HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 10616
City of Palo Alto (ID # 10616)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/23/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Recycled Water Study Session
Title: Study Session Regarding Recycled Water Expansion Opportunities and
Potential Regional Treated Wastewater Transfer from Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) to Santa Clara Valley Water District
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
This is an informational report to facilitate Council Study Session discussion on water reuse
opportunities in Palo Alto and a potential regional transfer of treated wastewater effluent. No
action by Council will be taken.
Executive Summary
The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is a local source of drought-proof,
sustainable water, only a small fraction of which is currently being used for irrigation and toilet
flushing. Investments in pipeline expansions and additional treatment facilities would increase
the RWQCP’s ability to be a local water source to meet future non-potable and potable
demands, and decrease the City of Palo Alto’s (Palo Alto’s) dependence on imported Tuolumne
River water. The City of Palo Alto is subject to water supply reductions during droughts.
Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of
climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water and
groundwater are at risk during dry periods.
At its August 2018 meeting the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) discussed a business plan
for expansion of Palo Alto’s non-potable reuse irrigation network. In October and November
2018, the UAC and Council (Staff Report #9731), respectively, held individual study sessions on
high-level wastewater reuse expansion opportunities that included non-potable and potable
water reuse opportunities in Palo Alto and a potential treated effluent transfer to Santa Clara
Valley Water District (Valley Water). Since then, staff conducted a public meeting on April 30,
2019 to garner additional community feedback and continued to explore expan sion
opportunities through the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan), a
collaborative project between Palo Alto and Valley Water. Most recently, Palo Alto staff briefed
the UAC at the September 4, 2019 meeting where many clarifying questions were answered.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
On the following day, September 5, 2019, Valley Water staff briefed the Joint Recycled Water
Committee, comprised of Valley Water, Mountain View, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto
representatives, on the draft potential agreement terms. Elected officials of all four agencies
expressed optimism and general support of the draft terms of the potential agreement. . In
parallel, Palo Alto and Valley Water, together with the City of Mountain View, have continued
to negotiate the terms of a potential agreement related to a treated effluent transfer to Valley
Water, funding for a salt-removal facility in Palo Alto, and related matters. As of the date of this
report, negotiations are ongoing.
This report provides:
1. A description and draft terms of the potential treated effluent transfer agreement with
Valley Water and Mountain View (Attachment B). Under the potential agreement,
Valley Water would contribute up to $16 million toward a salt -removal facility to
improve the RQWCP’s recycled water quality. Additionally, Palo Alto, Mountain View,
and potentially other RWQCP partners (Partners) who agree would provide a long-term
flow of treated effluent to be used south of Mountain View, most likely for groundwater
recharge, a form of indirect potable reuse (Table 1); and
2. An overview of the results from the Strategic Plan including cost estimates for water
reuse “Concept Options” in Palo Alto. The Concept Options address local potable and
non-potable uses for the recycled water and could provide between 200- and 6,100-
acre feet of water per year at a cost ranging from $2,100 to $8,900 per acre foot (AF).1
The Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report (Attachment C) contains a summary and
ranking of the Concept Options based on cost and non-cost criteria.
Because a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water reduces Palo Alto’s ability to fully develop
some of the Concept Options for local reuse, it is appropriate to consider the treated water
effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water in that context.
Background
Council Policy
In November 2016 Council adopted the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
Framework (Staff Report #7304) including four water-specific goals, all of which have
implications for water reuse:
1. Utilize the right water supply for the right use;
2. Ensure sufficient water quantity and quality;
3. Protect the Bay, other surface waters, and groundwater; and
4. Lead in sustainable water management.
1 Large volumes of water are often measured in acre-feet (AF); one acre of water one foot deep. One acre-foot is
equal to 435.6 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of water or 325,828 gallons.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Two relevant strategies identified in the S/CAP are:
1. Verify ability to meet Palo Alto’s long-term water needs; and
2. Investigate all potential uses of recycled water.
Palo Alto’s Current Water Supply
Palo Alto receives 100% of its potable water (about 11,000 AF per year or approximately 10
million gallons per day (MGD)) from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water
System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). About 85%
of the supply on the RWS is from the Tuolumne Riv er with the other 15% sourced from local
reservoirs. On August 20, 2018, Council voted unanimously that Palo Alto “express its support
for the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Bay Delta Plan to have 30% to 50% of
unimpaired flow in the San Joaquin Valley enter the Delta from February to June and associated
Southern Delta salinity objectives” (Staff Report #9510). Adoption of the Bay Delta Plan would
reduce the amount of Tuolumne River water available to RWS customers, including Palo Alto,
during dry years. The decision to support the Bay Delta Plan reaffirmed Council’s commitment
to reduce the City’s dependence on imported water. Water reuse is one of a limited numbe r of
water supply alternatives to imported water.
