor
impact. While blended water would be harder and would have a different taste, the water
would not have taste and odor issue experienced as a result of the algae bloom in December
2016. However, customers may significantly prefer the taste of Hetch Hetchy water to the taste
of blended water. Assessing customer preferences would be a priority before recommending
any use of blended water in Palo Alto’s water supply.
DISCUSSION
For the current analysis, each potable water supply alternative was evaluated for normal and
dry year availability, water quality, cost, sustainability, emergency robustness, and sensitivity to
regulations and environmental review. For each alternative, the following attributes were
considered:
1. Normal and dry year availability;
2. Water quality;
3. Cost;
1 The State’s 2016 Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Substitute Environmental Document includes a proposal to
double unimpaired flow on the Tuolumne River from 20% to 40%. Such a change would result in severe water
shortages to SFPUC customers during dry periods. Palo Alto is participating in the environmental review and
comment process, along with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and the SFPUC, to work with
the State to achieve stated environmental goals while mitigating resulting impacts to water customers.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
4. Sustainability;
5. Emergency robustness; and
6. Sensitivity to regulations and environmental review.
The current analysis made the following conclusions:
1. Cost-effective DSM is the superior resource, but DSM alone can’t eliminate the City’s need
for potable water.
2. While SFPUC water is expected to be slightly more expensive than other potable water
alternatives, it has the highest water quality.
3. The cost of SCVWD supplies—both groundwater and treated water—may increase
dramatically if purified water is fully developed and/or if the California Water Fix (“twin
tunnels”) project is constructed. However, SCVWD does not have excess treated water to
sell.
4. Groundwater in the county is susceptible to mandated water use reductions just like
imported supplies.
5. Blending groundwater with SFPUC water at only the El Camino well is the least expensive,
most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies. Whether the residents and businesses
that would receive the water would consider the tradeoff between cost and quality to be
acceptable is worth investigating.
6. The most promising way to increase reliability and increase sustainability is to reduce the
demand for potable water by expanding the use of recycled water. The Recycled Water
Strategic Plan will provide valuable analysis and information to help the City and SCVWD
formulate a comprehensive strategy for the future.
Table 1 shows a summary of the WIRP analysis.
Table 1: Summary Comparison of Potable Water Supply Alternatives
Water
Resource
Normal Year
Availability
Dry Year
Availability
Quality Cost Emergency
Robustness
Sustainability Sensitivity to
Regulations and
Environmental
Review
SFPUC
Groundwater
Groundwater
(w/recharge)
?
SCVWD
Treated Water
Demand Side
Management
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
n
d
si
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
n
d
si
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
n
d
si
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
n
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
n
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
n
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
n
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
e
m
a
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
d
Fo
r
th
e
m
os
t
p
ar
t,
City of Palo Alto Page 5
On December 7, 2016, the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee reviewed the
proposed 2017 WIRP and suggested one clarifying change to Guideline 4. The proposed 2017
WIRP Guidelines now read:
1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation;
2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the
use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and water
incidentally produced in an excavating project.
3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the
demand for imported water; and
4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus
blended water.
NEXT STEPS
The WIRP Guidelines will be updated after the completion of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Adoption of the proposed WIRP Guidelines will replace the 2003 Guidelines and will determine
the water resource planning activities for the next three years. The proposed 2017 WIRP
Guidelines are consistent with the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, the Utilities Strategic
Plan, and the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Council’s approval of the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan Guidelines does not
require California Environmental Quality Act review, because the plan does not meet the
definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(5), as an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or
indirect physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2017 Final WIRP
Attachment B: 2003 WIRP Guidelines
Attachment C: 2013 Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives
Attachment D: Excerpted Final UAC Minutes of November 2, 2016
Attachment A
2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan
January 2017
i
2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan
Table of Contents
List of Figures ___________________________________________________________ iii
List of Tables ___________________________________________________________ iii
List of Acronyms _________________________________________________________ iii
I. Executive Summary ____________________________________________________ 1
II. WIRP Drivers _________________________________________________________ 2
III. Background __________________________________________________________ 3
IV. Water Supply History ________________________________________________ 6
V. Water Use Projections __________________________________________________ 7
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) ________________________________________ 8
Summary Water Resource Mix _________________________________________________ 8
VI. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined ____________ 9
Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative ___________________________ 9
Water Resource Alternatives Examined __________________________________________ 9
Water Resource Alternatives NOT Examined _____________________________________ 10
VII. Water from the SFPUC ______________________________________________ 13
Availability ________________________________________________________________ 13
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 15
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 16
Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 17
Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 18
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 19
VIII. Potable Groundwater _______________________________________________ 19
Availability ________________________________________________________________ 21
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 22
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 23
Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 25
Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 26
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 26
ii
IX. Treated Water from the SCVWD _________________________________________ 27
Availability ________________________________________________________________ 29
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 29
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 30
Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 31
Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 32
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 32
X. Demand Side Management ____________________________________________ 33
Availability ________________________________________________________________ 34
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 35
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 35
Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 37
Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 37
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 37
XI. Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives _________________________________ 38
Availability ________________________________________________________________ 38
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 38
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 39
Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 41
Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 41
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 41
XII. Conclusions _______________________________________________________ 41
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Historic Water Use (1988-2016) ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: 2010 and 2015 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison ................................. 8
Figure 3: Summary of 2015 UWMP Water Resource Composition ................................................ 9
Figure 4: Projected Frequency of Shortage for RWS Based on 91-Year Historical Hydrologic
Record and Estimated Demand .................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water ................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System .......................................................................... 18
Figure 7: Estimated Well Production for Various Treatment Options ......................................... 23
Figure 8: Cost at Each Well for Each Treatment Option ............................................................... 24
Figure 9: Unit cost of Various Treatment Options ........................................................................ 25
Figure 10: West Pipeline Extension Map ...................................................................................... 28
Figure 11: SBx7X7 Targets, Results, and Projections .................................................................... 34
Figure 12: Monthly Potable Water Consumption......................................................................... 35
Figure 13: Water Demand Forecast with Future Water Efficiency .............................................. 37
Figure 14: Commodity Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives ...................................... 40
Figure 15: Present Value Unit Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives ........................... 40
List of Tables
Table 1: Estimated Well Capacity ................................................................................................. 21
Table 2: Water Quality Resulting from Various Treatment Options ............................................ 23
Table 3: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Cost Summary ........................................................ 30
Table 4: Water Efficiency Costs ($/AF) ......................................................................................... 36
Table 5: Water Quality Parameters for Water Resource Alternatives ......................................... 39
Table 6: Summary Comparison of Potable Water Resource Alternatives .................................... 42
List of Acronyms
AFY Acre Feet per Year
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BMP Best Management Practice
CCF One hundred cubic feet
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities
CVP Central Valley Project
DPR Direct Potable Reuse
iv
DSM Demand Side Management
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GHG Greenhouse gas
GPCD Gallons per capita per day
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
IPR Indirect Potable Reuse
ISA Interim Supply Allocation
ISG Individual Supply Guarantee
ISL Interim Supply Limitation
MGD Million gallons per day
PPM Parts per Million
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant
RWS Regional Water System (refers to SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system)
SBx7-7 Water Conservation Bill
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
S/CAP Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WIRP Water Integrated Resource Plan
WSA Water Supply Agreement
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
Page 1
I. Executive Summary
The past several years have brought unprecedented drought conditions and regulatory action
by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) including the first-ever mandatory potable
water use reductions. During this time, much focus has been placed on the sustainability of
water supply in California. The Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) Guidelines, which were
last updated in 2003, are a roadmap for the City of Palo Alto’s future potable water supply.
In this WIRP, the following potable water supply alternatives were evaluated: 1) water from the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); 2) groundwater (with or without
groundwater recharge); 3) treated water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD);
and 4) Demand Side Management (DSM). Recycled water is being evaluated outside of the
WIRP in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan process that will include an evaluation of direct and
indirect potable reuse as well as the feasibility and advisability of expanding the existing non-
potable recycled water distribution system.
For each alternative, the following attributes were considered:
1. Normal and dry year availability;
2. Water quality;
3. Cost;
4. Sustainability;
5. Emergency robustness; and
6. Sensitivity to regulations and environmental review.
Major findings of the evaluation are:
1. Cost-effective DSM is the superior resource, but DSM can’t eliminate the City’s need for
potable water.
2. While SFPUC water is slightly more expensive than groundwater and SCVWD treated
water, it has the highest water quality.
3. The cost of SCVWD supplies may increase dramatically if purified water is fully
developed and/or if the “twin tunnels” project in the Delta is constructed.
4. SCVWD does not have excess treated water available to sell.
5. Like other potable water supplies, groundwater in the county is susceptible to
mandated water use reductions.
6. Blending groundwater with SFPUC water at only the El Camino well is the least
expensive, most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies. It is unclear whether
the customers that would receive the water would consider the tradeoff between cost
and quality to be acceptable.
7. Expanding the use of recycled water and other non-potable sources will reduce the
reliance on potable water, but more work needs to be done and no conclusions about
the cost-effectiveness of those resources can be drawn from this study.
Page 2
In summary, the recommended 2017 WIRP Guidelines are:
1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation;
2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the
use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and water
incidentally produced in an excavating project from basement construction;
3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the
demand for imported water; and
4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus
blended water.
II. WIRP Drivers
There are several drivers for updating the WIRP Guidelines at this time.
a) Dry year need – The City has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 17.07 million gallons per
day (MGD) from the regional water system operated by the SFPUC. The City has no
foreseeable supply deficiency in normal years, but SFPUC supplies will likely be inadequate
during dry years. Many of the supply alternatives available to the City are also subject to
drought shortfalls. A critical question to address is the level of reliability the City will
provide to residents and businesses and at what cost.
b) Legislative & Regulatory Risks – In 2015, the SWRCB overrode individual supplier water
shortage assessments and mandated potable water use reduction targets. It is prudent to
evaluate Palo Alto’s water supply alternatives relative to this new regulatory risk.
c) Cost Increases – The SFPUC’s Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) is 90% complete.
The WSIP included 81 projects for a cost of $4.8 billion (including $1.6 billion for projects
within, and completely paid for by ratepayers within, the City and County of San Francisco).
The largest project remaining is the re-build of the Calaveras Dam which has encountered
unexpected geological challenges. As a result of the WSIP and other capital projects, the
cost of SFPUC water has risen dramatically and is projected to continue to increase in the
future. With the increase in costs, other alternatives are increasingly competitive with
SFPUC supplies, although other supply alternatives such as groundwater from the SCVWD
and treated water from the SCVWD have also increased in cost and are expected to
continue on that trajectory.
d) Recycled Water and the Nexus with Potable Supplies - Recycled water from the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is an available local supply source with the potential
to reduce the City’s demand for SFPUC water. Recycled water could be deployed for non-
potable uses or converted to potable water through Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR or
recharging the deep aquifer followed by groundwater pumping) or Direct Potable Reuse
(DPR or highly purified water that can be injected directly to the potable water distribution
system). A renewed commitment at the State level may change the viability of recycled
Page 3
water projects. There is also regulatory pressure to reduce the amount of water discharged
to the San Francisco Bay.
e) Council Commitment to Sustainability - The issue of climate change has become an
important factor in water resources planning in the State, though the extent and precise
effects of climate change remain uncertain. There is convincing evidence that increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gasses have caused, and will continue to cause, a rise in
temperatures around the world, which will result in a wide range of changes in climate
patterns. Moreover, observational data show that a warming trend occurred during the
latter part of the 20th century and virtually all projections indicate this will continue
through the 21st century. Climate change could result in the following types of water
resource impacts, including impacts on the watersheds in the Bay Area:
Reductions in the average annual snowpack due to a rise in the snowline and a
shallower snowpack in the low and medium elevation zones, such as in the Tuolumne
River basin (the primary source of SFPUC’s regional water system), and a shift in
snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year;
Changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased
amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow;
Long-term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that
could affect water quality and quantity;
Sea level rise and an increase in saltwater intrusion;
Increased water temperatures with accompanying potential adverse effects on some
fisheries and water quality;
Increases in evaporation and concomitant increased irrigation need; and
Changes in urban and agricultural water demand.
The updated Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) will include aggressive goals
and robust strategies for ensuring Palo Alto has a sustainable long-term water supply. In
particular, local water sources need to be considered with this new focus in mind.
f) Community Engagement on All Things Water Related – The current drought shined a
spotlight on the lack of adequate water supplies for the state as a whole. Media attention
and actions by the Governor raised awareness among Palo Alto’s educated, engaged
community resulting in a need to provide to the public more information on the City’s
water supply planning efforts.
III. Background
The first WIRP was prepared largely because the City was faced with a decision regarding
participation in a regional recycled water program. This 1993 WIRP assessed the costs and
benefits of a recycled water project compared to other supply alternatives, and ultimately
determined that recycled water was not cost effective relative to existing supplies. In 1999, the
Page 4
City began working on a new WIRP, and completed the effort with approval by the City Council
of seven WIRP Guidelines in December 20031:
1. Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies.
2. Advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and the District
3. Actively participate in development of cost-effective regional recycled water plans
4. Focus water DSM programs to comply with BMPs
5. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts
6. Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions
7. Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource portfolio
During the process to prepare the 2003 WIRP, several studies were conducted to inform the
effort:
1. Water, Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System Study, 1999, Carollo
Engineers2 – This study identified system improvements to the distribution system to
meet water demands and fire flows following a catastrophic interruption of service on
the SFPUC system. Among the recommendations was to refurbish the 5 existing wells
and construct three new wells and a new water storage tank.
2. Long Term Water Supply Study, 2000, Carollo Engineers – The report examined the
issues and costs of using new or rehabilitated wells as active sources of supply. The
alternatives examined in the report included: (1) Using the wells for active supply either
on a long term basis or during droughts; (2) using groundwater for irrigation; and (3)
connecting to the SCVWD treated water pipeline.
3. Groundwater Supply Feasibility Study, 2002, Carollo Engineers – The report evaluated
whether operating one or two of the City’s water wells as active supplies would cause
significant decrease in groundwater levels or deterioration in groundwater quality.
4. Santa Clara Valley Water District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation
Final Report, 2003, SCVWD. – The report evaluated an extension of the existing SCVWD
West Pipeline to enable an interconnection of the Palo Alto and SCVWD systems at Page
Mill turnout.
The 2003 WIRP analysis indicated that SFPUC supplies were adequate during normal years, but
additional supplies were needed in dry years to avoid shortages. Since SFPUC supplies were
adequate in normal years, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The City’s existing ISG through its water supply contract with San Francisco provides
adequate supplies;
1 CMR:547:03: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51715
2 See Executive Summary here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25618
Page 5
2. The cost to connect to the SCVWD treated water pipeline is prohibitive assuming that
Palo Alto would bear the entire project cost;
3. Continuous use of groundwater was not recommended;
4. The City should continue to evaluate recycled water;
5. Continue the current DSM programs and explore additional measures; and
6. Additional supplies are needed in a drought if water use restrictions are to be avoided.
Following Council approval of the 2003 WIRP Guidelines, staff surveyed residential customers
to gain a sense of community preferences on the use of groundwater during a drought. The
survey asked respondents to rank several options for water supply during a drought: (A) blend
groundwater with existing SFPUC supplies; (B) use no groundwater; and (C) treat groundwater
at the well location prior to introduction to the distribution system.
Survey respondents generally preferred Options B (no groundwater) and C (treat groundwater),
but Option A (blend groundwater) was not soundly rejected. The results of the survey were
presented to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) in June 20043. Based on the results staff
made the following recommendations:
1. Do not install advanced treatment systems for the groundwater at this time. This option
is expensive, both in terms of capital and operating costs.
2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use ground water as a supplemental
drought time supply while maintaining good water quality.
3. Staff should await the conclusion of the environmental review process before
proceeding with any site selections for wells to be used in dry years.
4. Actively participate in the development of long term supply plans with the Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and/or SCVWD.
5. Continue efforts identified in the Council-approved WIRP guidelines:
a. Evaluate a range of demand side management options to reduce long term
water demands.
b. Evaluate feasibility of expanding recycled water.
c. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activities in case of
droughts.
In 2013, a Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives was prepared and presented
to the UAC4 as a first step toward updating the WIRP. Other high-priority tasks, such as drought
management and completion of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, delayed work on the
WIRP until now.
The City has several policies embodied in the Comprehensive Plan that relate to groundwater
and water supplies. The relevant policies are listed below, with program elements, if
applicable. An update of the Comprehensive Plan is underway.
3 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3354.pdf
4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33029
Page 6
1. POLICY N-51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability,
subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault
rupture, liquefaction, and land sliding.
2. POLICY N-18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.
a. PROGRAM N-22: Work with the SCVWD to identify and map key Groundwater
recharge areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of
groundwater resources.
3. POLICY N-19: Secure a reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto.
In April 20165, Council approved the framework of the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action
Plan. The section, “Getting Smart about Water” included two goals: (1) Reduce consumption of
potable water and (2) Supplement existing water supplies. As part of the S/CAP Implementation
Plan process, a revised set of goals and strategies will be presented to Council for approval.
IV. Water Supply History
The water utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the City was incorporated.
Local water companies were purchased at that time with a $40,000 bond approved by the
voters of the 750-person community. These private water companies operated one or more
shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The city grew and the well system expanded until
nine (9) wells were in operation by 1932.
In December 1937, the City signed a 20-year contract with the City and County of San Francisco
for water deliveries from the newly constructed pipeline bringing Hetch Hetchy water from
Yosemite to the Bay Area. Water deliveries from San Francisco commenced in 1938 and well
production declined to less than half of the total citywide water demand.
A 1950 engineering report noted, "The capricious alternation of well waters and the [San
Francisco] water...has made satisfactory service to the average consumer practically
impossible." Groundwater production increased in the 1950s leading to lower groundwater
tables and increasing water quality concerns.
In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to City customers determined that the City should
purchase 100% of its water supply needs from San Francisco. A 20-year contract was signed
with San Francisco and the City’s wells were placed in a standby condition. Since 1962 (except
for some very short periods) the City’s entire potable water has come from San Francisco’s
Hetch Hetchy regional water system administered by the SFPUC.
In 1974, several wholesale customers joined Palo Alto and filed a lawsuit against San Francisco
in protest of an increase in water rates that was higher for wholesale customers than it was for
5 Staff Report 6754: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51856
Page 7
direct retail customers. In 1984, settlement negotiations resulted in the “Settlement
Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract between the City and County of San Francisco and
Certain Suburban Purchasers in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties”. The 25-year
agreement was approved in 1984. The 1984 agreement included the creation of a “Supply
Assurance” equal to 184 million gallons of water per day (MGD) for the benefit of the wholesale
customers.6 The agreement included a mechanism to allocate the 184 Supply Assurance
between the wholesale agencies. The City’s allocation, its “Individual Supply Guarantee” or ISG,
is 17.07 MGD. Each agency’s ISG is perpetual in nature and survives termination or expiration
of the water supply contract with San Francisco.
In 2009, a new 25-year Water Supply Agreement (WSA) was executed between San Francisco
and the City7. The City’s historical water use and supply sources are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Historic Water Use (1988-2016)
V. Water Use Projections
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) regularly prepares water supply and demand forecasts to
prepare financial forecasts, to meet regulatory requirements, or as part of ongoing regional
planning efforts. Like many water agencies in California, the City has experienced a significant
6 The Supply Assurance is expressed as an annual average and does not constitute an obligation on the part of the
SFPUC to meet daily or hourly peak demands.
7 CMR: 269:09: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/15985
Page 8
drop in water use since 2007, which is largely attributable to the 2008 economic recession and
the recent drought and resulting water conservation.
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
The UWMP is submitted to the Department of Water Resources every five years; the City
Council approved the most recent 2015 UWMP in June 20158. Water demand forecast for the
2015 UWMP are shown in Figure 2. For comparison purposes, the forecast from the 2010
UWMP is also included in Figure 2. The water use projection results are revealing in that the
City, along with most water agencies in California, did not anticipate the dramatic drop in water
demand from 2007 to 2009. Potable water demands from 2009 to the present appear to have
leveled off and have begun to trend upwards again, albeit slowly, and it remains to be seen if
water demands will follow the increase forecasted in the 2010 UWMP.
Figure 2: 2010 and 2015 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison
Summary Water Resource Mix
The 2015 UWMP provided detailed information on baseline water resources through 2040.
SFPUC supplies were assumed to remain the primary potable supply for the foreseeable future.
Recycled water consumption was projected to continue at current levels and no expansion was
assumed in the 2015 UWMP. Finally, demand side management and conservation program
penetration and savings were projected contribute to a modest decrease in potable water use.