Description of the RWQCP Water Resource
The RWQCP treats and discharges wastewater collected from the communities of Palo Alto,
Mountain View, Stanford University, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary
District. In 2018, the RWQCP treated 19,447 AF of which 96% was discharged to the Lower
South San Francisco Bay and 4% was treated further to produce high-quality recycled water for
non-potable reuse in Palo Alto and Mountain View. The RWQCP currently has the treatment
capacity to produce 5,040 AF per year (4.5 MGD) of non-potable reuse water, or 26% of the
total wastewater treated in 2018. However, this water needs to be treated to a higher quality
to attract more non-potable reuse customers; irrigators have expressed concern that the
salinity of current recycled water produced has negative impacts for sensitive plants such as
redwood trees.
As a regional plant, only a portion of the total wastewater treated is owned and available for
reuse by Palo Alto; this amount equals the volume of wastewater Palo Alto sent to the RWQCP
for treatment. In 2018, this was approximately 38% of the total flow or approximately 7,600 AF
(2,500 million gallons). More of this wastewater could be used as a loc al source of sustainable
water for Palo Alto but would require investment in additional treatment and transmission
infrastructure.
Treatment Options
One of Palo Alto’s water-specific goals as outlined in the S/CAP is to utilize the right water
supply for the right use. Recycled water can be used for various demands based on its level of
treatment. Non-potable reuse, such as that for irrigation or toilet flushing, requires more
treatment than wastewater that is treated for discharge to the Bay; similarly, potable reuse
requires significantly more treatment than non -potable reuse to ensure public safety when
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ingesting the water (Figure 1, Table 1, & Attachment A). The additional treatment needed to
make the water potable is expensive and unnecessary if the water was to be used to meet
irrigation, toilet flushing, or industrial process demands alone.
There are different types of potable reuse including indirect and direct potable reuse. Indirect
potable reuse involves purifying the water and introducing it to an environmental buffer, such
as a groundwater basin, before sending it to the drinking water distribution system. There are
several types of direct potable reuse including connecting purified recycled water to a potable
water distribution system, and adding purified water to raw water upstream of a water
treatment plant. Since Palo Alto does not have a water treatment plant, direct potable reuse in
Palo Alto refers to the former.
Recent droughts and advances in treatment technologies have driven regulatory development
and public support for potable reuse. For example, many water and municipal agencies in
southern California are pursuing potable reuse. The City of Los Angeles is pursuing a $2 billion
indirect potable reuse project over the next 16 years that would reduce the City’s imported
water by 35% and aid in meeting the recently announced goal to recycle all of Los Angeles’
wastewater by 2035.2 Similarly, the City of San Diego is pursuing direct potable reuse projects
under the Pure Water San Diego Program that could provide roughly a third of San Diego’s
water supply by 2035. While potable reuse is gaining momentum, the regulatory framework
currently only exists for indirect potable reuse. Regulations to permit one type of direct potable
reuse, adding purified recycled water upstream of a water treatment plant, are anticipated in
2023. There is no timeline for State regulations covering the direct connection of purified
recycled water to the potable water distribution system. For that reason, implementation of
direct potable reuse in California is not expected for at least 10 years.
2 https://www.lamayor.org/mayor -garcetti-los-angeles-will-recycle-100-city%E2%80%99s-wastewater-2035
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Figure 1: Treatment Requirements for Production of Different Types of Water Reuse
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 1: Summary of Palo Alto Water Reuse Opportunities
TYPE OF WATER
REUSE REGIONAL TRANSFER NON-POTABLE
REUSE
INDIRECT POTABLE
REUSE
DIRECT POTABLE
REUSE
BRIEF
DESCRIPTION
Transfer of treated
effluent from the
RWQCP to Valley Water
for additional treatment
and reuse.
Enhanced recycled
water used for
irrigation and
commercial uses.
Purified water
introduced into an
environmental
buffer, such as a
groundwater basin,
before being sent to
the drinking water
distribution system.
Purified water
introduced directly
into the drinking
water distribution
system.