A representation of the future water resource mix is provided in Figure 3.
8 Staff Report 6851: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52272, Resolution 9589:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53456
Page 9
Figure 3: Summary of 2015 UWMP Water Resource Composition
VI. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined
Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative
In this section, each potential water resource option is evaluated and compared based on the
following attributes:
1. Normal and Dry Year Availability – The quantity, timing, peak flow or capacity, and any
expected changes over time during normal years and during dry years.
2. Water Quality – All options must meet water quality regulations, but supply resources
may differ in their relative water qualities (i.e. taste, odor, color, hardness, mineral
content, trace levels of contaminants, etc.).
3. Cost – The capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of the resource.
4. Sustainability – The long-term outlook for the supply source given climate change, sea
level rise, and the Council preference for local resources.
5. Emergency Robustness – The availability of the resource under various emergency
scenarios.
6. Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review – Vulnerability to existing or
potential federal, state, or local regulations and required environmental review.
Water Resource Alternatives Examined
The potable water resource alternatives evaluated in this 2017 WIRP process include:
1. Water from the SFPUC
Page 10
2. Groundwater (with or without groundwater recharge)
3. Treated Water from the SCVWD
4. Demand side Management
Water Resource Alternatives NOT Examined
The WIRP is an analysis of potable water resource alternatives. However, non-potable water
sources can both satisfy unmet water needs and reduce dependence on potable water. The City
is moving forward on several fronts regarding recycled water and other non-potable supplies,
but an evaluation of those supplies is not included in this analysis.
The following is a summary of the water resources not included in WIRP due to cost, technical
obstacles, or regulatory restrictions. A number of non-potable water sources are under
development or are being studied in parallel with the WIRP effort.
1. Recycled Water – The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District,
Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. The City, in
partnership with the SCVWD, is embarking on a Recycled Water Strategic Plan that will
include a holistic evaluation of this important resource. The costs and benefits of
expanding the current recycled water distribution system will be re-examined. The study
will include an analysis of the nexus between recycled water and potable water through
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR), whereby highly purified wastewater in used to recharge
the groundwater for future potable use, and Direct Potable Reuse (DPR), whereby highly
purified wastewater is injected directly into the potable water distribution system.
a. Non-potable Recycled Water - In September 20159, Council certified the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project that includes capital
improvements to the existing distribution system needed to increase deliveries
to the Stanford Research Park. The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will re-
evaluate the cost effectiveness of this project given an updated demand
assessment for non-potable water, current cost estimates including potential
outside funding sources. The potential impact on potable water demand of
expanding the use of non-potable recycled water is considered in this analysis.
b. IPR and the Nexus with Groundwater – State regulations allow recharging
groundwater with purified water, and projects are in operation in other parts of
the state. A project in Palo Alto would include a pipeline to a suitable site where
a facility could be constructed to successfully recharge the aquifer. Because
understanding the hydrology is such an important aspect of successful recharge
and because data for this part of the county is incomplete, the Recycled Water
9 Staff Report 5962: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49079, Resolution 9548:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49865, and Resolution 9549:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49866
Page 11
Strategic Plan includes a study of the upper and lower aquifers and the
connectivity between the two and they relate to the water balance. The WIRP
does include an analysis of groundwater as an alternative resource but does not
include a cost estimate to recharge groundwater with purified water from the
RWQCP.
c. DPR – While it is technically possible, as evidenced by the new SCVWD Advanced
Water Purification Plant, to produce recycled water that meets all drinking water
requirements, state law still prohibits injecting purified recycled water directly
into drinking water distribution systems. In addition, the cost of treating
recycled water to this degree is not yet cost-competitive. State lawmakers,
however, are embarking on a process to establish the regulations for DPR, and
since the supply is drought-proof, it will likely be a viable alternative in the
future.
2. Desalination – BAWSCA is evaluating a desalination project as part of its long-term
water supply plan. The demand analysis, however, revealed that current water
resources are adequate in normal water years through 2040. Less expensive, more
flexible alternatives such as water transfers are more suited to filling the supply gaps
during dry years. Because the projected timeline for completing any desalinization
project is very long, BAWSCA intends to continue studying this resource and seeking
alternate funding for such projects.
3. Sale of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) - The City’s access to water from
the SFPUC Regional Water System is embodied in the 2009 WSA. The City’s ISG of 17.07
MGD is a perpetual guarantee, but the delivery of water is subject to interruption for
reason of water shortage, drought, or emergency. The City’s average year water needs,
after consumption bounces back from the recent drought, are projected to be about 9.5
MGD. The City of East Palo Alto (EPA) lacks adequate long-term water supplies for
development and is interested in increasing its ISG. Any transfer of Palo Alto’s ISG would
be permanent and may impact the percentage Palo Alto would be required to cutback in
a water shortage. Discussions between the City and EPA are underway and are separate
from this analysis.
4. Small scale irrigation wells - Individuals may drill their own wells without City review or
permits, but are subject to SCVWD’s rules, restrictions, and permitting requirements.
The City does have the option of using small wells for irrigation of large landscapes, such
as for City parks. However, locating, maintaining, and operating small wells is cost-
prohibitive and operationally problematic.
5. Treated Contaminated Groundwater – There are several entities in the City that treat
contaminated groundwater and discharge the groundwater to the storm drain system
and, to a lesser extent, the sanitary sewer system. The primary purpose of these
Page 12
facilities is to remediate contaminated groundwater with finite operations. The
potential end uses for this water are limited due to its very low quality.
6. Nuisance Groundwater from the Oregon Expressway Underpass - The Santa Clara
County Oregon Expressway dewatering pumps discharge significant amounts of
nuisance groundwater to the storm drain system to keep the underpass dry. The City
evaluated the capture and conveyance of the Oregon Expressway groundwater for
irrigation purposes and determined the effort would require significant conveyance and
storage infrastructure investments that are not cost effective.
7. Nuisance Groundwater from Basement Dewatering - Basement construction
groundwater pumping occurs when a basement is constructed in areas of shallow
groundwater, typically in the neighborhoods closer to the bay or near current or former
creek beds. Dewatering continues until enough of the house has been constructed to
keep the basement in place. The shallow and deep aquifer research to be undertaken by
the City in coordination with the SCVWD in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan will
provide valuable insight to the relationship between the aquifers in the north part of
Santa Clara County.
While the City has long regulated several aspects of basement groundwater pumping for
both residential and commercial sites, recent public concern over the appearance of
wasted water prompted Council’s adoption of several new requirements for builders.
Where groundwater pumping is needed, builders must install a fill station and submit a
Groundwater Use Plan describing how use of the pumped groundwater will be
maximized.
On February 1, 201610, Council approved the following additional requirements and
actions:
Public outreach to encourage greater fill station use;
Increased outreach on the water cycle and value of fresh water flows to storm
drains, creeks and bay;
Additional requirements for Groundwater Use Plans such as maximizing on-site
water reuse (e.g. watering on-site and nearby vegetation), providing water truck
hauling service for neighbor and City landscaping, and piping to nearby parks or
major users where feasible;
Expansion of fill station specifications to address water pressure issues from multiple
concurrent users, including separate pumps for neighbors where needed and
sidewalk bridges for hoses to reduce tripping hazards; and
Submission of a determination of the effects of groundwater pumping on nearby
buildings, infrastructure, trees, or landscaping.
10 See Staff Report 6478: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50690
Page 13
8. Graywater and Black Water – Graywater is relatively clean waste water from baths,
sinks, washing machines, and other kitchen appliances while black water is waste water
from toilets. Treating and reusing both types of water at the building level can decrease
the demand for potable water. The City’s draft Sustainability Implementation Plan
includes designing programs for cost-effective incentives for grey water and black water
systems and developing a local ordinance that facilitates the use of non-traditional
water sources such as grey water and black water.
9. Storm water – Storm water is precipitation that can soak into the soil (infiltrate), be held
on the surface and evaporate, or run off and end up in nearby streams etc. Capturing
and using storm water in Palo Alto can reduce the demand for potable water, help to
recharge the aquifer, and prevent pollutants from entering the San Francisco Bay. Storm
water can be a useful resource for keeping Palo Alto’s urban canopy well-watered.
The draft Sustainability Implementation Plan includes developing a Storm Water
Infrastructure Plan by 2019 to include design guidelines, funding sources, and prioritized
projects. The draft plan also includes promoting permeable paving material through
mandates and rebates and incentives and exploring new applications for permeable
paving.
VII. Water from the SFPUC
The City currently purchases 100% of its potable supplies from the SFPUC under the 2009 WSA.
The WSA is administered for the City by BAWSCA which represents the interests of 24 cities and
water districts and two private utilities that purchase wholesale water from the San Francisco
regional water system. These entities provide water to 1.7 million people, businesses and
community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The City of Palo
Alto is a member of BAWSCA and has a Council-appointed representative on the BAWSCA
Board of Directors.
Availability
The City’s right to water from the SFPUC system is embodied in the 2009 WSA. The City’s ISG of
17.07 MGD is a perpetual right, but the delivery of water is subject to interruption for reason of
water shortage, drought, or emergency.
Normal Year SFPUC Water Availability
While the City’s ISG is 17.07 MGD, the City’s long-term projected potable water demand
forecast is only about 9.5 MGD. The WSA includes an interim water delivery limitation11 from
the SFPUC system of 265 MGD until its expiration in 2018. The City’s share of the interim
11 This limitation applies to all users of the San Francisco regional water supply system, the City of San Francisco
and all the BAWSCA member agencies.
Page 14
limitation, or its Interim Supply Allocation (ISA), is 14.70 MGD12. Based on the water demand
forecast from the 2015 UWMP, there is no foreseeable need for additional supply beyond the
City’s ISG, or the ISA.
There is one situation where the City’s ISG could be involuntarily reduced. Under the terms of
the 1962 contract between the City of Hayward and San Francisco, the City of Hayward’s
contractual entitlement from the SFPUC system essentially equals its water demand. In theory,
since the collective Supply Assurance of the wholesale customers cannot exceed 184 MGD, if
Hayward’s water usage increases substantially, the other wholesale agencies could experience
a proportional ISG reduction to ensure the 184 MGD limit is not exceeded. However,
BAWSCA’s 2014 Regional Demand and Conservation Projections Project showed total agency
demand for SFPUC water to be 168 MGD in 2040, well below the 184 MGD limit.
Dry Year SFPUC Water Availability
SFPUC’s WSIP includes a level of service goal of no greater than a 20% system-wide supply
shortage during a drought. The 2009 WSA includes a water shortage allocation plan to share
water from the regional system between the SFPUC retail and group of BAWSCA agencies (also
known as the “wholesale customers”) during a shortage of up to 20% (Tier I plan). The
wholesale customers further divided the wholesale allocation based on a formula adopted by
all the wholesale customers (Tier II plan)13. The Tier II formula results in larger cutbacks from
the wholesale customers compared to SFPUC’s retail customers, however, the formula expires
in 2018, unless extended by mutual agreement of the BAWSCA members. This analysis
assumes that, in the future, any voluntary or mandatory water use reductions will be
commensurate with the needed system-wide reduction.
Based on the 2040 regional demand assumptions and using 91 years of historical hydrologic
data and the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy/Local Simulation Model, drought year supply shortages of
10 percent to 20 percent on SFPUC’s Regional Water System are estimated to occur up to 8
times during the 91-year historical hydrologic sequence (i.e., 1920 through 2011) that the
SFPUC uses for water supply planning purposes. This is the equivalent of a shortage event on
the Regional Water System approximately every 11 years. The estimated frequency of shortage
is conceptually illustrated Figure 4.
12 See informational Staff Report 1321: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/26211
13 Staff Report 1308: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40970, Resolution 9141:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31879
Page 15
Figure 4: Projected Frequency of Shortage for RWS Based on 91-Year Historical Hydrologic
Record and Estimated Demand
As identified in the 2015 UWMP, the City has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan for
implementation during a drought. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan identifies several
stages of drought response, depending on the degree of supply reduction required. Responses
range from informational outreach to severe water use restrictions and modified rate
structures.
SFPUC supplies, like other imported supplies, are subject to a whole host of other short and
long term threats. The State is proposing to increase natural flow requirements on the
Tuolumne and other rivers which would result in significant shortfalls to the SFPUC and its
customers during water supply shortage periods. A lawsuit calling for the SFPUC to study
removal of the O’Shaughnessy dam is still pending. Finally, the SFPUC is studying the impact of
climate change on Sierra snowpack and the availability of water. Impacted agencies will have
time to adjust water supply strategies if significant changes to the availability of SFPUC supplies
are anticipated.
While the City has the option of pumping groundwater as supplemental supply in a water
supply shortage determined by the SFPUC, this may not be a viable option in a State-mandated
potable water reduction. This is discussed in more detail in the groundwater section below
(Section VIII Potable Groundwater).
Water Quality
SFPUC supplies are of extremely high quality. See Table 2 (in Section VIII Potable Groundwater)
which lists key water quality parameters for SFPUC water, SCVWD treated water and
Page 16
groundwater. Water provided by the SFPUC is a mix of Hetch Hetchy water and water from the
East Bay and Peninsula reservoirs. In a normal year, Hetch Hetchy water makes up 85% of the
mix. Due to maintenance requirements, the SFPUC typically will shut down the Hetch Hetchy
supply for a period during the low demand winter months and draw from the local reservoirs.
It is not unusual to experience temporary water quality changes due to these events, though
the water still meets all drinking water quality standards. The SFPUC uses chloramine as the
primary drinking water disinfectant and adds fluoride14.
Cost
The City purchases 100% of its potable water supply from the SFPUC, with the current cost
structure composed of a volumetric charge and a small fixed monthly meter charge. With the
$4.8 billion WSIP nearly complete, the cost of SFPUC water has increased significantly over the
past 10 years. The recent decline in region-wide water consumption has intensified the
problem since the cost, which is almost all fixed, is spread over fewer sales units. The historic
and projected wholesale volumetric rate for SFPUC water is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water
While the SFPUC charges wholesale customers based on how much water is used, the costs of
the SFPUC system are almost entirely fixed costs—in other words, even if usage drops the cost
to operate the system (O&M, debt service, etc.) remains essentially the same15.
14 In 1957 the voters in Palo Alto adopted a measure that requires fluoride be added to the City’s water supply
(Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.24.010).
15 The SFPUC system is largely gravity fed, so little variable O&M is required for water deliveries.
Page 17
The SFPUC wholesale water rate projections in Figure 5 assume that the current rate structure
remains in place. However, the WSA provides some flexibility for the SFPUC to adjust rate
structures and the SFPUC has signaled an interest in exploring alternative rate structures16
including increasing the fixed charge component or allocating charges based on the ISG, rather
than actual water usage. The City’s ISG of 17.07 MGD is approximately 9.23% of the total
BAWSCA agencies’ Supply Assurance of 184 MGD. If collection of the Wholesale Revenue
Requirement is based on each agency’s ISG and if the City chose to not permanently transfer
any of its ISG, the City could pay 20-30% more for SFPUC water annually.
Sustainability
The SFPUC views assessment of the effects of climate change as an ongoing project requiring
periodic updates to reflect improvements in climate science, atmospheric/ocean modeling, and
human response to the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change research by the
SFPUC began in 2009 and continues to be refined. In its 2012 report “Sensitivity of Upper
Tuolumne River Flow to Climate Change Scenarios,”17 the SFPUC assessed the sensitivity of
runoff into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to a range of changes in temperature and precipitation due
to climate change.
Key conclusions from the report include the following:
With differing increases in temperature alone, the median annual runoff at Hetch
Hetchy would decrease by 0.7-2.1 percent from present-day conditions by 2040 and by
2.6-10.2 percent from present-day by 2100. Adding differing decreases in precipitation
on top of temperature increases, the median annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would
decrease by 7.6-8.6 percent from present-day conditions by 2040 and by 24.7-29.4
percent from present-day conditions by 2100.
In critically dry years, these reductions in annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would be
significantly greater, with runoff decreasing by up to 46.5 percent from present-day
conditions by 2100 utilizing the same climate change scenarios. In addition to the total
change in runoff, there will be a shift in the annual distribution of runoff. Winter and
early spring runoff would increase and late spring and summer runoff would decrease.
Under all scenarios, snow accumulation would be reduced and snow would melt earlier
in the spring, with significant reductions in maximum peak snow water equivalent under
most scenarios.
Given the current regional system demand projection, the shorter-term effects of climate
change are not expected to be relevant. The potential impact of runoff decreasing by nearly
50% by the next century, however, represents a dramatic shift in the availability of water
sourced in the Sierra Nevada including water in the Hetch Hetchy system.
16 SFPUC Comments, July 2012 BAWSCA Board of Director’s meeting
17Accessed September 29, 2016: http://bairwmp.org/docs/climate-
change/Bay%20Area%20Impacts/Water%20Supply/SFPUC%202012%20Sensitivity%20of%20Upper%20Tuolumne%
20River%20Flow%20to%20Climate%20Change%20Scenarios.pdf/view
Page 18
The SFPUC is planning to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of
climate change on water supply. The assessment will incorporate an investigation of new
research on the current drought and is anticipated to be completed in 2017.
Emergency Robustness
Since the SFPUC is the City’s primary potable supply source, the City is vulnerable to service
interruptions on the SFPUC system. One of the major drivers behind the WSIP was to address
reliability deficiencies, which under some circumstances could have resulted in an interruption
of SFPUC service for up to 60 days following a catastrophic event such as an earthquake. The
WSIP level of service objective for seismic reliability is to deliver basic service18 within 24 hours
after a major earthquake. The performance objective is to provide delivery to at least 70 per
cent of the turnouts in each region, and full restoration to meet average day demand within 30
days after a major earthquake. Palo Alto may be better situated than other agencies in having
two distinct connection points to the SFPUC system: three SFPUC connections are served by the
Palo Alto Pipeline connection to Bay Division Pipelines 1 and 2, and two SFPUC connections are
served by Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4. Figure 6 below is a schematic of the SFPUC Regional
Water System.
Figure 6: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System19
18 Basic service is defined as average winter month usage.
19 Source: SFPUC: http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=355 accessed September 29, 2016.
Page 19
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review
The SFPUC supply is the current baseline supply source for the City. Subsequent sections
analyze several alternatives to the current and projected supply mix, and the resulting potential
environmental impacts. Increased water use within an agency’s ISG does not require any action
by an agency’s governing body, and therefore does not trigger any California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review obligation.
For many water systems in California, the availability of water supplies depends on many
factors, including legislative and regulatory changes that may impact future supply conditions.
The SFPUC system is no different, and has several future regulatory risks that could impact
water supply reliability and/or cost20:
1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Don Pedro Project
a. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 401 Certification of FERC
relicense
b. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for FERC relicense
2. Central Valley Total Maximum Daily Load regulations
3. Bay-Delta proceedings (SWRCB, Legislative actions)
4. ESA Habitat Conservation Plans for SFPUC local watersheds
The SFPUC manages these risks, with support from BAWSCA and the wholesale customers.
VIII. Potable Groundwater
The SCVWD manages an integrated water resources system that includes the management of
groundwater, supply of potable water, flood protection and stewardship of streams on behalf
of Santa Clara County's 1.8 million residents. The SCVWD manages ten dams and surface water
reservoirs, three water treatment plants, nearly 400 acres of groundwater recharge ponds and
more than 275 miles of streams. The SCVWD provides wholesale water and groundwater
management services to municipalities, private water retailers, and individual property owners
operating groundwater wells in Santa Clara County.
In 2012, the SCVWD prepared a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP)21 which provided
information regarding general groundwater conditions in the area and characterized the
SCVWD groundwater activities in terms of basin management objectives, strategies, and
outcome measures. The GWMP described the Santa Clara sub basin as being divided into upper
and lower aquifers separated by low permeability clays and silts. The SCVWD refers to these as
the shallow and principal aquifer, with the latter generally defined as 150 feet below ground
surface. The principal aquifer is the primary drinking water aquifer, and is the source for the
any increased reliance on groundwater to meet current or future potable water demands.
20 Source: SFPUC’s 2010 UWMP
21 See SCVWD website: http://www.valleywater.org/services/groundwater.aspx accessed September 26, 2016.
Page 20
The SCVWD is responsible for managing Santa Clara County’s groundwater basin to ensure
there is adequate supply and overdraft conditions are minimized. The SCVWD accomplishes
this goal by maximizing conjunctive use, the coordinated management of surface and
groundwater supplies, to enhance supply reliability. Programs to accomplish this goal include
the managed recharge of imported and local supplies, in-lieu groundwater recharge through
the delivery of treated surface water22 and acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and
programs to protect, manage and sustain water resources. The SCVWD adopted level of service
goals as part of its 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan23 effort, including the
development of water supplies designed to meet at least 100% of average annual water
demand identified in the SCVWD 2010 UWMP during non-drought years and at least 90 percent
of average annual water demand in drought years24.
Managed and in lieu recharge programs are in balance with withdrawals. Groundwater levels
have dropped significantly over the past several years as a result of the drought conditions and
lack of State Water Project water imported to the county. The groundwater conditions in the
Santa Clara sub-basin vary, and groundwater pumping from different locations will have
different effects depending on location, elevation, recharge conditions, and pumping activity.
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) to promote the local, sustainable management of groundwater supplies. SGMA
requires sustainable groundwater management for all medium and high priority basins in
California. SGMA identifies the District as the exclusive groundwater management agency for
Santa Clara County.
The SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan described how the SCVWD will
support future water supply needs and reliability. The adopted strategy identifies conservation,
increased recycled water use, indirect potable reuse, additional groundwater recharge ponds,
grey water, imported water reoperations, and dry year options as important components of the
plan.
The City maintains close involvement with the SCVWD as it is an important water wholesaler
and the steward of groundwater resources in Santa Clara County. The City also partners with
the SCVWD on conservation activities. The community is represented on the SCVWD Board of
Directors by the District 7 Director. The City’s mayor also appoints a representative to the
SCVWD Commission, an advisory body to the SCVWD Board of Directors.
In 2015, the City completed the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project25. The project
consisted of the repair and rehabilitation of five existing wells, construction of three new wells,
22 The SCVWD and the SFPUC wholesale customers in Santa Clara County are partners in conjunctively managing
the water resources in the county. The SFPUC customers in the county have contracts with the SFPUC.
23 See SCVWD website: http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx accessed Sept. 26, 2016
24 SCVWD Board Agenda Item 4.2, June 12, 2012
25 See more at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/eng/water/emergency/default.asp
Page 21
and construction of a 2.5 million gallon storage reservoir and associated pump station, and
other upgrades to the water distribution system.
Availability
Normal Year Availability
As a city in Santa Clara County, Palo Alto has the ability to pump groundwater with the
understanding that SCVWD will appropriately manage the groundwater resources in the
county. If the basin has been drawn down to critical or severe levels over multiple years of
drought, it may take several years of normal or above-normal precipitation for the aquifer to
recover.
Assuming groundwater levels in the county are healthy, the City could use potable water from
some or all of its eight wells. As shown in Table 1, if all eight wells were used full time at full
capacity, they could produce more than 18,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). These well capacities26
compare to 11,000 AF/Y, the average forecasted demand for the 20-year WIRP planning. This
level of pumping, however, may be beyond the basin’s sustainable yield, estimated in the 2000
Carollo Study to be 3,500 to 6,100 AFY. The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will result in an
updated estimate of that yield.
Production levels will be impacted by the treatment options chosen as discussed in the section
regarding quality.
Table 1: Estimated Well Capacity
Dry Year Groundwater Availability
Because groundwater discharge and recharge happens at different rates, the available
groundwater supply may not coincide precisely with wet and dry years. During dry periods,
water users pump more groundwater and recharge is reduced or halted exacerbating the
situation. Even though the SCVWD may prudently manage local water supplies, the reliance on
imported water subjects water users in the county to potential water supply shortfalls.
26 Estimate provided by Utilities Engineering 2015
Well Capacity (AF/Y
Hale 2,340
Rinconada 5,326
Fernando 1,130
Peers 2,744
Matadero 1,130
El Camino 2,986
Eleanor 1,614
Library 968
Total 18,238
Page 22
In 2014 imported water from the State Water Project was reduced to almost zero, and the
SCVWD asked for voluntary reductions of 20%. In 2015, groundwater levels continued to drop
prompting the SCVWD to call for a 30% reduction in potable water use. This reduction was, in
many cases, more drastic than the targets imposed by the SWRCB imposed to meet the
Governor’s 25% state-wide water use reduction goal. Notwithstanding average precipitation
experienced in 2016, as of September 2016, the SCVWD continues to request a 20% reduction
while groundwater levels slowly recover. A prolonged drought could result in a request for cuts
of 40%.
Water Quality
The water quality of the groundwater is considered good, though historically the groundwater
in the area has had iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels that
exceed secondary27 drinking water quality standards.
All potable water scenarios must comply with water quality requirements. Wells are sampled
based in accordance with the SWRCB requirements. It is permissible to be out of compliance
with secondary standards on a short-term basis during emergencies, but for full-time operation
the City must be in compliance with secondary standards or apply for a waiver28. The waiver
requires justification and includes a community survey demonstrating a high degree of
acceptance to establish support for the provision of water that exceeds secondary standards.
Several treatment and blending options for the wells were evaluated in 2000 in the “Long Term
Water Supply Study”, including:
1. Blend water with SFPUC water to meet water quality limits for manganese and iron. The
blended water will meet regulatory limits, but will have TDS levels 2-3 times the current
level in the distribution system29.
2. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site. The water will likely not
exceed TDS limits, but it will be 5-7 times the current TDS levels in the distribution
system.
3. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site and blend with SFPUC supplies
to reduce the well water TDS levels.
4. Provide iron, manganese and TDS treatment at each well site. The treated water at the
injection point will be comparable to SFPUC supplies.
The resulting water quality of each treatment option is provided in Table 230.
27 Primary drinking water quality standards apply to contaminants that affect health while secondary standards
apply to those constituents that affect aesthetics, taste and odor.
28 Title 17 Code of Regulations, Chapter 64449.2
29 Since completion of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the El Camino Well water can be blended
with SFPUC water in the new 2.5 million gallon storage tank in El Camino Park in a similar manner to Option 1.
30 Estimate provided by Utilities Engineering 2015
Page 23
Table 2: Water Quality Resulting from Various Treatment Options
Water Quality
Parameter31
Option 1
(blend)
Option 2 (treat
for Fe, Mn)
Option 3 (treat for
Fe, Mn and blend)
Option 4 (treat for
Fe, Mn and TDS)
TDS (500 ppm) 130-300 440-700 120 120
Manganese (<0.05 ppm) 0.04-0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05
Iron (<0.3 ppm) 0.08-0.3 <0.3 0.05-0.06 <0.3
Treating and/or blending the groundwater affect the well production. Figure 7 shows the
production potential for all eight wells using each of the treatment options.
Figure 7: Estimated Well Production for Various Treatment Options
Cost
The SCVWD levies a groundwater extraction fee, or “pump tax”, on each acre-foot of water that
is pumped from the groundwater basin. The charge varies depending on a variety of factors,
including end use (agriculture vs. municipal) and geographic location in the County.
The new and refurbished wells were constructed with chlorine disinfection injection points and
the capability to accommodate fluoride and other needed chemical injection points. The use of
the wells on a regular basis will require a detailed operational plan and some or all of the sites
will need modifications to accommodate backup power, chemical storage, and any equipment
associated with the selected treatment option. Not all sites will have the space to
31 Manganese and Iron have single consumer acceptance contaminant levels, while TDS is a consumer acceptance
contaminant level range (recommended = 500; short term= 1000 and upper limit = 1500)
Page 24
accommodate these additional requirements, so an estimate of land acquisition needs was
included.
The total annualized unit cost in 2017 dollars including O&M and capital cost for each
treatment option at each well is shown in Figure 832. Capital costs include equipment, pipelines,
and land acquisition, if needed. O&M costs include the SCVWD groundwater production charge,
chemicals, replacement parts, personnel, and energy. The cost for the blending alternatives is
only for the groundwater and does not include the cost of SFPUC water.
Figure 8: Cost at Each Well for Each Treatment Option
The total annualized unit cost in 2017 dollars including O&M and capital cost for each
treatment option, assuming all wells are used, is shown in Figure 9. Because El Camino is
already configured to be a blending facility, the least cost option is blending at that site. If a
decision to use groundwater is made, a site-by-site evaluation of cost and operational
challenges will be needed, and it is likely that not all wells will be practical to use.
32 Costs are only those costs incurred by Water Utility. Customer costs, including water softening or filtration
devices will be additional costs borne by individual customers
Page 25
Figure 9: Unit cost of Various Treatment Options
The various treatment options will generate waste streams with elevated levels of iron,
manganese, TDS, and chemical residuals used in the treatment process. Due to regulatory
restrictions on the RWQCP and environmental protections for the San Francisco Bay,
discharging the raw waste stream to the storm water system or the wastewater collection
system for delivery to the Palo Alto RWQCP is not acceptable. Additional costs to manage this
waste stream are not included in this analysis.
Sustainability
Managing the groundwater resource in Santa Clara County is, ultimately, the SCVWD’s
responsibility. Palo Alto, however, would collaborate with SCVWD to ensure the basin remains
healthy. While the 2000 Carollo study estimated sustainable yield to be between 3,500 and
6,100 AFY, there are still unanswered questions regarding the hydrology in this part of the
county.
The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will shed more light on the water balance, the sustainable
yield, the interconnectivity between the shallow aquifer and the lower aquifer, and the
possibilities for groundwater recharge. Using the lower end of Carollo’s estimate, the City may
be able to safely rely on groundwater for about 30% of its potable water needs. In that case,
one or two high-production wells would likely be operated with treatment at those sites only.
Should the City chose to use groundwater on an ongoing basis for a significant amount of its
potable water needs, IPR may prove beneficial.
Since the City does not have land for percolation ponds, IPR would not only require advanced
treatment at the RWQCP, but a new pipeline to an injection facility as well. The cost of an IPR
Page 26
project is not included in the cost analysis of groundwater in this WIRP. If imported water
supplies are required to be delivered to the recharge facilities, those supplies need to be
identified.
Emergency Robustness
Refurbishing the five older wells and constructing three new wells and a 2.5 million gallon
storage reservoir and pump station was all part of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage
project, the primary goal of which was to maintain basic water service and fire flows in all
pressure zones in the City following a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC service. The City can
provide a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and
four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level and will be capable of providing
normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system.
The groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent during drought emergencies, but
is subject to the following mitigation measures, as stated in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) completed for the project33:
1. An aquifer test shall be conducted following the City’s well construction and
rehabilitation efforts to verify the basin’s response to pumping; and
2. Emergency demand pumping shall be limited to 1,500 acre-feet (AF)34 in one year.
Following this level of pumpage, groundwater production shall be restricted until
groundwater levels recover to pre-pumping levels.
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review
All wells are currently permitted and designated by the California Department of Public Health
as “Standby” and, as such, can only be used for 5 consecutive days up to 15 days in a year35.
The wells may collectively supply up to 1,500 AF per year during a drought, with restrictions on
when the wells can resume pumping following that level of groundwater extraction. It is
important to note that the pumping restriction only applies to the project as defined in the EIR
prepared for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. This includes the 5 existing
wells and 3 new wells. Individual property owners can install their own wells and pump
groundwater.
The SCVWD has indicated that the process to increase the current limitation will require
supporting information on the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin in order to
demonstrate increased pumping by the City will not have significant impacts36.
33 Environmental Impact Report, Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, Mitigation Measure 3.5-4(a) & 4(b).
See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8372/ accessed September 29, 2016
34 1500 AF/Year is equal to 1.34 MGD, or approximately 12% of FY 2012 water consumption
35 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 64414(c).
36 In summer 2012, staff met with SCVWD representatives to discuss the current limitation and the process to
increase/remove the limitation.
Page 27
With the current 1,500 AFY dry year groundwater extraction limitation, there is little risk any
dry year pumping program could result in significant impacts to the groundwater basin37.
The use of the wells to meet dry year needs is currently permitted subject to a pumping
limitation of 1,500 AF per year. A significant increase to this limitation could require
supplemental environmental review. Staff anticipates issues such as sustainable yield, dry year
availability, subsidence risk, saltwater intrusion, dewatering of local creeks and contaminated
plume migration, would be considered in such an environmental analysis.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168, SB 1319 and AB 1739) was a first step
toward more regulation of California’s groundwater resource. Santa Clara County, however, is
already managed by the SCVWD, an agency considered to be a model for the rest of the state.
It is very unlikely, therefore, that the new state regulations will have any impact on
groundwater activities in the county. The San Francisquito cone is the aquifer below the City,
and this formation includes part of San Mateo County. In general, more management of the
groundwater basin by the District in the north county would be beneficial for the City should
groundwater become a part of the City’s long-term water supply.
Potential State and Federal water quality regulations for potable water are a concern. Changes
in regulations could make the groundwater supply less attractive and more expensive due to
additional needed treatment.
IX. Treated Water from the SCVWD
In addition to managing the groundwater, the SCVWD produces and delivers treated drinking
water to water retail agencies in Santa Clara County. The existing treated water delivery
system does not serve the northwest portion of the county. A potential project known at the
SCVWD as the “West Pipeline Extension” involves extending the treated water pipeline from its
current terminus at Foothill Expressway and Miramonte Road to SFPUC’s Bay division Pipelines
3 and 4 at Foothills Expressway and Arastradero Road (a distance of about 4.5 miles). A map of
the potential project is provided in Figure 10.
37 The 1500 AFY limitation is a CEQA derived mitigation measure that has undergone the public review process.
Page 28
Figure 10: West Pipeline Extension Map
In 1999, the City sent a letter to the SCVWD advising it that information was needed to analyze
the City’s option to connect to the SCVWD West Pipeline. The SCVWD responded with an
estimated cost for the extension of the West Pipeline that would have to be fully borne by Palo
Alto. In February 2002, Palo Alto and four other county retailers requested that the SCVWD
conduct a feasibility study of a West Pipeline extension from both a supply perspective and the
additional reliability of having an additional interconnection with the SFPUC system. The
SCVWD prepared a report on extending the West Pipeline, entitled: “Santa Clara Valley Water
District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation Final Report”38. The report evaluated
an extension of the existing SCVWD West Pipeline to enable an interconnection of the Palo Alto
and SCVWD systems at Page Mill turnout39.
38 The City of Palo Alto participated in the preparation of the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan
(WSIMP). As part of that process, staff requested the SCVWD include the West Pipeline extension for project
consideration. The SCVWD noted in the Final 2012 WSIMP that the project is not recommended in the WSIMP
because it does not contribute to long-term supply reliability. However, the SCVWD stated that it would be
considered during a planned Infrastructure Reliability Master Plan.
39 The SFPUC and the SCVWD have an emergency interconnection near Milpitas that could theoretically be used to
wheel water to Palo Alto. Staff does not anticipate it will be feasible to wheel normal year supplies via the intertie,
but the use of the intertie during dry years may be possible. However, in general the SCVWD system is more dry
Page 29
Because the pipeline extension by itself would not increase water supply to the county, it is not
likely to be recommended in the SCVWD’s 2017 Water Supply Master Plan. The pipeline
combined with an SFPUC intertie is, however, one of 15 projects being considered in the Bay
Area Regional Reliability Project40.
Availability
Normal Year Treated Water Availability
The SCVWD has a diverse water supply portfolio, including State Water Project, Central Valley
Project, and local reservoirs. SCVWD’s 2015 UWMP41 indicated the SCVWD anticipates having
adequate supplies to meet future needs through 2040. As in other parts of the state, water
demand has decreased dramatically due to mandatory water use restrictions and usage
reduction targets. SCVWD’s water supply and demand projections do not assume any treated
water deliveries to Palo Alto or any other agency that does not currently receive treated water
from the SCVWD.
If the SCVWD extends the West Pipeline and the City negotiates a contract to receive water
from that pipeline, the terms of the treated water contract would determine the amount of
water delivered during normal years.
Dry Year Availability
It is unlikely treated water will be available during dry years. SCVWD’s 2015 UWMP showed an
adequate supply of available water to meet demands for one dry year, but multiple dry years
result in insufficient water supply to meet demand.
The water produced at SCVWD’s state-of-the-art purified water plant is currently blended with
recycled water for non-potable uses. Future plans include IPR and, possibly, DPR which could
increase SCVWD’s potable water supply availability. The cost of that water will also be impacted
and is not included in this analysis.
Water Quality
Carollo Engineers evaluated the SCVWD treated water line in the 2000 Long Term Supply Study
and provided information on the issues of blending SCVWD supplies with SFPUC supplies. In
general, SFPUC supplies are of superior quality to SCVWD supplies, but there were several
specific issues that were identified in the previous study. If the district decides to extend the
West Pipeline to achieve system reliability and if Palo Alto is interested in moving forward with
an interconnection with the SCVWD system, additional analysis will need to be performed to
determine if the previous issues still remain, and what additional issues have arisen.
year sensitive than the SFPUC system, so it is unclear whether supplies would be available to be wheeled to Palo
Alto via this mechanism.
40 http://www.bayareareliability.com/ accessed September 29, 2016
41 See SCVWD website: http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx accessed Sept. 29, 2016
Page 30
On the positive side, the SCVWD’s decision to include fluoridation at its treatment plants
removes the need to provide fluoridation at the interconnection points to ensure the water
supply complies with the municipal code. In a similar manner, the SFPUC uses chloramine for
residual disinfection. This removes some water quality related issues associated with blending
treated water from different sources that use different disinfectants. There may be other
issues related to water quality that could require the two water supplies to be isolated in the
distribution system. This would result in water from difference sources being provided to
customers depending on their location in the distribution system.
Cost
SCVWD’s West Pipeline Extension Report provided detailed cost estimates for several pipeline
configurations, which are summarized in Table 3. Both scenarios require a new parallel pipeline
from Rinconada Water Treatment plant to the current terminus of the West Pipeline at
Miramonte Road. From there, a new pipeline would be constructed to Page Mill Road. The
cost differential between the two scenarios is largely attributed to different pipe sizing
requirements and an intertie pump station.
Table 3: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Cost Summary42
Alternative Assumptions Total Cost
of
Alternative
($million)
Cost to
SFPUC
($million)
Cost to
Palo Alto
($million)
Rate Increase
to SCVWD
Retailers
($/AF)
Parallel
and
Extension
Existing treated water
contractors and new retailers
share cost of parallel pipe
New retailers pay for extension
$160 N/A $64
$8
Parallel,
Extension
and
Intertie
Existing treated water
contractors and new retailers
share cost of parallel pipe
SFPUC pays for half of
incremental cost of intertie
Existing and new retailers share
cost of extension and half of
incremental cost of intertie
$120 $23 $37
Pump Tax: $14
Treated
Water: $20
SCVWD’s West Pipeline Extension Report concluded that the City and neighboring jurisdictions
must pay for the costs of constructing the extension via a “take or pay” contract, which is a
common payment mechanism for all retail water agencies in the county that purchase SCVWD
treated water. The amount of the take or pay contract is determined by the amortized
42 Cost of additional supply is not included in project cost. Costs have been escalated 3% from 2003 dollars to
provide a representation of potential cost ranges.
Page 31
construction costs divided by the annual treated water rate. For example, if Palo Alto’s
obligation for a West Pipeline extension was $37 million, it would pay an annual cost of $2.5
million (assuming an interest rate of 3%/year for a 20-year financing period). Using a treated
water rate of $1,350 per AF43, Palo Alto would be required to purchase about 2,000 AF/year
($2.5 million divided by $1,350/AF), or about 18% of the City’s expected average water usage
for the WIRP planning horizon.
During the term of the contract, the City would have limited ability to adjust its annual water
purchase from the SCVWD. There are several agencies in Santa Clara County that purchase
both SCVWD and SFPUC treated water, and they are subject to minimum “take or pay” contract
provisions from both providers. The City would receive similar treatment. The cost estimates
in Table 3 do not account for any distribution system improvements that may be required to
configure Palo Alto’s distribution system to receive SCVWD treated water.
If the pipeline extension came to fruition through a regional reliability implementation plan, the
terms of a potential treated water supply contract with Palo Alto may be adjusted to account
for the regional system reliability provided to all customers as a result of the project.
The California Water Fix (also known as the “Twin Tunnels”) is a proposal to address the co-
equal goals of water supply reliability and environmental sustainability. The proposed water
conveyance solution is a pair of tunnels underneath the Delta from an intake on the
Sacramento River to the South Delta Diversion/Pumping facilities. Such a facility will take
decades to build and the costs will likely be borne by State and Federal water contractors,
including the SCVWD. The SCVWD will likely continue to collect revenue for all SWP costs
through property taxes rather than through water rates. Palo Alto property owners will, thus,
bear those costs whether or not water is delivered to Palo Alto.
Emergency Robustness
The SCVWD’s Water Utility Infrastructure Reliability Plan was completed in in 2005. The project
measured the baseline performance of critical facilities in emergency events and identified
system vulnerabilities. The plan concluded that the water supply system could suffer up to a 60-
day outage if a major event, such as a 7.9 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault,
were to occur. A series of projects were implemented and the expected outage time in a major
event is now estimated to be 30 days.