OPPORTUNITIES
Delivery of treated
effluent to South
County in about 10
years
Increases use of
RWQCP recycled
water regionally while
limiting City-funded
infrastructure
No additional
enforcement &
administrative
oversight of Palo Alto
users
Reduced county-wide
reliance on imported
water, surface water,
and/or groundwater
Delivery of non-
potable reuse
water in 2-5
years
Clear regulatory
obligations
Slightly reduce
City reliance on
RWS & Tuolumne
River water
Unlimited uses
Utilizes the RWQCP
as a larger source
of water
Clear regulatory
obligations
No additional
enforcement &
administrative
oversight of users
More potential to
reduce City
reliance on RWS &
Tuolumne River
water
Unlimited uses
Utilizes the RWQCP
as a larger source of
water independent
of groundwater use
No additional
enforcement &
administrative
oversight of users
Significantly reduce
City reliance on RWS
& Tuolumne River
water
OBSTACLES
Significant amount of
water would no
longer be available for
City use for 76-year
contract term;
however, opportunity
to work with Valley
Water to develop
alternative source if
needed
Limited uses per
regulations
Requires
significant
pipeline
infrastructure
and additional
capital funds for
salt removal
Requires
significant
enforcement &
administrative
oversight of users
Delivery of potable
reuse water within
10-20 years
Requires significant
additional RWQCP
treatment
processes
Requires significant
pipeline
infrastructure
Requires the use of
groundwater with
different aesthetic
properties than
current sources
Delivery of potable
reuse water within
20-40 years
Requires significant
additional RWQCP
treatment processes
Requires significant
engineered storage
Regulations not yet
developed
Public acceptance
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Water Reuse Planning Overview
In December 2016, Council approved a contract with RMC Water and Environment (now
Woodard & Curran) for the development of the Strategic Plan in collaboration with Valley
Water (Staff Report #7024). City staff from the Public Works and Utilities Departments have
worked closely with the consulting team and Valley Water to evaluate the most effective water
reuse options within Palo Alto as well as within the RWQCP service area. All of the work under
the Strategic Plan evaluated how best to implement the water-related sustainability goals
adopted by Palo Alto in the December 2017 Sustainability Implementation Plan (Staff Report
#8487).
In parallel, Valley Water is developing a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan. One option
under consideration is a treated effluent transfer from the RWQCP to Valley Water for further
treatment and reuse in other parts of the County. Key terms of that potential contract (still
under negotiation) are outlined in this report.
Previous UAC and Council Feedback
No official action has been taken by the UAC or Council regarding strategic direction for water
reuse projects nor has any action been taken regarding a treated effluent transfer. Both the
UAC and Council have expressed an interest in direct potable reuse and concerns about losing
access to the effluent from the RWQCP for a long period of time. However, cost estimates for
the various water reuse options were not provided to the UAC and Council in previous study
sessions, and negotiations with Valley Water were preliminary. Palo Alto staff briefed the UAC
at the September 4, 2019 meeting where many clarifying questions were answered and two of
the seven commissioners expressed cautious support of the potential agreement. On the
following day, September 5, 2019, Valley Water staff briefed the Joint Recycled Water
Committee, comprised of representatives from Valley Water, Mountain View, Palo Alto and
East Palo Alto, on the draft term sheet. Council Members DuBois and Cormack are Palo Alto’s
representatives on the Joint Committee; elected officials of all four agencies expressed
optimism and general support of the draft terms of the potential agreement. In parallel, Palo
Alto and Valley Water, together with the City of Mountain View, have continued to negotiate
the terms of a potential agreement related to a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water,
funding for a salt-removal facility in Palo Alto, and related matters.
Public Feedback
Palo Alto hosted a community meeting on April 30, 2019 to solicit input on the preliminary
Strategic Plan results. Approximately 30 members of the public attended, and many attendees
asked questions and made comments. During the meeting Palo Alto staff requested feedback
on whether attendees were interested in expanded non-potable reuse and potable reuse
options. Community members expressed interest in reducing reliance on imported water and
enhancing water conservation and efficiency to save water for the environment. Community
members also expressed concern with the use of the Measure E site for a Valley Water regional
purification facility.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Discussion
Potential Treated Effluent Transfer Agreement: Tenets
The draft potential Recycled Water agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View consists
of two main parts described below.
1. Small Salt-Removal Plant at the RWQCP
The first part of the potential agreement concerns the funding of a relatively small salt -
removal plant at the RWQCP to upgrade the quality of the RWQCP’s current recycled
water, used principally for irrigation in Mountain View and Palo Alto. The treated water
would also enable Palo Alto to expand its non-potable distribution system and/or
provide a first step toward small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect
potable reuse in Palo Alto. Valley Water will fund approximately 80% of the cost of the
facility, up to a maximum of $16 million (all figures are in 2019 dollars, subject to
escalation). Mountain View and Palo Alto will share the remaining cost at a level of 75%
and 25% respectively. Assuming a total facility cost of $20 million, Palo Alto’s share will
be $1 million to be funded by the water and wastewater utilities. Because the project
would likely be financed with a low-interest state revolving fund loan, the rate impact is
expected to be minimal (for example, a 0.15% water rate increase if all funding came
from the water utility). In the current draft of the term sheet (but not yet agreed to by
all parties), Palo Alto would have up to 13 years to construct and commence operation
of the facility. If it is decided not to proceed with the Local Plant, the $16 million from
Valley Water could be used for other water re-use and related programs.
2. Transfer of Treated Effluent to Valley Water for Use South of Mountain View
The second part of the draft potential agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View
is a transfer of approximately half of the RWQCP’s treated effluent for reuse south of
Mountain View. Valley Water will likely purify the water and use it for groundwater
recharge (indirect potable reuse). Eventually, the purified water could be injected
directly into Valley Water’s treated water system (direct potable reuse).
There are several relevant milestones established in the draft term sheet. Including that
Valley Water has 13 years to enable the transfer of treated effluent. Once the effluent
transfer commences, Valley Water will compensate the RWQCP Partners $1 million per
year to be divided proportionally among the Partners based on the amount of effluent
committed by each Partner. Delivery of effluent to Valley Water will be for a term of 63
years, long enough to economically justify the large capital investment and meet Valley
Water’s long-term water supply planning objectives.
Palo Alto and Valley Water staff are assessing the feasibility of constructing a large
purification facility at or near the RWQCP. The two most likely sites are the former Los
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Altos Treatment Plant site (now owned by Palo Alto) and a portion of the Measure E
site. If Valley Water determines that Palo Alto is the best location for a regional purified
water facility, Palo Alto will support those efforts at the local, state, and federal levels ,
subject to environmental review and absent new extenuating circumstances.
The draft term sheet also includes a unique water supply option for Palo Alto and
Mountain View. Beginning one year after execution of the agreement, Palo Alto and/or
Mountain View may notify Valley Water that additional water is needed. Valley Water
will then have 4 years to respond with a proposal. The cost of the water to be paid by
the requesting city will include facility costs, commodity costs, any wheeling fees, and
the incremental costs incurred by Valley Water to develop the proposal. Palo Alto
and/or Mountain View will then have one year to accept or decline the offer. If
accepted, Valley Water will have 10 years to deliver the water. If declined, Palo Alto
and/or Mountain View will be able to make another request for water 5 years later. The
water supply may be purified water from a regional plant or water from some other
project.
Palo Alto is not limited to this alternative for new water supplies and is investigating
other water supply projects through the Bay Area W ater Supply and Conservation
Agency. Groundwater, managed by Valley Water, is currently available as an alternative
in the future. Additionally, while the reliability of imported water is in question given
climate change and state regulation changes, the SFPUC is required by law to secure
supplemental sources of water to augment existing supplies during dry years up to
SFPUC’s wholesale contract obligation of 184 million gallons per day. Lastly, some of the
Concept Options identified in the Strategic Plan could be implemented in parallel with a
treated effluent transfer to Valley Water.
Potential Treated Effluent Transfer Agreement: Environmental Benefits
Compared to both indirect and direct potable reuse in Palo Alto, expanded reuse in the county
via a treated effluent transfer agreement could yield environmental benefits in the relatively
near term by keeping a significant amount of RWQCP effluent out of the Bay (another Council -
adopted S/CAP goal: “Protect the Bay, other surface waters, and groundwater”) and by meeting
critical water supply demands in other parts of the county with a sustainable water supply
source, reducing the need for imported water. Valley Water is seeking to develop recycled and
purified water to provide for at least 10% of the total County water demands by 2025; to
achieve this, Valley Water needs to secure 24,000 AF per year of purified water, enough water
to serve 74,000 Santa Clara County households. Locally, Valley Water funding for the small salt-
removal plant will enable Mountain View to connect about 60 new commercial irrigation
customers to the existing non-potable distribution system. Salinity reduction will also enable
Palo Alto to expand its non-potable distribution system or could provide a first step toward
small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect potable reuse in Palo Alto, all of
which would displace imported Tuolumne River water.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Results
Any water transfer must consider the implications for potential fut ure water reuse projects in
Palo Alto and the Partner agency service territories. The results of the Strategic Plan indicate
that multiple water reuse opportunities are feasible for Palo Alto to meet both near and long
term water demands. Attachment C contains the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic
Plan including figures illustrating initial transmission pipeline alignments for the Concept
Options evaluated and cost estimates which are summarized in Table 2 ; cost estimates
represent the cost for individual Concept Options and do not account for any efficiency that
may result from combining Concept Options.
Near term opportunities, those that could be implemented within five years, include non -
potable reuse program expansion projects and satellite treatment for non-potable reuse
projects. In contrast, long term opportunities that could be implemented include indirect
potable reuse within 10-20 years and direct potable reuse implementation within 20-40 years.