The SCVWD is currently updating its Infrastructure Reliability Plan. The goal of the update is to
identify new reliability improvements that are more regional, less capital intensive alternatives
to the well fields. The updated plan and final recommendations will be complete in in the near
future.
43 This is SCVWD’s projected treated water rate for FY 2018
Page 32
If the West Pipeline was extended to provide potable water service to Palo Alto, the City would
have one connection to the SCVWD system44, compared to 5 connections to the SFPUC system.
It is unclear what level of reliability would be provided in the event of catastrophic event. The
SFPUC level of service goal following an earthquake is to provide for average wintertime
demands with delivery to 70% of the turnouts within 24 hours following a major earthquake.
The SCVWD level of service goal provides for service resumption to one turnout within 7 days of
a similar event, though the location of a Palo Alto interconnection at the end of the treated
water line may be a weak point, so it is unclear if there will be adequate supplies or system
pressures to provide meaningful service. In addition, the SCVWD plans on extracting
groundwater for raw water delivery to the treatment plants and on to the retailers during an
emergency. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage project was designed to serve this
purpose for Palo Alto.
Sustainability
Like all water suppliers in California that rely on imported water, the SCVWD’s ability to provide
a reliable, clean water supply is challenged by the potential of warmer temperatures, changing
precipitation and runoff patterns, reduced snow pack, and rising sea levels. The SCVWD’s water
supply vulnerabilities to climate change include a potential decrease in imported water supplies
as a result of a reduction in snow pack and a shift in the timing of runoff, a decrease in local
surface water supplies as result of reduced precipitation, more frequent and severe droughts,
changes in surface water quality associated with changes in flows and temperature, and
changes in imported water quality due to salinity intrusion in the Delta. Additional
vulnerabilities include infrastructure and water quality issues from more frequent algal blooms,
invasive and/or non-native species, and wildfire.
During the drought in the late 1980’s and again in recent years, SCVWD supplies from both the
state and federal sources were drastically reduced. Groundwater was relied upon heavily
causing levels to rapidly decrease. Sustainability will be improved if purified water from the
SCVWD’s plant is ultimately used for IPR or DPR in the county.
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review
A West Pipeline extension will require CEQA review. The SCVWD would be the lead agency for
the CEQA process.
Because the SCVWD imports water from both the State and Federal water projects, it is
vulnerable to actions that impact those sources. Since Council approved the 2003 WIRP,
federal and state water deliveries have been reduced on several occasions due to Delta related
issues. Most recently, state water deliveries were curtailed dramatically due to the drought.
44 There may be additional connection options to a new SCVWD treated water pipeline, such as a new extension to
the existing Arastradero SFPUC turnout. However, the cost of additional connections was not included in the initial
cost estimate and would likely be borne by the City. Additional connections may allow increased use of and more
efficient distribution of SCVWD treated water, though they may not provide any additional reliability assurances.
Page 33
X. Demand Side Management
The City is committed to support conservation and efficient use of its water supply. It is the goal
of the City to continue to look for opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost-effective
programs that best utilize the City’s water conservation budget. The City works with other
BAWSCA members, the SCVWD, and other water agencies in the Bay Area to implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) related to water conservation programs.
The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBx7‐7) was enacted in November 2009. It requires water
suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by
December 31, 2020. To monitor the progress towards achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the bill
also requires urban retail water providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by
2015. The City met the interim 2015 SBx7‐7 target and is projected to meet the 2020 target.
The following measures have been implemented over the past five years and/or will be
implemented to achieve the City’s water use target pursuant to SBx7-7:
1. Water Waste Prevention Ordinance: The City has enforced water waste prevention as
part of the City’s Municipal Code since 1989 (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 12.32).
Enforcement includes written warning notices and may result in fines and installation of
a flow restrictors, and billing the costs of such installation to the responsible customer or
purchaser, as applicable.
2. Metering: The City is currently implementing a pilot program using advanced electric, gas
and water meters at 300 single-family homes. Customers with these advanced meters
can monitor their hourly water usage from a secured website. The City plans to deploy
advanced water meters to all customers by 2022.
3. Conservation Pricing: Since 1976, the City has implemented conservation-based pricing
for water usage, within an overall cost-based rate structure.
4. Public Education and Outreach: Since 2006, the City has partnered with BAWSCA to offer
free workshops on water efficient landscaping, irrigation and water conservation. In
addition to public workshops, CPAU staff attends community, corporate and school
events to promote water conservation programs and practices, in addition to energy
efficiency, waste reduction and other sustainability practices.
The City carries out various seasonal and general water conservation campaigns via the
use of television, online, social media and print advertisements. Palo Alto also regularly
updates the City’s website on water conservation programs and public workshops. The
City utilizes utility bill inserts, brochures and email newsletters to customers as part of its
outreach efforts.
5. Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution Systems Real Loss: For over two decades,
the City has pursued an aggressive Water Main Replacement Capital Improvement
Program. In addition, the City maintains a Water Meter Replacement Program that
Page 34
replaces 500 to 1,000 meters per year in accordance with American Water Works
Association (AWWA) standards.
6. Water Conservation Program Partnership with SCVWD: Since 2002, the City has
partnered with SCVWD to promote and cost-share a wide range of water conservation
programs to encourage residents and businesses to improve water use efficiency. These
programs include free indoor and outdoor water audits, as well as rebates for upgrading
a wide range of water-using fixtures to high efficiency models, including toilets, urinals,
clothes washers, laundry to landscape graywater systems, high water-using landscapes,
irrigation hardware, commercial food service and other process equipment.
7. Greywater Use: Laundry to Landscape Graywater rebates are available from the City and
SCVWD for residents who properly connect a clothes washer to a graywater irrigation
system following rebate program and California Plumbing Code guidelines.
Availability
Normal Year Availability
The SBx7-7 goal is consistent with the City’s longstanding policy of providing cost effective
conservation programs to the community. Figure 11 shows the targets, the City’s progress to
date, and a projection of the City’s future water demand.
Figure 11: SBx7X7 Targets, Results, and Projections
Dry Year Availability
Page 35
During SFPUC water shortage events or state-mandated potable water use reductions, the City
implements its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as outlined in the UWMP. The WSCP
included water use restrictions and other actions to be taken to achieve specific water use
reduction targets. The stages are:
Stage I: 5%-10% water use reduction
Stage II: 10%-20% water use reduction
Stage III: 20%-35% water use reduction
Stage IV: 35%-50% water use reduction
From June 1, 2015 until February 28, 2016, the City was subject to a mandatory 24% potable
water use reduction by the SWRCB using usage during calendar year 2013 as the baseline. All of
Stage II actions, a subset of Stage III actions and the additional State-mandated actions were
implemented. The City was able to achieve a 31.4% reduction in potable water use over the
compliance period, proving the WSCP is an effective means to reduce water demand when
needed. Figure 12 demonstrates the City’s successful drought response.
Figure 12: Monthly Potable Water Consumption
Water Quality
Demand side measures do not present any water quality issues.
Cost
The City takes advantage of opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost effective programs
that best utilize the water conservation budget. In FY 2011, the City dramatically increased
Page 36
conservation program savings goals to meet the requirements of SB7x-7, the Water
Conservation Bill of 2009 which required water suppliers to reduce the average per capita
water consumption in their service territories 20% by 2020.
Each demand side measure is assessed in terms of financial impact to the utility, which includes
rebate costs as well as any other administrative costs. Table 4 depicts the actual cost of water
efficiency to the utility for the past several years. For comparison, as shown in Figure 5 above,
the cost of SFPUC water is currently almost $2,000 per AF and is expected to increase to $2,800
per AF in 10 years.
Table 4: Water Efficiency Costs ($/AF)
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 3-Year Average
$1,294 $1,359 $2,008 $1,555
As the cost of potable water increases, some conservation programs become more cost
effective, though the easiest, most cost-effective measures have largely been deployed.
Adjustments are made to conservation programs depending on several factors, including
program penetration and community preferences.
The 2015 UWMP identified Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) as the primary future
water efficiency program. Anticipated savings from AMI and other incremental water efficiency
activities are shown in Figure 13. New efficiency programs are projected to shave off about
1.2% from the expected demand forecast.
Page 37
Figure 13: Water Demand Forecast with Future Water Efficiency
Emergency Robustness
The 2015 UWMP contains a summary of demand side options that can be implemented under
various scenarios. During a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC supplies, the City will
immediately initiate emergency supply options to meet potable demands and fire flow
requirements. At the same time, the City will begin informational outreach programs to inform
the community that emergency conditions are in effect and water consumption behavioral
changes are required (i.e. no irrigation).
Sustainability
Demand side management is the most sustainable resource. Every cubic foot of water saved
can be put to some beneficial use. Measures that specifically target landscape conversions or
efficiency changes have been the subject of concern by tree advocacy groups who are
concerned about impacts on trees due to decreased landscape watering. The City includes
information on proper tree maintenance for those customers converting to drought resistant
landscapes.
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review
Demand side measures are not limited by any regulations. In light of the current drought, State
agencies are reviewing the existing long-term conservation targets and water shortage
contingency planning scenarios. It is likely that by the 2020 UWMP cycle, new conservation
Page 38
targets and new planning criteria will be in place. Additionally, requirements to implement
measures may be proposed, or compliance with certain efficiency standards (e.g. per capita
water use) may be required, especially if seeking State or Federal grant or loan assistance for a
project such as the recycled water project.
XI. Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives
Availability
Normal Year Availability
SFPUC supplies are sufficient in normal years.
Groundwater without recharge may not always be available depending on the amount
of water pumped by the City, the sustainable yield determined in the Recycled Water
Strategic Plan, and the groundwater levels throughout the county.
o A coincident recharge project with purified recycled water would improve the
availability of this resource.
o Using the El Camino well alone for blending will meet only about 15% of the
City’s demand.
Treated water from the SCVWD is not in abundance.
Demand side management is possible, but many of the easy cost-effective measures
have already been implemented.
Dry Year Availability
All potable water supplies, including SFPUC supplies, are subject to 20% reductions or
more by the State.
SFPUC supplies are subject to reductions in availability of up to 20% due to drought.
Groundwater may be restricted up to 40% by the SCVWD or subject to State-mandated
reductions.
Water deliveries from State and federal projects may impact the amount of treated
water available from the SCVWD requiring water use reductions of up to 40%.
Demand side management is very effective during dry years.
Water Quality
Key water quality parameters for untreated groundwater, water from the SFPUC and treated
water from the SCVWD are compared in Table 5. All of these sources meet primary drinking
water standards. The table lists several secondary standards and a sampling of other
parameters. Groundwater used as a regular long-term supply source would require treatment
and/or blending to meet the secondary standards.
Page 39
Table 5: Water Quality Parameters for Water Resource Alternatives
Water Source Fe
(ppm)
Mn
(ppm)
TDS
(ppm)
Sodium
(ppm)
Hardness
(as CaCo3)
(ppm)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Drinking Water Quality Standard .300 .050 500 N/A N/A 5
SFPUC Water (1) ND ND 132 13.5 57 0.16
SCVWD Treated Water (2) ND ND 209 37 90 0.07
Groundwater (3) 0.25-1.3 0.13-0.31 440-710 75-170 - 0.33-7.7
(1) SFPUC values are average water quality values reported by the SFPUC in its 2011 Water Quality Report
(2) Average values from 2011 SCVWD Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Water Quality Data Summary
(3) Based on the City’s well water testing records
ND = non detect
Cost
Figure 14 shows projected commodity rates for SFPUC water and groundwater and treated
water from the SCVWD. In the near term, SFPUC water is expected to be more expensive. By
2037, even with SCVWD subsidizing the cost of its State Water Projects costs by collecting those
costs via property taxes, SCVWD and SFPUC rates are expected to converge.
These projected rates for the SCVWD do not include the cost of using the purified water plant
to supply potable water nor do these rates include the cost of the California Water Fix (the
“twin tunnels” project in the Delta). Both of those projects will cause steep increases for
SCVWD rates. The total groundwater rate does not include the cost of local treatment that may
be required to improve the water quality from that shown in Table 5 above. In addition, both
SFPUC and SCVWD rates are extremely sensitive to the volume of water sold as both systems’
costs are mostly fixed.
Cost-effective demand side management measures are, by definition, the lowest cost resource.
Costs of demand side measures were assumed to rise with inflation. The exhaustion of easy
measures may cause costs to be higher, but technology developments may result in lower
costs.
Page 40
Figure 14: Commodity Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives
Figure 15 shows the present value unit cost over 20 years for each option including the cost of
groundwater treatment. The cost of blending at the El Camino well is shown as a separate
option because blending at that specific wellsite is the least cost groundwater alternative.
Figure 15: Present Value Unit Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives
Page 41
Emergency Robustness
The SFPUC has nearly completed a massive capital project to improve the reliability of
the regional water system, however some risks still exist.
Groundwater is a reliable and available emergency resource.
Treated water from the SCVWD may not be available in an emergency.
Demand side management is very effective during emergencies.
Sustainability
SFPUC supplies originate as snowpack in the Sierra and may be impacted by climate
change.
Groundwater may be sustainable at lower pumping rates and sustainable at higher
pumping rates with a recharge project.
Treated water available from the SCVWD originates as Sierra snowpack, which may be
impacted by climate change, and the Delta, which has already been determined to be
unsustainable in its current state.
Demand side management is very sustainable as long as the urban canopy is properly
cared for.
Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review
SFPUC supplies may be sensitive to future regulations.
Groundwater is managed by the SCVWD. A groundwater recharge project would be
subject to environmental review.
Water deliveries from State and Federal projects may be sensitive to future regulations.
The Delta is experiencing environmental challenges now.
Demand side management is not sensitive to regulations or environmental review.
XII. Conclusions
Table 6 is a side-by-side comparison of the potable water resource alternatives based on the
attributes considered in this WIRP.
Page 42
Table 6: Summary Comparison of Potable Water Resource Alternatives
Water
Resource
Alternative
Normal Year
Availability
Dry Year
Availability
Quality Cost Emergency
Robustness
Sustainability Sensitivity to
Regulations and
Environmental
Review
SFPUC
Groundwater
Groundwater
(w/recharge)
?
SCVWD
Treated Water
Demand Side
Management
Cost-effective demand side management is the superior resource and should be diligently
pursued but can’t eliminate the City’s need for potable water. While SFPUC water is slightly
more expensive, it has higher water quality. The cost of SCVWD supplies may increase
dramatically if purified water is fully developed and/or if the twin tunnels project is
constructed. However, SCVWD does not have excess treated water to sell and groundwater in
the county is susceptible to mandated water use reductions just like SFPUC supplies are,
arguably more so. Blending groundwater with SFPUC water at only the El Camino well is the
least expensive, most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies. Whether the residents
and businesses that would receive the water would consider the tradeoff between cost and
quality to be acceptable is worth investigating.
The most promising way to increase reliability and increase sustainability is to reduce the
demand for potable water by expanding the use of recycled water. The Recycled Water
Strategic Plan will provide valuable analysis and information to help the City and SCVWD
formulate a strategy for the future.
In summary, the recommended 2017 WIRP Guidelines are:
1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation;
2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the
use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and
nuisance water from basement construction;
3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the
demand for imported water; and
4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus
blended water.
WIRP Guidelines
Adopted by Resolution by the City Council on December 8, 2003 [CMR:547:03]
Guideline 1 – Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies: With respect to the City of Palo Alto
Utilities’ (CPAU’s) primary water supply source, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC), continue to actively participate in the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA) to assist in achieving BAWSCA’s stated goal: “A reliable supply of water,
with high quality, and at a fair price.” Objectives in support of that overall goal include:
A. That the regional water system gets rebuilt cost-effectively and that BAWSCA
monitor implementation of AB 1823 – San Francisco should safeguard the water
system against damage from earthquakes and other foreseeable hazards. BAWSCA
will monitor progress on the system repairs and on completing the requirements of
the legislation that the BAWSCA agencies supported to oblige San Francisco to
repair and rebuild the regional system.
B. That the cost of improvements is fairly allocated – San Francisco should commit to
maintaining cost-based pricing, with the costs of the wholesale water system shared
between the City and its wholesale customers based on their proportionate share.
C. That future water needs can be met – San Francisco must evaluate the ability of the
regional system to meet future supply and capacity requirements and must use the
BAWSCA agencies’ long-term water demand forecasts as the basis for regional water
demand projections.
D. That there are adequate supplies during droughts – San Francisco should arrange
back-up supplies for dry years and should “drought proof” the entire service area, not
just San Francisco itself. If rationing becomes necessary, San Francisco should use a
system that allocates available water between San Francisco and wholesale customers
in a way that (1) is fair and (2) avoids penalizing long-term conservation efforts
and/or development of alternative supplies, such as recycled water.
E. That communities prepare for potential water outages – San Francisco should
coordinate with the BAWSCA agencies to develop a crisis management plan.
F. That agencies implement cost-effective water conservation activities – San Francisco
should provide agencies enough information so that they can prepare for possible
outages, including the provision of conservation programs for their communities.
BAWSCA can act as coordinator for these programs to improve the cost-
effectiveness of agencies offering such programs.
G. That water received must meet drinking water standards – San Francisco should
continue to protect the purity of Hetch Hetchy water and commit to provide its
wholesale customers with water that meets EPA and California drinking water
standards.
H. That the Master Contract is properly implemented and a new Master Contract is in
place prior to 2009 – San Francisco should commit to maintaining cost-based pricing,
with the costs of the wholesale water system shared between the City and its
wholesale customers based on their proportionate share.
I. That there is ongoing support of efforts to protect health, safety and economic well
being of the water customers and communities – BAWSCA should maintain the
support of the many allies who supported the legislative effort to ensure San
Francisco repairs, rebuilds, and maintains the regional system.
Attachment B
Guideline 2 – Advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and the District: Work with
the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) and the SFPUC to pursue the extension of the
District’s West Pipeline to an interconnection with the SFPUC Bay Division Pipelines 3&4.
Continue to re-evaluate the attractiveness of a connection to an extension of the District’s West
Pipeline.
Guideline 3 – Actively participate in development of cost-effective regional recycled water
plans: Re-initiate discussions with the owners of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant (PARWQCP) on recycled water development. In concert with the PARWQCP owners,
conduct a new feasibility study for recycled water development. Since the feasibility of a
recycled water system depends upon sufficient end-user interest, determine how much water
Stanford and the Stanford Research Park would take.
Guideline 4 – Focus water DSM programs to comply with BMPs: Continue implementation
of water efficiency programs with the primary focus to achieve compliance with the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) promoted by the California Urban Water Conservation Coalition.
Guideline 5 – Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of
droughts: Review, retain, and prioritize CPAU’s emergency water conservation measures that
would be put into place in a drought time emergency.
Guideline 6 – Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions:
Using groundwater on a continuous basis does not appear to be attractive at this time due to the
availability of adequate, high quality supplies from the SFPUC in normal years. However,
SFPUC supplies are not adequate in drought years and circumstances could change in the future
such that groundwater supplies could become an attractive, cost-effective option. Examples of
changing circumstances could be that the amount of water available to CPAU from the SFPUC
for the long-term is reduced. This could occur if regulations or legislation require additional
water to be made available to the Tuolumne River fisheries. In addition, in the future allocations
or entitlements to SFPUC water may be developed. If those allocations are based on the dry-
year yield of the system, allocations to all the users of the system, including CPAU, could be
well below their current and projected future needs. CPAU should retain the option of using
groundwater in amounts that would not result in land surface subsidence, saltwater intrusion, or
migration of contaminated plumes.
Guideline 7 – Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water
resource portfolio: Seek feedback from all classes of water customers on the question of
whether to use groundwater during drought to improve drought year supply reliability. At the
same time, seek feedback on the appropriate level of water treatment for groundwater if it were
to be used in droughts. Survey all classes of water customers to determine their preferences as to
the appropriate balance between cost, quality, reliability, and environmental impact.
Attachment B
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
OF WATER RESOURCE
ALTERNATIVES
February 2013
i
2013 Preliminary Assessment
Table of Contents
List of Figures ___________________________________________________________ iii
List of Tables ___________________________________________________________ iii
List of Acronyms _________________________________________________________ iii
I. Introduction __________________________________________________________ 1
II. Background __________________________________________________________ 2
III. Water Supply History __________________________________________________ 3
IV. Water Use Projections _______________________________________________ 6
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) _________________________________________ 6
Water Conservation Bill of 2009 _________________________________________________ 7
Summary Water Resource Mix __________________________________________________ 7
V. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined ______________ 8
Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative ___________________________ 8
Water Resource Alternatives Examined __________________________________________ 9
VI. Water from the SFPUC ______________________________________________ 10
Availability _________________________________________________________________ 10
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 12
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 13
Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 13
Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 15
Environmental impacts _______________________________________________________ 16
Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 16
VII. Groundwater _____________________________________________________ 17
Availability _________________________________________________________________ 18
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 20
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 21
Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 24
Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 24
Environmental impacts _______________________________________________________ 24
Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 24
VIII. SCVWD Treated Water ______________________________________________ 25
Availability _________________________________________________________________ 26
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 26
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 28
Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 28
Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 28
Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 30
ii
Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 30
IX. Recycled Water ______________________________________________________ 31
Availability _________________________________________________________________ 32
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 35
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 36
Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 37
Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 37
Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 37
Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 37
X. Demand‐Side Management ____________________________________________ 38
Availability _________________________________________________________________ 38
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 40
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 40
Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 41
Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 41
Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 41
Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 42
XI. Individual Supply Guarantee Sale ________________________________________ 42
Availability _________________________________________________________________ 42
Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 42
Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 43
Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 43
Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 43
Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 43
Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 44
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Historic Water Use ........................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: 2005 and 2010 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison ................................. 6
Figure 3: 20% by 2020 Compliance Forecast .................................................................................. 7
Figure 4: Summary Water Resource Composition .......................................................................... 8
Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water ................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Historic Water Shortages at Maximum Demand Level (265 MGD) ............................... 15
Figure 7: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System .......................................................................... 16
Figure 8: Projected SFPUC and SCVWD Water Rates ................................................................... 21
Figure 9: West Pipeline Extension Map ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 10: Proposed Recycled Water Project ............................................................................... 32
Figure 11: Palo Alto Existing Recycled Water Uses for FY 2004‐FY 2012 .................................... 34
Figure 12: Water Conservation Savings Goals .............................................................................. 39
List of Tables
Table 1: City Of Palo Alto Water Shortage Allocation .................................................................. 11
Table 2: Dry Year Shortfall under different demand scenarios .................................................... 14
Table 3: Projected Well Capacities ............................................................................................... 20
Table 4: Water Quality Parameters for Various Water Sources ................................................... 22
Table 5: Well Treatment Alternative Preliminary Cost Analysis ................................................... 23
Table 6: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Summary Costs ...................................................... 27
Table 7: Recycled Water Gross Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 35
Table 8: Water Savings vs. Goals .................................................................................................. 39
Table 9: Conservation Program Costs ........................................................................................... 40
List of Acronyms
AFY Acre Feet per Year
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BMP Best Management Practice
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CVP Central Valley Project
DSM Demand Side Management
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
iv
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
ISA Interim Supply Allocation
ISG Individual Supply Guarantee
ISL Interim Supply Limitation
MGD Million gallons per day
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PPM Parts per Million
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SRF State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TRC Total Resource Cost
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WIRP Water Integrated Resource Plan
WSA Water Supply Agreement
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
Page 1
I. Introduction
Preparation of a Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives is the first step
towards development of a Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP). The Preliminary
Assessment collects the available information and data about all water resource alternatives
available to the City of Palo Alto. The following are a summary of the main drivers for updating
the WIRP at this time.
a) Cost Increases – The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is midway through
the $4.6 billion Water System Improvement Program (WISP), which includes an upgrade of
the regional water system. As a result of the WSIP, the cost of SFPUC water has risen
dramatically and will continue to do so. With the increase in costs, other alternatives are
increasingly competitive with SFPUC supplies.
b) SFPUC Wholesale Water Charge – The SFPUC currently collects the wholesale revenue
requirement primarily through a volumetric water rate. The SFPUC may propose changes
to the current wholesale rate structure that include a fixed charge based on the Individual
Supply Guarantee. Since the City has a relatively high Individual Supply Guarantee, this
could change the City’s cost dramatically and make other alternatives more cost‐effective.
c) Dry year need – The City has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 17.07 million gallons per
day (MGD) from the SFPUC system. The City has no foreseeable supply deficiency in
normal years, but SFPUC supplies are inadequate during dry years. A critical question to
address is the level of reliability the City will provide to residents and businesses and at
what cost.
d) Disposition of “Surplus” SFPUC Individual Supply Guarantee– The City currently uses
substantially less than its Individual Supply Guarantee. Considering long lead times to
execute water transfers, it may be the time for the City to proceed towards a sale of a
portion of the Individual Supply Guarantee. The sale could generate revenue for a variety
of options, including increased dry year reliability, conservation programs, a recycled water
project, or to reduce rates.
e) Alternative Supplies – The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD’s) groundwater and
treated water charges have historically been similar to the cost of SFPUC supplies. Over
the last few years, and for the foreseeable future, SCVWD water charges will be lower than
SFPUC charges, making groundwater or a connection to the SCVWD’s treated water system
potentially cost‐effective alternatives to SFPUC water.
f) Use of Palo Alto Groundwater System – The City has recently refurbished the five older
wells, developed two new wells and is completing another new well. One or more of the
Page 2
wells could be used to provide supplemental dry year supplies or as an alternative to
SFPUC supplies during normal years.
g) Legislative & Regulatory Risks – The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
incorporates recent and future legislative and regulatory requirements to provide a
comprehensive forward looking review of the water utility. A major new development is
Senate Bill 7x‐7 (2009), which requires a 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020.
II. Background
The first WIRP was prepared largely because the City was faced with a decision to participate in
a regional recycled water program. This 1993 WIRP assessed the costs and benefits of a
recycled water project compared to other supply alternatives, and ultimately determined that
recycled water was not cost effective relative to existing supplies. In 1999, the City began
working on a new WIRP, and completed the effort with approval by the City Council of the
WIRP Guidelines in December 2003 (CMR 547:03). During the process to prepare the 2003
WIRP, several studies were conducted to inform the effort:
1. Water, Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System Study, 1999, Carollo Engineers –
This study identified system improvements to the distribution system to meet water
demands and fire flows following a catastrophic interruption of service on the SFPUC
system. Among the recommendations was to refurbish the 5 existing wells and construct
three new wells and a new water storage tank.
2. Long Term Water Supply Study, 2000, Carollo Engineers – The report examined the issues
and costs of using new or rehabilitated wells as active sources of supply. The alternatives
examined in the report included: (1) Using the wells for active supply either on a long term
basis or during droughts; (2) using groundwater for irrigation; and (3) connecting to the
SCVWD treated water pipeline.
3. Groundwater Supply Feasibility Study, 2002, Carollo Engineers – The report evaluated
whether operating one or two of the City’s water wells as active supplies would cause
significant decrease in groundwater levels or deterioration in groundwater quality”.
4. Santa Clara Valley Water District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation Final
Report, 2003, SCVWD. – The report evaluated an extension of the existing SCVWD West
Pipeline to enable an interconnection of the Palo Alto and SCVWD systems at Page Mill
turnout.
The 2003 WIRP indicated that SFPUC supplies were adequate during normal years, but
additional supplies were needed in dry years to avoid shortages. Since SFPUC supplies were
adequate in normal years, the following conclusions were drawn:
Page 3
1. The City’s existing Individual Supply Guarantee provides adequate supplies;
2. The cost to connect to the SCVWD treated water pipeline was prohibitive;
3. Continuous use of groundwater is not recommended;
4. The City should continue to evaluate recycled water;
5. Continue the current Demand Side Management programs and explore additional
measures; and
6. Additional supplies are needed in a drought.
Following approval of the 2003 WIRP, staff surveyed residential customers to gain a sense of
community preferences on the use of groundwater during a drought. The survey asked
respondents to rank several options for water supply during a drought: (A) blend groundwater
with existing SFPUC supplies; (B) use no groundwater; and (C) treat groundwater at the well
location prior to introduction to the distribution system.
Survey respondents generally preferred Options B (no groundwater) and C (treat groundwater),
but Option A (blend groundwater) was not soundly rejected. The results of the survey were
presented to the UAC in June 2004. Based on the results staff made the following
recommendations:
1. Do not install advanced treatment systems for the groundwater at this time. This option
is expensive, both in terms of capital and operating costs.
2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use ground water as a supplemental
drought time supply while maintaining good water quality.
3. Staff should await the conclusion of the environmental review process before
proceeding with any site selections for wells to be used in dry years.
4. Actively participate in the development of long term supply plans with the Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and/or SCVWD.
5. Continue efforts identified in the Council approved WIRP guidelines:
a. Evaluate a range of demand side management options to reduce long term
water demands.
b. Evaluate feasibility of expanding recycled water.
c. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activities in case of
droughts.
III. Water Supply History
The water utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the City was incorporated.
Local water companies were purchased at that time with a $40,000 bond approved by the
voters of the 750‐person community. These private water companies operated one or more
shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The city grew and the well system expanded until
nine (9) wells were in operation by 1932.
Page 4
In December 1937, the City signed a 20‐year contract with the City and County of San Francisco
for water deliveries from the newly constructed pipeline bringing Hetch Hetchy water from
Yosemite to the Bay Area. Water deliveries from San Francisco commenced in 1938 and well
production declined to less than half of the total citywide water demand.
A 1950 engineering report noted, "The capricious alternation of well waters and the [San
Francisco] water...has made satisfactory service to the average consumer practically
impossible." Groundwater production increased in the 1950s leading to lower groundwater
tables and increasing water quality concerns.
In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to City customers determined that the City should
purchase 100% of its water supply needs from the San Francisco. A 20‐year contract was signed
with San Francisco and the City’s wells were placed in a standby condition. Since 1962 (except
for some very short periods) the City’s entire potable water has come from San Francisco’s
Hetch Hetchy regional water system administered by the SFPUC.
In 1974, several wholesale customers joined Palo Alto and filed a lawsuit against the San
Francisco in protest of an increase in water rates that was higher for wholesale customers than
it was for direct retail customers. In 1984, settlement negotiations resulted in the “Settlement
Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract between the City and County of San Francisco and
Certain Suburban Purchasers in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties”. The 25‐year
agreement was approved in 1984. The 1984 agreement included the creation of a “Supply
Assurance” equal to 184 million gallons of water per day (MGD) for the benefit of the wholesale
customers.1 The agreement included a mechanism to allocate the 184 Supply Assurance
between the wholesale agencies. The City’s allocation, or Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), is
17.07 MGD. Each agency’s ISG is perpetual in nature and survives termination or expiration of
the water supply contract with San Francisco.
1 The Supply Assurance is expressed as an annual average and does not constitute an obligation on the part of the
SFPUC to meet daily or hourly peak demands.
Page 5
In 2009, a new 25‐year Water Supply Agreement (WSA) was executed between San Francisco
and the City. The City’s historical water use and supply sources are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Historic Water Use
Page 6
IV. Water Use Projections
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) regularly prepares water supply and demand forecasts to
prepare financial forecasts, to meet regulatory requirements, or as part of ongoing regional
planning efforts. Like many water agencies in California, the City has experienced a significant
drop in water use since 2006, which is largely attributable to weather, water conservation, and
the recent economic recession.
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
The UWMP is submitted to the Department of Water Resources every five years, and City
Council approved the most recent 2010 UWMP in June 2011 (Staff Report 1688)2. Water
demands forecast for the 2010 UWMP are shown in Figure 2 below. For comparison purposes,
the forecast from the 2005 UWMP is also included in Figure 2. The water use projection results
are revealing in that the City, along with most water agencies in California, did not anticipate
the dramatic drop in water demand from 2007 to 2009. Potable water demands from 2009 to
the present appear to have leveled off and have begun to trend upwards again, albeit slowly,
and it remains to be seen if water demands will follow the increase forecasted in the 2010
UWMP.
Figure 2: 2005 and 2010 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
(
C
C
F
/
Y
e
a
r
)
Year
Water from San Francisco
2010 UWMP Forecast
2005 UWMP Forecast
Individual Supply Guarantee
Actual Forecast
2 Typically, UWMPs are due December 31 of years ending in 0 and 5. However, a six‐month extension
was granted to allow suppliers to comply with new legislation (Senate Bill X7‐7).
Page 7
Water Conservation Bill of 2009
The City is subject to ongoing changes in the regulatory and legislative environment, though
few are as explicit as SB X7‐7, the Water Conservation Bill of 2009. SB X7‐7 was enacted in
November 2009 and requires water suppliers to reduce the average per capita daily water
consumption in their service territories 20% by 2020. To monitor the progress towards
achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the bill also requires urban water retail providers to reduce
per capita water consumption 10% by 2015. Figure 3 illustrates the projected 2015 and 2020
state‐mandated compliance targets and provides preliminary information on the City’s need for
future action to meet SB7x‐7 requirements.
Figure 3: 20% by 2020 Compliance Forecast
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
P
e
r
D
a
y
Year
Actual Forecast
2015 Target = 200.6
SB7 Baseline
2020 Target = 178.6
Figure 3 indicates that the City is on track to meet both the 2015 and 2020 state‐mandated
compliance targets.
Summary Water Resource Mix
The 2010 UWMP provided detailed information on baseline water resources through 2030.
SFPUC supplies were assumed to remain the primary potable supply for the foreseeable future,
Page 8
but were not forecasted to increase dramatically over the 20‐year planning horizon. Recycled
water consumption was projected to continue at current levels and no expansion was assumed
in the 2010 UWMP. Finally, demand side management and conservation program penetration
and savings were projected to increase dramatically from the 2005 UWMP. A representation
of the future water resource mix is provided in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Summary Water Resource Composition
V. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined
Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative
In this section, each potential water resource option is evaluated to allow each alternative to be
compared to each other. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide the best available
information on each water resource alternative and to identify data deficiencies that need to
be addressed. The attributes evaluated for each alternative are listed below:
1. Availability – The quantity, timing, peak flow or capacity, and any expected changes
over time.
2. Cost – The capital and O&M costs of the proposed action (including system upgrades,
project lifetime, energy costs, chemicals, technical innovation, customer costs, etc.), the
manner which the cost is incurred (pay‐as‐you‐go, debt finance, etc.).
Page 9
3. Water Quality – All options must meet water quality regulations, but options may differ
in their relative water qualities (i.e. taste, odor, color, hardness, mineral content, trace
levels of contaminants, etc.).
4. Long Term Reliability – What is the reliability of the source under different conditions?
What future conditions could affect water deliveries?
5. Emergency Robustness – Will the resource perform under various scenarios, including
an interruption of SFPUC supplies?
6. Environmental impacts – Are there anticipated environmental impacts and what level
of environmental review is required?
7. Sensitivity to Regulations – Is the resource vulnerable or does it have strength in view
of existing or impending federal, state, or local regulations?
Water Resource Alternatives Examined
The water resource alternatives evaluated in this report include:
1. Water from the SFPUC
2. Groundwater
3. Treated Water from the SCVWD
4. Recycled Water
5. Demand‐Side Management
6. Sale of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee
Water resources that were evaluated in the 2003 WIRP process, but are not included in this
Preliminary Assessment, include:
1. Desalination – BAWSCA is evaluating several desalination alternatives as part of recent
long range supply studies. When this effort is complete, this alternative can be
evaluated.
2. Small scale irrigation wells – The City is focusing its efforts on the capital program to
improve the municipal well system to meet the dual purpose of providing emergency
and supplemental potable supplies. Currently, individuals may drill their own wells
without City review or permits, but are subject to rules and restrictions of the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and must obtain a permit from the SCVWD. The City
does have the option of using small wells for irrigation of large landscapes, such as for
City parks. However, the cost to maintain and operate small wells and locate a site for
such facilities is problematic.
3. Treated Contaminated Groundwater – There are several entities in the City that treat
contaminated groundwater and discharge the groundwater to the storm drain system
and, to a lesser extent, the sanitary sewer system. The primary purpose of these
facilities is to remediate contaminated groundwater with finite operations. The Santa
Clara County Oregon Expressway dewatering pumps are the exception, and they
discharge significant amounts of nuisance groundwater to the storm drain system to
Page 10
keep the underpass dry. The City evaluated the capture and conveyance of the Oregon
Expressway groundwater for irrigation purposes and determined the effort would
require significant conveyance and storage infrastructure investments that are not cost
effective.
VI. Water from the SFPUC
The City currently purchases 100% of its potable supplies from the SFPUC under the 2009
Water Supply Agreement (WSA). The WSA is administered for the City by the Bay Area Water
Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA represents the interests of 24 cities and
water districts and two private utilities that purchase wholesale water from the San Francisco
regional water system. These entities provide water to 1.7 million people, businesses and
community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The City of Palo
Alto is a member of BAWSCA and has a City Council appointed representative on the BAWSCA
Board of Directors.
Availability
The City’s right to water from the SFPUC system is embodied in the 2009 WSA. The City’s
Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) of 17.07 MGD is a perpetual right, but the delivery of water is
subject to interruption for reason of water shortage, drought, or emergency.
Normal Year SFPUC Supplies
While the City’s ISG is 17.07 MGD, the City’s water needs are currently only about 11.5 MGD.
The WSA includes an interim water delivery limitation3 from the SFPUC system of 265 MGD
until its expiration in 2018. The City’s share of the interim limitation, or its Interim Supply
Allocation (ISA), is 14.70 MGD. Based on the water demand forecast from the 2010 UWMP,
there is no foreseeable need for additional supply beyond the City’s Individual Supply
Guarantee, or the ISA.
Dry Year SFPUC Supplies
SFPUC’s WSIP includes a goal of no greater than a 20% system‐wide supply reduction on the
SFPUC system during a drought. The 2009 WSA includes a water shortage allocation plan to
share water from the regional system between the SFPUC retail and wholesale customers
during a shortage of up to 20% (Tier I plan). The wholesale customers further divided the
wholesale allocation based on a formula adopted by all the wholesale customers (Tier II plan).
The detail of the allocation methodology is included in the City’s 2010 UWMP (Section 7 –
Water Shortage Contingency Plan) and was approved by City Council in February 2011 (Staff
Report 1308). The Tier II formula expires in 2018, unless extended by mutual agreement of the
BAWSCA members. Table 1 summarizes the effect of the water shortage allocation formula on
3 This limitation applies to all users of the San Francisco regional water supply system, the City of San Francisco and
all the BAWSCA member agencies.
Page 11
Palo Alto during a 20% SFPUC system‐wide reduction under low demand and high demand
scenarios.4
Table 1: City Of Palo Alto Water Shortage Allocation
Palo Alto Allocation
(low demand)
Palo Alto Allocation
(High demand)
(a) Baseline Demand (MGD) 11.63 13.33
(b) Drought Allocation (MGD) 8.94 10.011
(c) Reduction from Baseline Demand (b‐a)
(MGD) ‐2.69 ‐3.32
(d) Percentage reduction from Baseline
Demand (c/a) ‐23.12% ‐24.90%
The results in Table 1 indicate that the City will experience a water supply deficit of 23‐25% in
the event of a 20% system‐wide water shortage on the SFPUC system.
4 In general, changes in Palo Alto demand patterns track many of the other BAWSCA members. However, the
ultimate allocation to each BAWSCA agency depends on many factors, including the water use of each agency
relative to each other. For these reasons, staff can only provide an approximation of the potential cutback.
Page 12
Cost
The City purchases 100% of its potable water supply from the SFPUC, with the current cost
structure composed of a volumetric charge and a small fixed monthly meter charge. With the
$4.6 billion WSIP well underway, the cost of SFPUC water has increased sharply. Recent region‐
wide water consumption declines have intensified the problem since the cost is spread over
fewer sales units. The historic and projected cost of SFPUC water is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
$/
A
c
r
e
‐Fo
o
t
Fiscal Year
SFPUC Cost Projection
SFPUC Projected Rate
SFPUC Actual Rate
While the SFPUC charges wholesale customers based on how much water is used, the costs of
the SFPUC system are almost entirely fixed costs – in other words, even if usage drops the cost
to operate the system (O&M, debt service, etc.) remains essentially the same5.
The SFPUC water cost projections in Figure 5 assume that the current rate structure remains in
place. However, the WSA provides some flexibility for the SFPUC to adjust rate structures and
the SFPUC recently signaled an interest in exploring alternative rate structures6 including
increasing the fixed charge component and allocating charges based on the ISG, rather than
actual water usage. The City’s share of the costs paid by the BAWSCA agencies (the “Wholesale
Revenue Requirement”), steadily decreased from 8% in 1998 to 7.2% in 2010 as the City’s
proportional share of water purchases dropped relative to the other BAWSCA agencies. In
5 The SFPUC system is largely gravity fed, so little variable O&M is required for water deliveries.
6 SFPUC Comments, July 2012 BAWSCA Board of Director’s meeting
Page 13
recent years the City’s share of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement has increased slightly,
probably as a result of several SFPUC customers making economic decisions to reduce SFPUC
purchases to minimum amounts in favor of other, less costly supplies. The City’s ISG of 17.07
MGD is approximately 9.23% of the total BAWSCA agencies’ Supply Assurance of 184 MGD. If
collection of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement were to be based on each agency’s ISG, the
City could pay 20‐30% more for water annually, with little apparent increase in benefit.