It should be noted that the opportunities a re not all explicitly distinct from each other; it is
possible to pursue a combination of near and long term opportunities. For example, non -
potable reuse pipeline expansion Concept Options can be constructed in the near term while
subsequent phases of potable reuse Concept Options can be planned and designed for future
implementation.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Table 2: Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Concept Option Cost Estimatesa,b
Concept
Option
Number
Brief Description Project
Yield
(AFY)
Capital
Cost
($M)
Operations
&
Maintenanc
e Cost
($M/year)
Unit
Cost
($/AF)
Non-potable Reuse (NPR) Concept Options
A1 Phase 3 Pipeline serving south Palo
Alto
800 $47.8 $0.3 $3,400
A2 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to
Foothills & Los Altos Hills
1,100 $63.0 $0.5 $3,400
A3 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to
Foothillls & Los Altos
1,200 $85.1 $0.7 $4,000
A4 Mountain View Long Term
Expansion Pipeline
200 $6.2 $0.1 $2,100
A5 Mountain View Long Term
Expansion Pipeline Extended to Los
Altos
900 $72.6 $0.4 $4,600
A6 East Palo Alto Pipeline 500 $20.7 $0.2 $2,400
Satellite Non-potable Reuse Concept Option
B1 Serving south Palo Alto & Los Altos 900 $129.6 $1.4 $8,900
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Concept Optionsc
C1 IPR serving Palo Alto 5,900 $92.2 $14.8d $3,300
C2 IPR & NPR serving Palo Alto 6,100 $152.1 $16.9d $4,000
C3 IPR & NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
serving Palo Alto
5,900 $198.4 $15.8d $4,400
- Palo Alto Groundwater Usage
without IPR
2,500 $37.7 $5.5d $3,000
Direct Potable Reuse Concept Option
D1 DPR serving Palo Alto 5,300 $104.6 $8.0 $2,500
aFor comparison, SFPUC (imported water) is currently $1,948/AF and is projected to be
$3,000/AF in 2030.
bCost estimates are AACE Class 5 for a project definition of 0 – 2% and have an expected
accuracy of -20 to 50%. Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years.
cProject yield for IPR Concept Options represents half purified water, half groundwater.
dOperations and maintenance cost estimates include the Valley Water Groundwater
Production Charge.
Non-potable Reuse (NPR) Concept Options
Strategic Plan non-potable reuse Concept Options evaluated extensions of the current recycled
water transmission system to various locations for toilet flushing, irrigation, and industrial
process water demands within the RWQCP service area, including south Palo Alto, Los Altos,
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and East Palo Alto. Concept Options specifically for Palo Alto
evaluated:
The Phase 3 Pipeline that would provide approximately 800 AFY of recycled water to
south Palo Alto (Concept Option A1), and
The Phase 3 Pipeline expanded to provide approximately 1,100 AFY of recycled water to
south Palo Alto and additional users in the Palo Alto foothills (Concept Options A2 and
A3). Expansions to users in the Palo Alto foothills included pipeline extensions to users
in Los Altos Hills (Concept Option A2) and Los Altos (Concept Option A3).
Capital cost estimates for the non-potable reuse Concept Options serving Palo Alto users
ranged from $47.8 - 85.1 million or $3,400 - 4,000/AF accounting for operations & maintenance
(O&M).
Satellite Non-potable Reuse Concept Option
The Strategic Plan evaluated a satellite treatment Concept Option (Concept Option B1)
consisting of a new wastewater treatment facility located in south Palo Alto that would collect
and treat wastewater from the surrounding community to provide approximately 900 AFY of
recycled water for non-potable reuse in adjacent facilities throughout south Palo Alto and Los
Altos. The capital cost estimate of $129.6 million, or $8,900/AF with O&M, suggests t hat
satellite treatment is cost prohibitive, and it is not recommended for further consideration.
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Concept Options
The Strategic Plan evaluated three indirect potable reuse Concept Options that all consist of
injecting purified wastewater into the aquifer below Palo Alto, extraction of that purified water
mixed with groundwater, and blending with the Palo Alto potable water supply. All three
Concept Options would require a purification facility at the RWQCP, transmission pipel ine,
injection wells, and the routine use of groundwater. The IPR Concept Options differ in their
pipeline alignments, amount of purified water injected, and whether or not the pipeline offers
non-potable reuse connections.
Concept Option C1 provides 5,900 AF of water for indirect potable reuse, half of which
consists of groundwater and half purified water.
Concept Options C2 and C3 combine indirect potable reuse with meeting non -potable
reuse demands.
The combined Concept Options would utilize the same transmission pipelines for both reuse
demands and therefore provide higher quality recycled water than that needed just for non -
potable reuse. Concept Option C2 evaluated an extension of the Phase 3 Pipeline that could
feed the injection wells for indirect potable reuse, while Concept Option C3 meets non-potable
demands near the best alignment to feed the injection wells. Concept Option C2 indicates that
it is feasible to build the Phase 3 Pipeline to meet both near and long term water supply needs.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Capital cost estimates for indirect potable reuse within Palo Alto ranged from $92.2 – 198.4
million or $3,300 – 4,400/AF including O&M. Cost estimates include wellhead treatment of
extracted water for iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids such that the q uality is
comparable to current SFPUC water supplies. For comparison, the Strategic Plan estimates that
it would require $37.7 million to install wellhead treatment at the existing emergency
groundwater wells to provide 2,500 AFY (or $3,000/AF including O&M and the Valley Water
groundwater pumping charge) of groundwater (not purified wastewater) for routine usage in
Palo Alto’s water supply. Preliminary studies show the City’s El Camino well is capable of
producing 3,000 AFY.
Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) Concept Option
Lastly, the Strategic Plan evaluated one Concept Option (D1) for direct potable reuse within
Palo Alto. Concept Option D1 consists of a purification treatment plant, engineering storage, a
short transmission pipeline, and injection of purified water directly into the Palo Alto potable
water supply. The capital cost estimate for direct potable reuse within Palo Alto is $104.6
million to provide 5,300 AFY, or $2,500/AF including O&M.
Results from the Strategic Plan indicate that Palo Alto could reduce future reliance on imported
water by more than 50% by investing in potable reuse or a combination of potable and non -
potable reuse (Figure 2). As mentioned previously, it is possible for Palo Alto to combine
multiple Concept Options into a water reuse portfolio that would implement both non-potable
(near term) and potable (long term) reuse opportunities. More important to note for this
discussion is that both indirect and direct potable reuse opportunities within Palo Alto would
require the full Palo Alto wastewater allocation and would be incompatible with a regional
transfer. The exception to this would be a small-scale direct or indirect potable facility where
the costs per unit may vary from what is described here due to economies of scale. As sh own in
Figure 2, a regional effluent transfer would not reduce Palo Alto’s dependence on imported
water. Regionally, however, dependence on imported water would be curtailed.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Figure 2: Potential Impacts to Amount of Palo Alto Imported Water Needed Under Different Water Reuse
Opportunities Evaluated Under the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (sources: Palo Alto
2015 Urban Water Management Plan & Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan).
Concept Option Viability with Treated Effluent Transfer
While a long-term treated effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water would reduce the
capability for some Concept Options to be fully implemented, other Concept Options could be
implemented in parallel with a transfer. The table below indicates which projects are and are
not mutually exclusive with an effluent transfer. Generally, a transfer would not preclude non -
potable reuse expansion projects. Indirect potable reuse requires expensive pipeline
construction and, therefore, a significant amount of water for economies of scale, so those
Concept Options would be excluded for the proposed 76 year term of the transfer. Direct
potable reuse, on the other hand, could be developed on a pilot scale. Table 3 shows the
Concept Options and their viability given a treated effluent transfer agreement.
Table 3: Summary of Concept Option Viability with Effluent Transfer
Concept
Option
Number
Brief Description Project
Yield
(AFY)
Unit
Cost
($/AF)
Implement in
Addition to
Treated Effluent
Transfer
A1 Phase 3 Pipeline serving south Palo
Alto
800 $3,400 Yes
A2 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to
Foothills & Los Altos Hills
1,100 $3,400 Yes
City of Palo Alto Page 15
A3 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to
Foothillls & Los Altos
1,200 $4,000 Yes
A4 Mountain View Long Term
Expansion Pipeline
200 $2,100 Yes
A5 Mountain View Long Term
Expansion Pipeline Extended to Los
Altos
900 $4,600 Yes
A6 East Palo Alto Pipeline 500 $2,400 Yes
B1 Serving south Palo Alto & Los Altos 900 $8,900 Yes
C1 IPR serving Palo Alto 5,900 $3,300 No
C2 IPR & NPR serving Palo Alto 6,100 $4,000 No
C3 IPR & NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
serving Palo Alto
5,900 $4,400 No
- Palo Alto Groundwater Usage
without IPR
2,500 $3,000 Yes
D1 DPR serving Palo Alto 5,300 $2,500 Small scale project
possible but cost
estimates may vary
Next Steps
Depending on the direction received, staff will return to the UAC and Council with a
recommendation regarding further development of a subset of water reuse Concept Options
which will then be included in the City’s overall water supply portfolio plan. If the UAC and
Council are supportive of the proposed terms and conditions in the draft term sheet for the
effluent transfer agreement, Council approval of the agreement will be sought by the end of
2019.
Policy Implications
While there is no recommendation at this time, expanding the use of recycled water would be
consistent with the Sustainability Climate Action Plan Framework (Staff Report #7304), the
Sustainability Implementation Plan (Staff Report #8487), and the Council’s decision to support
the Bay Delta Plan.
Environmental Review
Review of the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan and draft term sheet for a
potential effluent transfer agreement are not subject to review under the California
Environmental Quality Act because the review does not meet the definition of a project under
Public Resources Code 21065.
Attachments:
Attachment A_ReW Reference Sheet
Attachment B1 Draft Summary of Key Terms
Attachment C_Vol1_RW Strategic Plan Interim Rpt_Body
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Attachment C_Vol2_RW Strategic Plan Rpt_Vol2_Appendices
Attachment B2 - Draft Agreement Terms_9SEP19
RECYCLED WATER REFERENCE SHEET (last updated 9/7/2016)
WATER REUSE OPTIONS
NONPOTABLE REUSE is the beneficial reuse of recycled water for irrigation,
industrial uses, or other non‐drinking water purposes.
POTABLE REUSE is the use of recycled water for potable uses, such as
drinking. This recycled water is purified to meet or exceed federal and state
drinking water standards.
INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE (IPR) refers to the use of recycled water
that has been further treated and introduced into an environmental buffer such
as a surface water reservoir (through augmentation), or groundwater basin
(through recharge), before being used for potable purposes. IPR regulations are
specified in Title 22, Chapter 3, Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR).
DIRECT POTABLE REUSE (DPR) refers to the use of purified recycled
water distributed directly into the raw water supply upstream of a drinking
water treatment plant. In California, DPR regulations have not been adopted or
specified in the CCR.
STATE REGULATIONS
TITLE 22 STANDARDS are requirements established by the State Water
Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water for the production,
distribution, and use of drinking water and recycled water. Recycled water
standards are covered under Chapter 3, Division 4 of the California Code of
Regulations, which outlines the different levels of treatment required for
allowable uses of recycled water.
GENERAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
STANDARD UNITS
MGD – Million Gallons per Day
PPM – Parts Per Million
mg/L – Milligrams per Liter
ALLOWABLE USES
Irrigation of:
o Parks, playgrounds, schools
o Residential & commercial landscapes
o Cemeteries
o Golf courses
o Food crops, orchard, vineyard, pastures
o Ornamental nursery & sod farm
Impoundments & fish hatcheries
Flushing toilets & urinals
Decorative fountains
Commercial laundries
Street cleaning, dust control, soil compaction
Boiler feed and cooling towers
Flushing sanitary sewers
Other uses approved under Title 22 Standards
All uses listed under Recycled Water
Irrigation of salt‐sensitive species (e.g. Redwoods Trees)
Sensitive industrial uses
SALINITY
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) is a measurement of salinity:
the amount of salts, ions, and dissolved minerals per volume of
water. The RWQCP aims to produce recycled water with a TDS of
600 mg/L and is moving towards developing advanced treatment in
collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City
of Mountain View to produce enhanced water with a TDS of
approximately 450 mg/L for use on salt‐sensitive species.
All uses listed under Enhanced Water
Indirect potable reuse
Direct potable Reuse
Purified Water
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
DUAL MEDIA FILTRATION (DMF) refers to the removal of particles in
the water using two different types of filter media, usually sand and finely
granulated anthracite (a type of coal). DMF can remove turbidity and
suspended solids as small as 10‐20 microns under high filtration rate
conditions.
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (GAC) is a form of carbon that is
processed to be porous, with large surface area for adsorption and used to
remove dissolved contaminants. GAC can remove halogenated compounds
containing chlorine and fluorine, organic contaminants, odor, and taste.
MICROFILTRATION (MF) is an advanced treatment process that
removes contaminants from water using semi‐permeable membranes. MF
membranes can remove contaminants as small as 0.08 microns such as
bacteria. Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes have smaller pore sizes and can
remove contaminants as small as 0.005 microns such as viruses and
proteins.
REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) is an advanced treatment process that
removes dissolved salts and trace contaminants from water. High pressure
forces the water through a semi‐permeable membrane, while filtering most
contaminants. RO membranes have much smaller pore sizes than
microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes and can remove contaminants
as small as 0.0001 microns.
RO PERMEATE is the treated water that passes through the RO
membrane.
RO CONCENTRATE is the by‐product from the RO process. It contains
a high concentration of salts and other contaminants from the source
water.
ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS (AOP) is a chemically reactive
process that breaks down trace organic contaminants as well as pathogens
in the water by oxidation. AOPs typically use hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and
ultraviolet (UV) light.
SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT (SAT) is the natural process that occurs
when water travels through the ground and is purified by the physical and
biological processes that naturally occur in the soil.
WATER TYPES AND QUALITY
EFFLUENT is the treated water leaving the wastewater treatment plant to be
discharged to the San Francisco Bay. At the RWQCP, only some of the effluent is
treated further to produce recycled water.
RECYCLED or RECLAIMED WATER is wastewater that has undergone
secondary or tertiary treatment to allow for beneficial reuse. Recycled water
produced at the RWQCP is treated to tertiary standards including disinfection.
SECONDARY TREATMENT is a process where dissolved and suspended
biological matter (including suspended solids) is removed so that the water may
be disinfected and discharged into a stream or river, or used for irrigation at
controlled locations.
TERTIARY TREATMENT is an additional treatment process beyond
secondary treatment, where water is further filtered and disinfected. It can also
include treatment processes to remove nitrogen and phosphorus in order to
allow discharge into a sensitive ecosystem.
ENHANCED RECYCLED WATER is recycled water blended with advanced
treated water to support additional uses and reduce total dissolved solids (TDS).
ADVANCED TREATED WATER is water that has undergone additional
treatment beyond tertiary treatment to reduce salts, nutrients, trace organics
and constituents of emerging concern (CECs). Common treatments include
microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation.
PURIFIED WATER is recycled water that has undergone further treatment
processes and has been verified through monitoring to be safe for augmenting
drinking water supplies. Some of these processes include microfiltration, reverse
osmosis, and if needed advanced oxidation.