Water Quality
SFPUC supplies are extremely high quality. See Table 4 which lists key water quality parameters
for SFPUC water, SCVWD treated water and groundwater. Water provided by the SFPUC is a
mix of Hetch Hetchy water and water from the East Bay and Peninsula reservoirs. In an average
year, Hetch Hetchy water makes up 85% of the mix. Due to maintenance requirements, the
SFPUC typically will shut down the Hetch Hetchy supply for a period during the low demand
winter months and draw from the local reservoirs. It is not unusual to experience temporary
water quality changes due to these events, though the water still meets all drinking water
quality standards.
Since completion of the 2003 WIRP, there were two noteworthy operational changes on the
SFPUC system that related to water quality: In 2004, the SFPUC starting using chloramine
instead of chlorine as the primary drinking water disinfectant. In 2005, San Francisco began
adding fluoride to the water supply. Up until then, the City introduced fluoride at the SFPUC
turnouts, but ceased to do so once the SFPUC began providing fluoridation from a centralized
facility7.
Long Term Reliability
Recent demand projections do not forecast a normal year supply deficiency, given the
perpetual nature of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee. However there is one situation
where the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee could be reduced. Under the terms of the 1962
contract between it and San Francisco, the City of Hayward’s contractual entitlement from the
SFPUC system essentially equals its water demand. In theory, since the collective Supply
Assurance of the wholesale customers cannot exceed 184 MGD, if Hayward’s water usage
increases substantially, the other wholesale agencies could experience a proportional ISG
reduction to ensure the 184 MGD limit is not exceeded. The most recent water use projection
shows this will not be an issue until at least 2030, and it will proceed gradually in any event.
SFPUC’s level of service goal is to meet dry year delivery needs while limiting rationing to a
maximum 20% system wide reduction in water service during extended droughts. However,
7 In 1957 the voters in Palo Alto adopted a measure that requires fluoride be added to the City’s water supply (Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 12.24.010).
Page 14
recent events have called into question the SFPUC’s ability to maintain a level of service of no
greater than 20% reduction8.
BAWSCA and its member agencies are developing the Long Term Reliable Water Supply
Strategy to quantify when, where, and how much additional supply reliability and new water
supplies are needed throughout the BAWSCA agencies’ service area through 2035. The report
revealed that several agencies have normal year needs in excess of their ISG and all agencies
have varying dry year deficiencies. The report also identified several potential resource
alternatives to address these shortfalls, including desalinization, recycled water, and water
transfers.
The BAWSCA report (Section 3.2 of the Phase IIA report) includes a representation of potential
dry year cutbacks based on historic hydrologic conditions for the period from 1920 through
2002. The analysis used the SFPUC hydrologic system’s operational model to evaluate the
frequency and magnitude of droughts on the system over the 83 years with all WSIP related
projects complete. The results, as shown in Table 2, indicate there is little supply cutback risk
under low demand scenarios, but the risk rises as demands increase.
Table 2: Dry Year Shortfall under different demand scenarios
Demand Scenario
Number of Years of Projected Supply Cutbacks to the Wholesale
Customers Over 83‐year history
18% Average Wholesale
Customer Supply Cutback
(10% System‐wide shortfall)
29% Wholesale Customer
Supply Cutback
(20% System‐wide Shortfall)
Minimum Demand
Scenario (224 MGD) 0 0
Intermediate Demand
Scenario (252 MGD) 7 1
Maximum Demand
Scenario (265 MGD) 6 2
8 Environmental flow requirements at Crystal Springs and Calaveras Dam were greater than anticipated. A 2 MGD
water transfer between the Modesto Irrigation District and SFPUC was also rejected recently by the MID Board.
Page 15
Figure 6 provides a representation of the supply cutbacks that would have been experienced
under the maximum demand scenario using historic hydrologic data with all WSIP projects
complete. The results provide an illustration of the frequency and magnitude of droughts in
the past under the high demand scenario, and are helpful in framing future dry year risks. As
shown, over the 83 year hydrologic period, there would have been 8 years with water
shortages – 6 years with a 10% system‐wide reduction and 2 years with a 20% system‐wide
reduction.
Figure 6: Historic Water Shortages at Maximum Demand Level (265 MGD)
Clearly there is a potential deficiency in SFPUC supplies during dry years, though the overall
impact and frequency will depend on decisions related to dry year contingency plans and future
portfolio adjustments that could be made to remedy the supply deficiency. As identified in the
2010 UWMP, the City has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan for implementation
during a drought. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan identifies several stages of drought
response, depending on the degree of supply reduction required. Responses range from
informational outreach to severe water use restrictions and modified rate structures. The City
also has the option of pumping groundwater as supplemental supply in water shortage
situations. This option is discussed in more detail in the section on groundwater.
Emergency Robustness
Since the SFPUC is the City’s only potable supply source, the City is vulnerable to service
interruptions on the SFPUC system. One of the major drivers behind the WSIP was to address
reliability deficiencies, which under some circumstances could have resulted in an interruption
of SFPUC service for up to 60 days following a catastrophic event such as an earthquake. The
Page 16
WSIP level of service objective for seismic reliability is to deliver basic service9 within 24 hours
after a major earthquake. The performance objective is to provide delivery to at least 70 per
cent of the turnouts in each region, and full restoration to meet average day demand within 30
days after a major earthquake. Palo Alto may be better situated than other agencies in having
two distinct connection points to the SFPUC system: three SFPUC connections are served by the
Palo Alto Pipeline connection to Bay Division Pipelines 1 and 2, and two SFPUC connections are
served by Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4. Figure 7 below is a map of the SFPUC regional water
system.
Figure 7: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System
The City is currently completing the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project. The primary
goal of the project is to maintain basic water service and fire‐flows in all pressure zones in the
City following a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC service. The project allows the City to
maintain water supply in the event that the SFPUC supplies are disrupted.
Environmental impacts
The SFPUC supply is the current baseline supply source for the City of Palo Alto. Subsequent
sections analyze several alternatives to the current and projected supply mix, and the resulting
potential environmental impacts. Increased water use within an agency’s ISG does not require
any action by an agency’s governing body, and therefore does not trigger any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review obligation.
Sensitivity to Regulations
For many water systems in California, the availability of water supplies depends on many
factors, including legislative and regulatory changes that may impact future supply conditions.
9 Basic service is defined as average winter month usage.
Page 17
The SFPUC system is no different, and has several future regulatory risks that could impact
water supply reliability and/or cost10:
1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Don Pedro Project
a. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 401 Certification of FERC
relicense
b. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for FERC relicense
2. Central Valley Total Maximum Daily Load regulations
3. Bay‐ Delta proceedings (SWRCB, Legislative actions)
4. ESA Habitat Conservation Plans for SFPUC local watersheds
The SFPUC manages these risks, with support from BAWSCA and the wholesale customers.
VII. Groundwater
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) manages an integrated water resources system
that includes the management of groundwater, supply of potable water, flood protection and
stewardship of streams on behalf of Santa Clara County's 1.8 million residents. The SCVWD
manages ten (10) dams and surface water reservoirs, three (3) water treatment plants, nearly
400 acres of groundwater recharge ponds and more than 275 miles of streams. The SCVWD
provides wholesale water and groundwater management services to municipalities, private
water retailers, and individual property owners operating groundwater wells in Santa Clara
County.
Although the City currently purchases all of its potable water from the SFPUC system, the City
maintains close involvement with the SCVWD as it is an important water wholesaler and the
steward of groundwater resources in Santa Clara County. The city also partners with the
SCVWD on conservation activities. The community is represented on the SCVWD Board of
Directors by the District 7 Director. The City’s mayor also appoints a representative to
represent the City on the SCVWD Commission, an advisory body to the SCVWD Board of
Directors.
The SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan describes how the SCVWD will
support future water supply needs and reliability. The adopted strategy identifies conservation,
increased recycled water use, indirect potable reuse, additional groundwater recharge ponds,
grey water, imported water reoperations, and dry year options as important components of the
plan.
The City of Palo Alto has several policies embodied in the Comprehensive Plan that relate to
groundwater and water supplies. The policies don’t provide a preference for the use of
10 Source: SFPUC’s 2010 UWMP
Page 18
groundwater, but indicate preservation of groundwater conditions is of critical importance to
the City. The relevant policies are listed below, with program elements, if applicable:
1. POLICY N‐51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability,
subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault
rupture, liquefaction, and land sliding.
2. POLICY N‐18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.
a. PROGRAM N‐22: Work with the SCVWD to identify and map key Groundwater
recharge areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of
groundwater resources.
3. POLICY N‐19: Secure a reliable, long‐term supply of water for Palo Alto.
Availability
As a city in Santa Clara County, Palo Alto has the ability to pump groundwater with the
understanding that SCVWD will appropriately manage the groundwater resources in the
county. Groundwater conditions throughout the county are generally very good11.
Groundwater elevations have generally recovered from overdraft conditions throughout the
basin since the 1987‐1992 drought, inelastic land subsidence has been curtailed, and
groundwater quality supports beneficial uses.
Background
The SCVWD last published a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) in 2001. Since that time,
SB 1938 and other legislation have amended the requirements for groundwater management
plans. The 2012 GWMP was prepared under existing groundwater management authority
granted by the District Act. The purpose of the 2012 GWMP is to characterize the SCVWD
groundwater activities in terms of basin management objectives, strategies, and outcome
measures.
General groundwater conditions in the area are detailed in the SCVWD 2012 GWMP. The City
of Palo Alto overlies the Santa Clara sub basin. The Santa Clara sub basin is divided into upper
and lower aquifers, which are separated by low permeability clays and silts. The SCVWD refers
to these as the shallow and principal aquifer, with the latter generally defined as 150 feet below
ground surface. The principal aquifer is the primary drinking water aquifer, and is the source
for the any increased reliance on groundwater to meet current or future demands. The upper,
or shallow, aquifer is of poorer quality and has limited uses beyond small to medium size
distributed irrigation systems. The SCVWD is responsible for managing the groundwater basin
to ensure there is adequate supply and overdraft conditions are minimized.
The SCVWD accomplishes this goal by maximizing conjunctive use, the coordinated
management of surface and groundwater supplies, to enhance supply reliability. Programs to
accomplish this goal include the managed recharge of imported and local supplies, in‐lieu
11 SCVWD 2012 Groundwater Management Plan
Page 19
groundwater recharge through the delivery of treated surface water12 and acquisition of
supplemental water supplies, and programs to protect, manage and sustain water resources.
Managed and in lieu recharge programs are in balance with withdrawals and the basin is not
currently in overdraft conditions. The groundwater conditions in the Santa Clara sub‐basin
vary, and groundwater pumping from different locations will have different effects depending
on location, elevation, recharge conditions, and pumping activity.
Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project
As part of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the City has refurbished five older
wells, constructed two new wells, and is constructing another new well and a new 2.5 million
gallon storage reservoir and pump station. The primary goal of the project is to improve the
City’s emergency water supply capability. Together with the City’s existing water storage
system, the project will support a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum
day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level and will be
capable of providing normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC
system. The proposed project would provide up to 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of reliable
well capacity and an additional 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use. The
groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent during drought emergencies, but is
subject to the following mitigation measures, as stated in the Environmental Impact report (EIR)
completed for the project13:
1. An aquifer test shall be conducted following the City’s well construction and
rehabilitation efforts to verify the basin’s response to pumping; and
2. Emergency demand pumpage shall be limited to 1,500 acre‐feet (AF)14 in one year.
Following this level of pumpage, groundwater production shall be restricted until
groundwater levels recover to pre‐pumping levels.
All wells are currently permitted and designated by the California Department of Public Health
as “Standby” and, as such, can only be used for 5 consecutive days up to 15 days in a year15.
Once the project is complete, the wells may collectively supply up to 1,500 AF per year during a
drought, with restrictions on when the wells can resume pumping following that level of
groundwater extraction. It is important to note that the pumping restriction only applies to the
project as defined in the CEQA documents. This includes the 5 existing wells and 3 new wells.
Individual property owners can install their own wells and pump groundwater.
12 The SCVWD and the Santa Clara County SFPUC customers are partners in conjunctively managing the water
resources in the county. The SFPUC customers in the county have contracts with the SFPUC. The SCVWD has no
contractual relationship with the SFPUC.
13 Environmental Impact Report, Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, Mitigation Measure 3.5‐4(a) & 4(b)
14 1500 AF/Year is equal to 1.34 MGD, or approximately 12% of FY 2012 water consumption
15 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 64414(c).
Page 20
The pumping restrictions for the well system are mitigation measures in the EIR prepared for
the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project. Any increase in the current restriction could
require new or supplemental environmental review. The SCVWD has indicated that the process
to increase the current limitation will require supporting information on the sustainable yield of
the groundwater basin in order to demonstrate increased pumping by the City will not have
significant impacts16.
The capacities of the City’s wells are listed in Table 3. As shown in the table, if all 8 wells were
used full time, they could produce 13.3 MGD, which is equivalent to almost 15,000 AF per year.
Table 3: Projected Well Capacities
Name Capacity (MGD)Status
Fernando 0.5544 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational
Hale 1.8432 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational
Matadero 0.864 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational
Peers 1.872 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational
Rinconada 4.464 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational
Eleanor Pardee 1.296 New Well/Fully Operational
Library 1.008 New Well/Fully Operational
El Camino Park 1.44 New Well/Under Construction
Total 13.3
During the drought in the late 1980’s, substantial pumping by pumpers in the county and
neighboring jurisdictions resulted in a dramatic drop in the groundwater levels in the area. It is
possible that this scenario could happen again during a drought of similar magnitude if
imported water supplies were reduced. The SCVWD adopted level of service goals as part of its
2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan effort, including the development of water
supplies designed to meet at least 100% of average annual water demand identified in the
SCVWD 2010 UWMP during non‐drought years and at least 90 percent of average annual water
demand in drought years17. This goal is a countywide goal and includes Palo Alto demands.
Cost
The SCVWD levies a groundwater extraction fee, or “pump tax”, on each acre‐foot of water that
is pumped from the groundwater basin. The charge varies depending on a variety of factors,
including pumpage type (agriculture vs. municipal) and geographic location in the County.
Historically, the cost of groundwater (including the pump tax and the O&M cost of operating a
well) has been comparable to the cost of SFPUC supplies. However, due to the increasing cost
of SFPUC water due to the WSIP, the cost to pump groundwater is projected to be less than the
cost of SFPUC supplies (Figure 8). While the costs of SCVWD groundwater and treated water
16 In summer 2012, staff met with SCVWD representatives to discuss the current limitation and the process to
increase/remove the limitation.
17 SCVWD Board Agenda Item 4.2, June 12, 2012
Page 21
are also projected to rise over the next decade due to capital investment requirements, the
cost of SCVWD water is likely to be less than SFPUC supplies. The vertical lines above the
groundwater and treated water bars in Figure 8 represent the SCVWD high cost scenario, and
reveal that the cost differential between SFFPUC and SCVWD water remains significant even
under a SCVWD high cost scenario.
Figure 8: Projected SFPUC and SCVWD18 Water Rates
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
$/
A
c
r
e
‐Fo
o
t
Fiscal Year
SFPUC vs. SCVWD
SCVWD ‐ Groundwater Rate
SCVWD Treated Water rate
SFPUC Treated Water Rate
ForecastActual
Water Quality
The water quality of the groundwater is considered good, though historically the groundwater
in the area has had iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels that
exceed secondary19 drinking water quality standards.
All potable water scenarios must comply with water quality requirements. Staff currently
samples the wells based on the conditions outlined in the California Department of Public
Health (CDPH) permit(s). The City may be out of compliance with secondary standards on a
18 The SCVWD sets groundwater and treated water rates according to water pricing policies and SCVWD Board
direction. In general, treated water charges are slightly higher than groundwater charges to account for O&M
costs to pump groundwater. However, at times, the SCVWD may adjust rates to encourage use of groundwater
instead of treated water, or vice versa depending on the health of the underground water supplies.
19 Primary drinking water quality standards apply to contaminants that affect health while secondary standards
apply to those constituents that affect aesthetics, taste and odor.
Page 22
short term basis during emergencies, but for full‐time operation the City must be in compliance
with secondary standards or apply for a waiver20. The waiver requires justification and includes
a community survey to establish support for the provision of water that exceeds secondary
standards. The community survey must demonstrate a high degree of acceptance to justify the
waiver.
Key water quality parameters for groundwater, water from the SFPUC and treated water from
the SCVWD are compared in Table 4. All of these sources meet primary drinking water
standards. The table lists several secondary standards and a sampling of other parameters.
Table 4: Water Quality Parameters for Various Water Sources
Water Source Fe
(ppm)
Mn
(ppm)
TDS
(ppm)
Sodium
(ppm)
Hardness
(as CaCo3)
(ppm)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Drinking Water Quality Standard .300 .050 500 N/A N/A 5
SFPUC Water (1) ND ND 132 13.5 57 0.16
SCVWD Treated Water (2) ND ND 209 37 90 0.07
Groundwater (3) 0.25‐1.3 0.13‐0.31 440‐710 75‐170 ‐ 0.33‐7.7
(1) SFPUC values are average water quality values reported by the SFPUC in its 2011 Water Quality Report
(2) Average values from 2011 SCVWD Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Water Quality Data Summary
(3) Based on the City’s well water testing records
ND = non detect
Normal Year Groundwater Supplies
Several treatment and blending options for the wells were evaluated in 2000 in the “Long Term
Water Supply Study”:
1. Blend water with SFPUC water to meet water quality limits for manganese and iron. The
blended water will meet regulatory limits, but will have TDS levels 2‐3 times the current
level in the distribution system21.
2. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site. The water will likely not
exceed TDS limits, but it will be 5‐7 times the current levels in the distribution system.
3. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site and blend with SFPUC supplies
to reduce the well water TDS levels.
4. Provide iron, manganese and TDS treatment at each well site. The treated water at the
injection point will be comparable to SFPUC supplies.
The estimated present dollar cost of each option is provided in Table 5 for information
purposes. The treatment options focus on the costs to address the elevated iron, manganese
and TDS levels under several water quality scenarios.
20 Title 17 Code of Regulations, Chapter 64449.2
21 Upon completion of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the El Camino Well water can be blended
with SFPUC water in the new 2.5 million gallon storage tank in El Camino Park in a similar manner to Option 1.
Page 23
Table 5: Well Treatment Alternative Preliminary Cost Analysis
Treatment Options22
1 (blend) 2 (treat for
Fe, Mn)
3 (treat for Fe,
Mn and blend)
4 (treat for Fe,
Mn and TDS)
Capital Cost23 (Total for 5 wells) $8.5‐10.8 M $8.5‐10.8 M $9.4 ‐ 11.8 M $37.4 ‐ 46.7 M
Well production
Acre feet per year 6300 12800 2500 12800
% of total Potable Demands 50% 100% 25% 100%
Water Quality24
TDS (500 ppm) 130‐300 440‐700 120 120
Manganese (<0.05 ppm) 0.04‐0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05
Iron (<0.3 ppm) 0.08‐0.3 <0.3 0.05‐0.06 <0.3
The new and refurbished wells are being constructed with chlorine disinfection injection points
and the capability to accommodate fluoride and other needed chemical injection points. The
use of the wells on a regular basis will require a detailed operational plan and some or all of the
sites will need modifications to accommodate backup power, chemical storage, and any
equipment associated with the selected treatment option. Not all sites will have the space to
accommodate these additional requirements. These and other additional operating and capital
costs will need to be incorporated as part of a future detailed cost‐benefit analysis.
The various treatment options will generate waste streams with elevated levels of iron,
manganese, TDS, and chemical residuals used in the treatment process. It is unknown if this
can be discharged to the storm drain system. Options to address this issue include onsite
treatment facilities at each site or discharging the raw waste stream to the wastewater
collection system for delivery to the Palo Alto RWQCP25. In addition to these unknown costs,
there may be several challenges that may need to be addressed related to wastewater
constituent changes from the RWQCP.
Dry Year Groundwater Supplies
The City’s new well and reservoir at El Camino Park is currently being configured to blend with
SFPUC supplies so the El Camino Well can be relied upon to provide groundwater during a
drought up to the 1500 AFY limitation. As a result of blending, the water will meet all
secondary water quality standards, but will be of lesser quality when compared to SFPUC
supplies. To bring the water quality to a level comparable to SFPUC supplies, the City will need
to install Iron, Manganese and TDS filtration at the new El Camino well site.
22 Costs are only those costs incurred by Water Utility. Customer costs, including water softening or filtration
devices will be additional costs borne by individual customers
23 All costs were adjusted from the estimates in the 2000 study to provide a likely cost range in 2012 dollars.
24 Manganese and Iron have single consumer acceptance contaminant levels, while TDS is a consumer acceptance
contaminant level range (recommended = 500; short term= 1000 and upper limit = 1500)
25 Discharges to the wastewater collection system for treatment at the RWQCP have associated costs that are not
included in the preliminary cost estimates.
Page 24
Long Term Reliability
The wells are an important resource during a drought and could be an important resource to
serve a portion of the normal year potable needs in the City. With the current 1500 AFY dry
year groundwater extraction limitation, there is little risk any dry year pumping program could
result in significant impacts to the groundwater basin26.
Since SCVWD manages the groundwater in Santa Clara County, any plans to increase Palo Alto’s
groundwater pumping would need to be discussed with the SCVWD.
Emergency Robustness
The City’s wells are being maintained to provide emergency service during a catastrophic
interruption of SFPUC supplies. If the portfolio changes in the future such that groundwater
becomes part of the normal year supply, emergency preparedness will need to be evaluated
further to ensure the resource can perform under various scenarios. Such an increase could
result in the need for the SCVWD to construct recharge facilities to ensure that the county’s
groundwater supplies are properly maintained. If imported water supplies are required to be
delivered to the recharge facilities, those supplies need to be identified.
Environmental impacts
The use of the wells to meet dry year needs is currently permitted subject to a pumping
limitation of 1500 AF per year. A significant increase to this limitation could require
supplemental environmental review. Staff anticipates issues such as sustainable yield, dry year
availability, subsidence risk, saltwater intrusion, dewatering of local creeks and contaminated
plume migration, would be considered in such an environmental analysis.
Sensitivity to Regulations
An area of concern is future State and Federal water quality regulations for potable water.
Changes in regulations could make the groundwater supply less attractive and more expensive
due to additional treatment. This becomes less of an issue depending on the level of treatment
that is chosen.
26 The 1500 AFY limitation is a CEQA derived mitigation measure that has undergone the public review process.
Page 25
VIII. SCVWD Treated Water
Besides being the manager of groundwater in Santa Clara County, the SCVWD also produces
and delivers treated drinking water to water retail agencies in the county. Long‐term plans of
the SCVWD include extending the treated water pipeline from its current terminus at Foothill
Expressway and Miramonte Road to a Palo Alto connection point at Foothills Expressway and
Arastradero Road (a distance of about 4.5 miles). The SCVWD calls this extension the “West
Pipeline Extension”. However, the project would only be constructed if the City requested
water supply from the SCVWD and signed a treated water contract.
Background
In 1999, the City sent a letter to the SCVWD advising it that information was needed to analyze
the City’s option to connect to the SCVWD treated water West Pipeline. The SCVWD responded
with an estimated cost for the extension of the West Pipeline that would have to be fully borne
by Palo Alto. In February 2002, Palo Alto and four other county retailers requested that the
SCVWD conduct a feasibility study of a West Pipeline extension from both a supply perspective
and the additional reliability of having an additional interconnection with the SFPUC system.
The SCVWD prepared a report on extending the West Pipeline, entitled: “Santa Clara Valley
Water District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation Final Report”27. The report
evaluated an extension of the existing SCVWD West Pipeline to enable an interconnection of
the Palo Alto and SCVWD systems at Page Mill turnout28. A map of the potential project is
provided in Figure 9.
27 The City of Palo Alto participated in the preparation of the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan
(WSIMP). As part of that process, staff requested the SCVWD include the West Pipeline extension for project
consideration. The SCVWD noted in the Final 2012 WSIMP that the project is not recommended in the WSIMP
because it does not contribute to long‐term supply reliability. However, the SCVWD stated that it would be
considered during a planned Infrastructure Reliability Master Plan.
28 The SFPUC and the SCVWD have an emergency interconnection near Milpitas that could theoretically be used to
wheel water to Palo Alto. Staff does not anticipate it will be feasible to wheel normal year supplies via the intertie,
but the use of the intertie during dry years may be possible. However, in general the SCVWD system is more dry
year sensitive than the SFPUC system, so it is unclear whether supplies would be available to be wheeled to Palo
Alto via this mechanism.
Page 26
Figure 9: West Pipeline Extension Map
Availability
If the City requested that the SCVWD extend the West Pipeline to serve the City, the terms of
the treated water contract would determine the availability and amount of water that would be
delivered during normal years. The SCVWD has a diverse water supply portfolio, including State
Water Project, Central Valley Project, and local reservoirs. SCVWD’s 2010 UWMP and its 2012
WSIMP indicated the SCVWD anticipates having adequate supplies to meet future needs until
2030 when minor deficits begin to materialize. However, those projections do not assume any
treated water deliveries to Palo Alto. In addition, there is no guarantee that the water will be
available during dry years.
Cost
SCVWD’s West Pipeline Extension Report provided detailed cost estimates for several pipeline
configurations, which are summarized in Table 6. Both scenarios require a new parallel pipeline
from Rinconada Water Treatment plant to the current terminus of the West Pipeline at
Miramonte Road. From there, a new pipeline would be constructed to Page Mill Road. The
cost differential between the two scenarios is largely attributed to different pipe sizing
requirements and an intertie pump station.
Page 27
Table 6: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Summary Costs29
Alternative Assumptions Total Cost
of
Alternative
($million)
Cost to
SFPUC
($million)
Cost to
New
Retailers
($million)
Rate
Increase
to SCVWD
Retailers
($/AF)
Parallel
and
Extension
Existing treated water
contractors and new retailers
share cost of parallel pipe
New retailers pay for extension
94‐114 N/A Palo Alto:
44‐67
Purissima
Hills: 5‐9
$5‐8
Parallel,
Extension
and
Intertie
Existing treated water
contractors and new retailers
share cost of parallel pipe
SFPUC pays for half of
incremental cost of intertie
Existing and new retailers share
cost of extension and half of
incremental cost of intertie
127‐154 18‐22 Palo Alto:
23‐41
Purissima
Hills: 4‐10
Stanford
University:
4‐8
Pump Tax:
11‐14
Treated
Water: 15‐
22
The report concluded that the City and neighboring jurisdictions must pay for the costs of
constructing the extension via a “take or pay” contract, which is a common payment
mechanism for all agencies in the county that purchase SCVWD treated water. The amount of
the take or pay contract is determined by the amortized construction costs divided by the
annual treated water rate. For example, if Palo Alto’s obligation for a West Pipeline extension
was $30 million with an annual cost of $2 million (using an interest rate of 3%/year for a 20‐
year financing period), and the treated water rate was $634.60 per AF30, then Palo Alto would
be required to purchase about 3,150 AF/year, or about 25% of the City’s water usage in FY
2012.
During the term of the contract, the City would have limited ability to adjust its annual water
purchase from the SCVWD. There are several agencies in Santa Clara County that purchase
both SCVWD and SFPUC treated water, and they are subject to minimum “take or pay” contract
provisions by both providers. The City would receive similar treatment. The cost estimates in
Table 6 do not account for any distribution system improvements that may be required to
configure Palo Alto’s distribution system to receive SCVWD treated water.
Recently, the City conducted an evaluation of property tax collected by SCVWD from Palo Alto
property owners. It is not uncommon for water districts to rely wholly, or in part, on property
related taxes to build water systems or for surplus capacity for future users. The SCVWD has
historically relied on taxes to some degree to purchase imported water and fund local
29 Cost of additional supply is not included in project cost. Costs have been escalated 3‐5% from 2003 dollars to
provide a representation of potential costs ranges.
30 This is SCVWD’s treated water rate for FY 2013
Page 28
groundwater and treated water programs, and continues to do so. The results of the property
tax evaluation revealed Palo Alto taxpayers have contributed to the development of the SCVWD
water supply, distribution and treatment system, and will likely continue to do so in the future.
This information could be helpful in determining an equitable sharing of the capital costs of an
extension to serve areas of the county that have historically supported the SCVWD system.
Water Quality
See Table 4 in the groundwater section for a comparison of certain water quality parameters of
SCVWD’s treated water, SFPUC water, and groundwater.
Carollo Engineers evaluated the SCVWD treated water line in the Long Term Supply Study and
provided information on the issues of blending SCVWD supplies with SFPUC supplies. In
general, SFPUC supplies are of superior quality to SCVWD supplies, but there were several
specific issues that were identified in the previous study. If there is interest in moving forward
with an interconnection with the SCVWD system, additional analysis will need to be performed
to determine if the previous issues still remain, and what additional issues have arisen. On the
positive side, the SCVWD’s recent decision to include fluoridation at their treatment plants
removes the need to provide fluoridation at the interconnection points to ensure the water
supply complies with the municipal code. In a similar manner, the SFPUC has completed the
transition to chloramine from chlorine for residual disinfection. This removes some water
quality related issues associated with blending treated water from different sources that use
different disinfectants. However, there may be other issues related to water quality that could
require the two water supplies to be isolated in the distribution system. This would result in
water from difference sources being provided to customers depending on their location in the
distribution system.
Long Term Reliability
It is likely the SCVWD has little surplus imported water to allocate to Palo Alto, so the details of
a potential supply arrangement will need to be evaluated further. During the drought in the
late 1980’s, SCVWD supplies from both the state and federal sources were significantly
reduced. It is not clear what level of drought protection would be provided, though the recent
level of service commitment by the SCVWD indicates that there would be no greater than 10%
reduction in supplies during dry years.
Emergency Robustness
In 2003, the SCVWD initiated the Water Utility Infrastructure Reliability Project to determine
the current reliability of its water supply infrastructure (pipes, pump stations, treatment plants)
and to appropriately balance level of service with cost. The project measured the baseline
performance of critical SCVWD facilities in emergency events and identified system
vulnerabilities. The study concluded that the SCVWD water supply system could suffer up to a
60‐day outage if a major event, such as a 7.9 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault,
Page 29
were to occur. Less severe hazards, such as other earthquakes, flooding and regional power
outages had less of an impact on the SCVWD, with outage times ranging from one to 45 days.
The level of service goal identified for the Infrastructure Reliability Project was “Potable water
service at average winter flow rates available to a minimum of one turnout per retailer within
seven days, with periodic one day interruptions for repairs.” In order to meet this level of
service goal, the project identified a recommended portfolio to mitigate the risks. The SCVWD
has been implementing the recommended portfolio. The project is expected to reduce the
post‐earthquake outage period from 45‐60 days to 7‐14 days.
In 2007, the SCVWD created a stockpile of emergency pipeline repair materials including large
diameter spare pipe, internal pipeline joint seals, valves, and appurtenances. The stockpile
marks a significant increase in reliability of the SCVWD water supply system, as it helps to
reduce outage time following a large earthquake from approximately 60 to 30 days. The
SCVWD still needs to complete several other emergency planning projects to meet the goal of
reducing outage time to 30 days. These include developing a post‐disaster recovery plan,
developing mutual aid agreements or expanding participation in the California Water/
Wastewater Agency Response Network , setting up contractor, welder, and equipment rental
company retainer agreements, and setting up post‐earthquake pipeline inspection teams. The
addition of groundwater wells and line valves to the SCVWD system will further reduce outage
time following a large earthquake from 30 days to 14 days. The wells will allow the SCVWD to
convey supplies from the groundwater basin to the treated water pipelines following a hazard
event to meet the project’s level of service goal. The line valves will allow the SCVWD to isolate
damaged portions of pipelines.
If the West Pipeline was extended to provide potable water service to Palo Alto, the City would
have one connection to the SCVWD system31, compared to 5 connections to the SFPUC system.
It is unclear what level of reliability would be provided in the event of catastrophic event. The
SFPUC level of service goal following an earthquake is to provide for average wintertime
demands with delivery to 70% of the turnouts within 24 hours following a major earthquake.
The SCVWD level of service goal provides for service resumption to one turnout within 7 days of
a similar event, though the location of a Palo Alto interconnection at the end of the treated
water line may be a weak point, so it is unclear if there will be adequate supplies or system
pressures to provide meaningful service. In addition, the SCVWD plans on extracting
groundwater for raw water delivery to the treatment plants and on to the retailers during an
emergency. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage project will serve this purpose for Palo
Alto.
31 There may be additional connection options to a new SCVWD treated water pipeline, such as a new extension to
the existing Arastradero SFPUC turnout. However, the cost of additional connections was not included in the initial
cost estimate and would likely be borne by the City. Additional connections may allow increased use of and more
efficient distribution of SCVWD treated water, though they may not provide any additional reliability assurances.
Page 30
Environmental Impacts
A West Pipeline extension will require CEQA review. The SCVWD would be the lead agency for
the CEQA process.
Sensitivity to Regulations
The SCVWD imports water from both the State and Federal water projects, and is vulnerable to
actions that impact those sources. Since publication of the 2003 WIRP, federal and state water
deliveries have been reduced on several occasions due to Delta related issues. The Bay Delta
Conservation Plan is currently underway to address the co‐equal goals of water supply
reliability and environmental sustainability. The most likely water conveyance solution will be a
tunnel underneath the Delta from an intake on the Sacramento River to the South Delta
Diversion/Pumping facilities. Such a facility will take decades to build and the costs will likely be
borne by State and Federal water contractors, including the SCVWD.
Page 31
IX. Recycled Water
The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater
treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain
View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Approximately 220,000 people live in the RWQCP
service area. Of the total plant flow, about 60 per cent is estimated to come from residences,
10 per cent from industries, and 30 per cent from commercial businesses and institutions.
In 1992, the City and the other RWQCP partners completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan
(Master Plan). The Master Plan identified a three stage implementation for recycled water in in
the RWQCP service area.
In 1995, City Council certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the
Master Plan projects. At the same time, Council decided not to pursue any of the
recommended expansion stages of a water recycling system as the cost could not be justified.
Council adopted a water recycling policy, which included continuation of the existing programs
and monitoring of conditions that would trigger an evaluation of the Master Plan. The Water
Recycling Policy described five conditions that would trigger evaluation of the Master Plan
projects:
1) Changes in the RWQCP discharge requirements
2) Increased mass loading to the RWQCP
3) Requests from partner agencies or other local agencies
4) Availability of federal or other funds
5) Water supply issues:
a. Water shortages
b. Legislative or Regulatory Initiatives
c. Advanced treatment for potable reuse.
Since the Master Plan, the City prepared a recycled water survey in 2006 and a Facility Plan in
2009 for a project to deliver recycled water to the Stanford Research Park. The Facility Plan had
four goals:
1) Define recycled water alternatives and identify a recommended project;
2) Develop a realistic funding strategy
3) Develop an implementation strategy ; and
4) Provide a basis for any future state and federal grant requests for the Project.
Since completion of the Facility Plan, the City initiated the environmental review process for the
project and is currently working on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The
City is also focusing on outside funding sources to improve the project economics.
The Facility Plan provided a comprehensive overview of the proposed recycled water project to
serve the Stanford Research Park. The project would connect to the recently completed
Page 32
recycled water transmission line serving the Mountain View area and extend through the City
to serve the target area. A schematic of the proposed project including water demands and
pipe sizes is provided in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Proposed Recycled Water Project
Availability
The average dry weather flow capacity of the RWQCP is 38 MGD. The average treated
wastewater discharge to the San Francisco Bay is approximately 22 MGD. In theory, all of this
could be captured for reuse. Several RWQCP partners, including Palo Alto, have a contractual
entitlement to the treated wastewater in proportion to the amount of wastewater that is sent
to the RWQCP32. Palo Alto’s FY 2011 flow share to the plant was approximately 39.2%, or 8.624
32 Personal communication with James Allen, RWQCP Plant Manager, November 2012
Page 33
MGD. However, operational constraints and plant configuration limit the recycled water
production capability from the RWQCP.
The RWQCP collaborates with the partners to ensure needed capital improvements for future
recycled water expansion goals are incorporated into long range plans. Considering the
RWQCP’s primary role to provide wastewater treatment services for the partners and to ensure
the RWQCP meets all associated regulatory and permit limitations, the necessary
improvements to accommodate a substantial increase in recycled water deliveries are not a
priority for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the RWQCP can deliver up to 4.5 MGD of
recycled water via coagulation and filtration through a multi‐layered filter and disinfection
process. This additionally treated effluent meets California Department of Health Services Title
22 requirements for “unrestricted reuse”. The new ultraviolet (UV) disinfection banks can add
6 MGD of recycled water production (8 MGD with an extra bank). The RWQCP plans to use UV
as backup to the filtration/chlorination recycled water treatment train. Future plans include
consolidating the systems into a 10.5 MGD recycled water facility, but this would require some
modifications in plant piping and storage tanks to get bottlenecks out of the system.
In constructing the project to extend the recycled water distribution system to serve the City of
Mountain View, the CPAU Water Fund paid $1 million and committed to pay an additional $1
million connection fee in the event the project to serve the Stanford Research Park was built.
By virtue of this arrangement, the CPAU Water Fund has secured capacity on the pipeline for
future use. The RWQCP cannot currently meet projected recycled water demands under peak
conditions, and additional pumping capacity and possibly storage is needed to accommodate all
project users. Palo Alto’s recycled water project capital costs include the cost of retrofitting the
RWQCP pump station to accommodate incremental recycled water deliveries to serve the
Stanford Research Park.
Page 34
The RWQCP has had a robust recycled water program for many years, including a substantial
amount for RWQCP onsite needs and irrigation at Greer Park, the Duck Pond and the Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course. As shown in Figure 11, the RWWCP uses about 0.5 MGD annually
(about 560 AFY) for irrigation around the plant as well as some cleaning and treatment
processes. Greer Park and the Duck Pond have each used about 0.04 MGD (45 AFY) on average
over the past five years while the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course has used about 0.2 MGD (230
AFY) on average over the past five years.
The 2009 Facility Plan identified about 0.8 MGD of new recycled water usage for the project to
expand the recycled water distribution system. The project would primarily serve the Stanford
Research Park area and the bulk (90%) of the recycled water would be used for irrigation
purposes.
Figure 11: Palo Alto Existing Recycled Water Uses for FY 2004‐FY 2012
Page 35
Cost
The Facility Plan included a detailed cost plan to build the project (Table 7). The gross project
cost is approximately $33 million, though this does not include potential outside funding
sources that could lower the project cost.
Table 7: Recycled Water Gross Cost Estimate 1,2
The cost estimates in Table 7 were developed for 2009 Facility Plan using March 2008 dollars
and will need to be updated to reflect current capital and O&M costs. Based on the 2008 data,
the recycled water cost is approximately $2,700/AF, compared to an SFPUC cost of $1260/AF
(2013) to $2240/AF (2020). However, these cost estimates do not reflect several grant and low
interest funding programs that the City has been pursuing that will help lower the unit cost of
the recycled water to a more competitive level with SFPUC costs. These funding options are
listed below:
1. Title 16 ‐ The Bureau of Reclamation's water reclamation and reuse program is
authorized by the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of
1992 (Title XVI of Public Law 102‐575). The City of Palo Alto is a member of the Bay Area
Recycled Water Coalition, a group of regional recycled water projects that collaborate to
pursue federal funding for recycled water projects. In order to receive federal funding,
all projects must receive federal authorization. The City is currently seeking
authorization in the House of Representatives for a federal award of $8.25 million (H.R.
3910). Obtaining authorization is a first step and subsequent steps include submittal of
Page 36
appropriation requests until the full authorized amount is received. While authorization
provides a degree of certainty on a grant award, receipt of the full grant amount will
depend on annual appropriations and the federal political process.
2. Proposition 84 through IRWMP – The City is pursuing Proposition 84 grant funds
through the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The BAIRWMP
project list was recently updated and the City will have the option to submit funding
requests during future funding rounds.
3. State Revolving Fund Low Interest Loan – The City can apply for low interest
construction loans through the State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving
Fund (SRF) program. The program provides 20 year loans with an interest rate equal to
half of the most recent General Obligation bond interest rate. The most recent SRF
interest rate is 1.7%, though the historical rate is typically in the 2‐2.5% range. SRF
loans have several attractive features, including a payment plan that commences 1 year
after construction and the avoidance of bond issuance costs.
The Title 16 and SRF loan programs represent the best State and Federal funding opportunities
for the project at this time. The City’s recycled water project is on the SRF project list, and staff
does not anticipate that obtaining an SRF loan will be problematic. However, obtaining Title 16
authorization for the project will be critical to making the project economically viable. An SRF
loan and an $8.25 million federal grant would improve project economics such that recycled
water would become competitive with SFPUC potable water within 4‐6 years.
The City’s recycled water project was identified in BAWSCA’s Long‐term Regional Water Supply
Strategy as a project with near term development potential to meet future water supply needs.
Inclusion in the BAWSCA report does not change the project, but it does position the project for
innovative funding opportunities with another BAWSCA agency in exchange for some
equivalent benefit. Such a partnership could be combined with State and Federal funding
sources to further improve project economics.
Water Quality
The recycled water from the RWQCP meets Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse. The
main purpose of the Palo Alto recycled water project is to offset the use of high quality
imported SFPUC water for irrigation and cooling purposes. A major challenge for the project is
acceptance by the landscape community of using recycled water for irrigation purposes.
Certain landscapes are particularly vulnerable to the higher salinity that is present in recycled
water, especially those areas with poor drainage and clay soils.
The RWQCP and the plant partners are undertaking efforts to address the elevated salinity
levels in the recycled water by establishing the Salinity Reduction Policy and evaluating the
wastewater collection system for areas where elevated salinity levels indicate Inflow and
Infiltration may be an issue. For example, the City of Mountain View is currently spending $3‐4
Page 37
million to line a sewer trunk line that has indications of saline water intrusion. This large
project may yield a significant salinity reduction when complete in February 2013.
Long Term Reliability
Recycled water is one of the most reliable new water supply sources. As previously mentioned,
CPAU has paid for a future connection to the pipeline that extends from the RWQCP to serve
Mountain View, which has a maximum capacity of 21 MGD. With the addition of the UV banks,
the recycled water production train could provide up to 10.5 MGD of recycled water. As it is
local, it is more reliable than imported supplies, which rely on lengthy networks of pipes, pumps
and storage facilities. In droughts or other water shortage situations, landscape water use is
normally targeted for the largest reductions, but recycled water use would not be subject to
such reductions.
Additional recycled water use will increase the City’s allocations of SFPUC water in drought
times. Since the drought allocation formula is based on both a seasonal component and overall
water use, increased use of recycled water would provide a double benefit since it lowers
potable water use and also reduces the City’s potable usage during the peak irrigation season.
While it is difficult to assess future drought allocations since much depends on the actions of
other agencies, staff estimates the Stanford Research Park recycled water project could reduce
the dry year cutback by 10‐20%.
Emergency Robustness
Recycled water will be used for irrigation purposes and, to a lesser extent, cooling. During a
catastrophic emergency, CPAU will focus on operation of the emergency wells and the potable
distribution system to ensure potable requirements and fire flows are maintained. The RWQCP
will also focus its efforts on returning the RWQCP to normal operations. Recycled water does
not provide additional emergency preparedness improvements over the current situation.
Environmental Impacts
The City has been preparing the requisite National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA
documents for the project. The environmental review process has taken longer than
anticipated, largely due to additional study of the use of recycled water on plants in areas of
poor drainage and clay soils.
Sensitivity to Regulations
The recycled water supply is sensitive to regulations, but these can have both positive and
negative impacts due to the unique nature of the recycled water supply. The RWQCP is subject
to numerous regulatory requirements related to treated wastewater discharges to San
Francisco Bay. The use of recycled water is recognized as one method to reduce discharges to
the Bay and assists the RWQCP in complying with these requirements. For example, in March
2012, the Regional Water Board issued a Water Code Section 13267 Technical Report Order to
Page 38
Bay Area wastewater dischargers, including the RWQCP, requiring submittal of information on
nutrients in wastewater discharges (nitrogen and phosphorus). This information will be
compiled over the next few years and will likely result in the development of future water
quality objectives for the San Francisco Bay estuary. An increase in recycled water use would
decrease the total nitrogen and phosphorus discharge to the Bay. As the regulatory
environment for wastewater treatment plants becomes stricter, recycled water will become an
increasingly useful tool to assist wastewater treatment plants in complying with these new
regulations.
In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted Resolution No. 2009‐0011,
which established a statewide Recycled Water Policy. This policy encourages increased use of
recycled water and local storm water. It also requires local water and wastewater entities,
together with local salt/nutrient contributing stakeholders to develop a Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan for each groundwater basin in California. The SCVWD is the lead agency for
this effort in Santa Clara County. Together with the benchmarks in the SCVWD 2012 GWMP,
recycled water impacts on the groundwater basin will likely be monitored and subject to
regulation in the event there are observed changes.
X. Demand‐Side Management
Demand‐side management measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are measures
that can be implemented to conserve water. The BMPs are included in the California Urban
Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Water agencies
that became signatories to the MOU pledged to implement the BMPs and to report progress
biannually to CUWCC.
Since becoming a signatory to the MOU in 1991, the City has saved an estimated 4,135 AF of
water through conservation program implementation. The 2010 UWMP contains the City’s
reports to the CUWCC, including compliance reports on the BMPs. The 2010 UWMP included
an increased conservation program commitment, in large part driven by the requirements of SB
X7‐7.
Availability
BAWSCA has assisted its members in assessing the potential for water efficiency measures. In
October 2008, as part of the adoption of the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP)
Program Environmental Impact Report, BAWSCA coordinated the completion of the Water
Conservation Implementation Plan, which provided a comprehensive analysis of cost effective
conservation measures to identify additional programs that could assist the BAWSCA agencies
in meeting future purchase limitations. Results from the Water Conservation Implementation
Plan were also used to prepare the City’s 2010 UWMP. Figure 12 shows the water conservation
goals Council adopted when it approved the 2010 UWMP. Figure 12 also compares the
Page 39
conservation program commitment in the 2005 UWMP to the new commitments in the 2010
UWMP.
Figure 12: Water Conservation Savings Goals
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
W
a
t
e
r
S
a
v
i
n
g
s
(
A
c
r
e
-
F
e
e
t
)
Fiscal Year
Actual Savings 2005-2010
Projected Savings from 2005 UWMP
Projected Savings from 2010 UWMP
13% of Water
Demand
4% of Water
Demand
The annual report to City Council on efficiency goals and achievements includes a summary for
water demand side management goals and achievements as illustrated in Table 8.
Table 8: Water Savings vs. Goals
Note that the savings goal increased threefold starting in FY 2011. The increase is primarily a
result of legislative requirements (SB 7x‐7) that were captured in the 2010 UWMP. This
aggressive goal is consistent with the City’s longstanding policy of providing cost effective
conservation programs to the community. Staff will monitor conservation program
effectiveness and make necessary adjustments if it appears the current program is not meeting
established targets.
Page 40
Cost
It is the goal of the City to look for opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost effective
programs that best utilize the water conservation budget. In FY 2011, the City dramatically
increased conservation program savings goals to meet the requirements of SB7x‐7. The 2010
UWMP contains a detailed analysis of the current suite of conservation measures that are
offered by the City. For each program, the benefit/cost ratio from the Total Resource Cost
(TRC) perspective is shown. The TRC cost‐effectiveness test compares the total cost of
implementing a measure, regardless of who pays. The costs include the cost of the device, any
installation costs, and the implementation costs of the program (advertising, tracking,
performance monitoring, rebate processing, etc.). The benefits include the avoided costs of
water purchases. The Water Utility assesses each measure in terms of financial impact to the
utility, which includes rebate costs as well as any other administrative costs borne by the Water
Utility. The water savings summary through 2030 is provided in Table 9, including cost to the
utility.
Table 9: Conservation Program Costs33
2015 2020 2025 2030
Total Savings (Acre‐feet) 672 560 168 448
Total Wastewater Savings (Acre‐feet) 403 314 67 157
Total Outdoor Savings (Acre‐feet) 269 246 101 291
Utility Implementation Cost ($2010) $754,058 $370,843 $364,762 $387,604
Cost/Acre‐feet $1,122 $662 $2,171 $865
Table 9 illustrates that the aggregate conservation program is cost effective when compared to
SFPUC supply alternatives.
As the cost of SFPUC water increases, many conservation programs become more cost
effective, though the Water Utility adjusts conservation programs depending on several factors,
including program penetration, community preferences and the TRC. Despite the very
aggressive targets in the 2010 UWMP, it may be possible to further increase conservation
program utilization to achieve additional savings.
Water Quality
Demand side measures do not present any water quality issues.
33 The large increase in cost per acre foot in 2025 reflects regular captured savings less a drop off of savings from
those measures initiated in the 2012‐2020 time frame that begin to reach maturity. Water agencies offer rebates
to make it more attractive for customers to install more efficient, and potentially costlier, measures. At some
point in the future the measure reaches the end of its useful life and must be replaced. For some measures, the
models assume the consumer will only have the choice of the more efficient model in the future and therefore no
rebate is needed anymore. Absent a rebate, the Water Utility does not account for the savings anymore.
Page 41
Long Term Reliability
Staff forecasts and tracks DSM program effectiveness, but the ultimate effectiveness for
different programs varies substantially depending on many factors, including individual
behavioral patterns. Much research has gone into evaluating the reliability of DSM, and some
of that research could be useful to the City in future efforts to plan and evaluate program
effectiveness. Due to the large differential between water demand and the City’s Individual
Supply Guarantee, there is no pressing need to strictly monitor DSM program effectiveness like
there may be for an agency that is at risk of exceeding its Individual Supply Guarantee
Water efficiency during a drought is a more complicated issue. One issue is the concept of
“demand hardening”, which is the assumed loss of demand elasticity during a drought that
results from water conservation programs implemented before the drought. In other words,
the community may have little flexibility to reduce demand further if conservation programs
have been truly effective. At the same time, there are certain DSM measures that are not
suitable during normal years that can be implemented during dry years and achieve desired
savings (i.e ‐ steep rate increases, irrigation restrictions).
Emergency Robustness
The 2010 UWMP contains a summary of demand side options that can be implemented under
various scenarios (Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan). During a catastrophic
interruption of SFPUC supplies, the City will immediately initiate emergency supply options to
meet potable demands and fireflow requirements. At the same time, the City will begin
informational outreach programs to inform the community that emergency conditions are in
effect and water consumption behavioral changes are required (i.e no irrigation).
For dry year scenarios, the City will implement informational outreach programs, incentive
based demand‐side management programs, and water audits. In addition, rate schedules may
be modified, as appropriate, to reflect the water shortage conditions. Due to the
SFPUC/BAWSCA drought allocation formula, conservation programs provide a benefit in
reducing dry year cutback requirements. Conservation programs that specifically target
irrigation demands will provide an additional benefit because of the seasonal component of the
drought allocation formula.
Environmental Impacts
For the most part, demand side measures do not present any environmental issues. Measures
that specifically target landscape conversions or efficiency changes have occasionally been the
subject of concern by tree advocacy groups who are concerned about impacts on trees due to
decreased landscape watering. The City includes information on proper tree maintenance for
those customers converting to drought resistant landscapes.
Page 42
Sensitivity to Regulations
Demand side measures are not limited by any regulations. However, additional requirements
to implement measures may be proposed, or compliance with certain efficiency standards (e.g.
per capita water use) may be required, especially if seeking State or Federal grant or loan
assistance for a project such as the recycled water project.
XI. Individual Supply Guarantee Sale
Availability
The City currently purchases approximately 12 MGD of potable water from the SFPUC and has
an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), of 17.07 MGD. A sale of surplus ISG could generate
income for a variety of potential purposes. Over the past several years there has been
increased interest in an ISG transaction, but the mechanism and value of the ISG has been
difficult to establish, and this has hindered movement on this issue.
The City’s current water use is approximately 12 MGD, and the recent 2010 UWMP forecasted
the City’s water use would increase slightly in the next few years, and then remain flat around
13.6 MGD through 2030. In the event the City transferred 1‐2 MGD of its ISG to another party,
recent forecasts do not anticipate this will impact the City’s ability to meet normal year potable
demands.
The SFPUC/BAWSCA (Tier II) drought formula is based on the weighted average of two
components, the smaller of which is the ISG34. This is beneficial to the City since current
consumption is well below the City’s ISG. An ISG transfer would reduce that benefit and result
in an increased dry year reduction requirement by the City. At the same time, this aspect of the
role of the ISG in the drought formula would be viewed favorably by a purchasing entity as it
would be acquiring normal year supply and improving its dry year allocation.
There are several possible uses for the funds from an ISG transaction, including increasing dry
year supply reliability. Examples of potential projects that could reduce the dry year supply
deficiency include retrofitting the City’s wells to provide high quality groundwater, arranging a
dry year water transfer arrangement that could be wheeled via the SFPUC system, or providing
the funds necessary to complete the recycled water project, which is a “drought‐proof” water
supply resource.
Cost
In May 2010, the Purissima Hills Water District indicated an interest in purchasing 0.5 MGD of
the City’s ISG for a one‐time payment of $1 million. The City declined the offer, citing several
34 It is important to emphasize the Tier II formula expires in 2018, unless extended by mutual agreement of the
Wholesale customers. It is possible the successor agreement to the current Tier II formula could be quite
different, including a larger or smaller role for the ISG.
Page 43
policy issues that needed resolution prior to any action to initiate an ISG transaction. With
completion of the Tier II drought allocation process and the Interim Supply Limitation allocation
process, the major policy obstacles have been addressed.
In September 2012, the City of Brisbane executed a term sheet with the Oakdale Irrigation
District to transfer water to Brisbane. The transaction will require additional agreements with
the Modesto Irrigation District and the SFPUC as intermediate parties. As is the case with
PHWD, Brisbane’s water use is close to its ISG and it needs additional supplies to meet
anticipated needs. The term sheet is a preliminary step, but it provides a starting point to
establish a proxy value for an ISG transaction. The term sheet contemplates a sale of up to
2,400 AFY, with a price of $500/AF for any delivered water and a price of $100 for any water
not delivered (i.e, the difference between 2,400 AF and the delivered quantity). After five
years, Brisbane must notify Oakdale Irrigation District how much water will be taken during the
remainder of the agreement. All of that water is paid for at $500/AF, regardless of whether or
not it is actually taken. If the City were to execute an agreement similar to the
Brisbane/Oakdale transaction, a 2 MGD transfer might generate revenues of $224,000 to $1.1
million per year for the first five years, followed by up to $1.1 million per year for the duration
of the transaction. Of course, such a transfer would also reduce the City’s ISG from 17.07 MGD
to 15.07 MGD.
Water Quality
A water transfer does not present any water quality issues.
Long Term Reliability
A 2 MGD water transfer would reduce the City’s ISG from 17.07 MGD to 15.07 MGD. The City’s
current normal year water use is well below 15.07 MGD, and recent forecasts indicate that the
City’s usage will exceed 15.07 MGD for the foreseeable future. For dry years, a reduction in the
City’s ISG will result in an increased water reduction requirement. For dry years, the Tier II
drought allocation formula has an ISG component so a reduction in ISG will negatively impact
the City’s allocation during a drought. Staff estimates a 2 MGD sale would require an additional
5‐7% dry year cutback from the City or could increase reliance on groundwater. A thorough
evaluation of such a sale is necessary to provide a more detailed assessment.
Emergency Robustness
A nominal ISG transfer would not impact the City’s access to SFPUC supplies following a
catastrophic interruption of SFPUC supplies.
Environmental Impacts
Staff anticipates that the receiving party will initiate any required environmental review under
CEQA.
Page 44
Sensitivity to Regulations
An ISG transaction is subject to Section 3.04 of the WSA. The SFPUC review is limited to
determining if the proposed transfer complies with the Raker Act and whether the affected
facilities in the Regional Water System have sufficient capacity to accommodate delivery of the
increased amount of water to the proposed transferee. Section 3.04(a) of the WSA also
specifies the City may “transfer a portion….to one or more other Wholesale Customers...”, thus
indicating an ISG transaction will likely be limited to another Wholesale Customer, or a third
party that plans on receiving the water within the service territory of another Wholesale
Customer.
EXCERPTED FINAL MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 2016 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
ITEM 2. DISCUSSION: Utilities Advisory Commission Review and Discussion of the Draft 2017
Water Integrated Resource Plan Guidelines
Senior Resource Planner Karla Dailey provided a presentation summarizing the written report.
She said that the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) was ready to be updated since the
recent drought has reinforced that there is a need for water in water shortages and there is
regulatory risk since the State Water Resources Control Board showed a willingness to regulate
water use by mandating water use reduction. In addition, there are ongoing cost increases from
both the City’s potable water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC),
and for the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD) supplies. The City effort to develop a
comprehensive strategic plan for recycled water, the Council’s dedication to water
sustainability through the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan process and the community’s
interest in water are all also driving the need for a WIRP.
Dailey listed the water supply options evaluated in the WIRP and the attributes considered. She
noted that the WIRP did not evaluate recycled water (since it is being evaluated separately in
the Recycled Water Strategic Plan), desalination, a sale of the City’s excess water allocation of
SFPUC water, small-scale irrigation wells, the use of treated, contaminated water, “nuisance”
groundwater from the Oregon Expressway underpass or basement dewatering, graywater,
black (i.e. sewer) water, and stormwater.
Dailey said that, after looking at all the attributes, staff concluded that SFPUC water is more
expensive but has highest water quality, the cost of SCVWD supplies may increase dramatically
and SCVWD does not have excess treated water to sell, groundwater is susceptible to
mandated water use reductions like imported supplies, blending groundwater with SFPUC
water at El Camino is the least expensive, most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies,
but water quality may be an issue, reliability and sustainability can be achieved by reducing
potable water demand through expanding use of recycled water.
The recommended guidelines include:
Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation;
Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus
blended water;
Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the
demand for imported water; and
ATTACHMENT D
Continue to investigate ways to increase the use of non-traditional, non-potable sources
such as black water, storm water, and nuisance water from basement construction.
Public comment
Keith Bennet, Save Palo Alto Groundwater, said that he wanted to talk about water pumped
out from basement construction and groundwater protection. He said that 200 million gallons
was dumped into the Bay from 8 residential basements in 2016, equal to 7% the amount the
City buys from the SFPUC and 100% of the recharge of the aquifer from precipitation for a
normal rain year. In 2015 there were 13 or 14 basements constructed in Palo Alto and the
allowed pumping time was longer so he assumes the amount of water discharged to the Bay
was greater than in 2016. He said discharging freshwater to the Bay according to the WIRP is to
be discouraged. He said that the water moving through the soil instead of the storm drain is
valuable for pushing saltwater out of the groundwater. He said shallow groundwater is of very
high quality and can be used for irrigation, including irrigation of Redwoods. He said the water
is usually at 10 feet or less and easily accessible. He said the San Mateo Basin study shows the
shallow and deep aquifers are connected. Proven alternative construction methods exist and
are used in the Netherlands. This is a valuable resource and pumping and dumping the water is
not sustainable. Pumping for basements contradicts the desire to protect groundwater. Utilities
should change the WIRP to recognize the value of the shallow aquifer. He wants Utilities to ask
Council to protect groundwater and restrict pumping and dumping from basement
construction.
Commissioner Trumbull said the report was excellent. He urged the City to investigate the
items that are recommended in the guidelines.
Commissioner Johnston asked how we would do a survey to evaluate whether people would
prefer Hetch Hetchy to Groundwater. Dailey said she had considered blind tastings but said
Utilities would have to consult a survey expert.
Commissioner Danaher said his wife doesn’t want water that tastes like Los Altos water. He
suggested online surveys won’t be valuable but taste test might. It’s staggering that basement
dewatering uses so much water and that alternative construction methods and/or more use of
the water should be investigated. He wondered about how easily Palo Alto’s groundwater is
recharged and was heartened that more studies on groundwater will be done and that more
work will be done on recycling and grey water. Building codes should be examined to include
more grey water. He said the assumed availability of SFPUC water is too rosy. Looking at last 80
years is not a good baseline to predict the impact of climate change. The plan should have
different scenarios showing different assumptions regarding the future availability of Hetch
Hetchy water. He asked if the plan will be updated after the Recycled Water Strategic plan is
finished. Dailey confirmed that it would.
Commissioner Forssell said she appreciated the report and public comment. We switched water
supplies in the past and the change was noticeable. So that could be used to determine
people’s attitude about water quality. Dailey said the SFPUC switches water supplies a couple of
times a year, and customers always notice. Assistant Director Ratchye clarified that the water is
still SFPUC water not groundwater. She is interested in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan.
Chair Cook said he agreed with Danaher and that Palo Alto needs to be prepared for more dire
cuts in water supply in the future. He said the public comment was compelling and that the
scale is mind boggling. We recognize that groundwater is a shared resource. He pondered a
temporary halt on dewatering may be in order while more studies are done. He said the way
we source and use our water is very important.