SURFACE WATER is water stored in a reservoir typically conveyed from
another surface water source via pipelines or aqueducts.
RAW WATER is surface or groundwater that has not gone through an
approved water treatment process.
GRAYWATER is water segregated from a domestic wastewater collection
system and reused on site for nonpotable uses, it can come from showers,
bathtubs, washing machines, and bathroom sinks, but not toilets or kitchen
sinks.
BLACKWATER is untreated wastewater from kitchen sinks, toilets, and
other polluting activities. Recycled Water Enhanced Recycled Water
*Pending DDW Regulations
Note: Palo Alto does not currently have a drinking water treatment plant.
Current Recycled
Water Program
Upgraded
Recycled Water
Program
Blend
Tank
Drinking Water
Distribution
Wastewater
Treatment
CURRENT
Enhanced
Recycled
Water
Recycled Water
Filtration
Tertiary Treatment
Chlorine Disinfection
Effluent
Advanced
Treated Water
Purified
Water
FUTURE Microfiltration (MF)
Advanced Oxidation
Process (AOP)
Reverse Osmosis (RO) Full
Advanced
Treatment
Source
Water
Drinking Water
Treatment Plant
Direct Potable Reuse*
Extraction
Wells
Groundwater
Recharge
Soil Aquifer
Treatment
Indirect Potable Reuse
GLOSSARY
ATTACHMENT C
Palo Alto Recycled Water
Delivery and Expansion
8/2/2019
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PALO ALTO, MOUNTAIN VIEW, AND VALLEY WATER
TO ADVANCE RESILIENT WATER REUSE PROGRAMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DRAFT Summary of key terms
Parties •City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto), City of Mountain View (Mountain View), and
Valley Water
Minimum Flow
Delivery
•Valley Water will receive a minimum annual average of 9 MGD of Effluent
•Palo Alto and Mountain View may provide additional Effluent when it’s
available.
Term •Up to 76 years
Local Plant •Owned and operated by Palo Alto to produce high quality non-potable
recycled water
•To be located within the current RWQCP site
•Total project capital cost estimated to be $20M
•Valley Water to contribute a capital amount of $16M*
Regional Program: a
regional plant or
other Valley Water
project
•Likely a purified water facility for potable reuse managed by Valley Water
•Location: To be determined
•Valley Water to pay $200k/year* up to 13 years or until Startup,
whichever is earlier
•Valley Water to pay $1M/year* initiating at Regional Program Startup for
the Effluent**
Water Supply Option
for PA and/or MV
•Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may notify Valley Water of their need of
potable and/or non-potable water
•Palo Alto may request up to 3.0 MGD and Mountain View may request up
to 1.3 MGD for use only within their jurisdictions
•Valley Water to provide a water supply option for acceptance by Palo Alto
and/or Mountain View
•Water supply to be available as early as 16 years after execution of this
Agreement
•Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will reimburse Valley Water for
requested water at cost, based on any facility, commodity, and wheeling
fees
•Water will be delivered within the Term of this Agreement
RWQCP •If Palo Alto intends to sell the RWQCP, Valley Water has first right to
purchase it at fair market value
•This Agreement shall survive any sale of RWQCP to a third-party
Notes:
*Amounts to be escalated annually per the Agreement.
**Prorated based on actual deliveries
Page 1 of 1
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report
Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic
Plan
Interim Final Report*
Prepared by:
July 2019
*This report has yet to be accepted by Palo Alto City Council.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents
FINAL
July 2019 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i
Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background and Purpose of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan ............................1-1
1.2 Organization of this Report ....................................................................................1-4
1.3 Study Area.............................................................................................................1-4
Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment ...............................................................2-1
2.1 Recycled Water Uses ............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Non-Potable Uses .................................................................................................2-3
2.3 Indirect Potable Uses ............................................................................................2-7
2.4 Direct Potable Uses ...............................................................................................2-8
2.5 Other Potential Uses Outside of Study Area ..........................................................2-9
Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options .........................................................................3-1
3.1 Summary of Approach ...........................................................................................3-1
3.2 Concept Option Development Process ..................................................................3-1
3.3 Concept Options A: NPR from RWQCP ................................................................3-5
3.4 Concept Option B: NPR from Satellite Location ................................................... 3-21
3.5 Concept Option C: IPR Concept Options ............................................................. 3-24
3.6 Concept Option D: DPR Concept Options ........................................................... 3-33
Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation ......................................................4-1
4.1 Approach for Concept Options Evaluation .............................................................4-1
4.2 Basis of Preliminary Cost Estimate ........................................................................4-1
4.3 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost Summary .....................................................4-6
4.4 Concept Option Evaluation Non-Cost Criteria ........................................................4-7
4.5 Concept Option Scoring ....................................................................................... 4-18
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps ..............................................................................5-1
5.1 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Next Steps .............................................................................................................5-4
References .............................................................................................................................5-6
Appendices
Appendix A - Non-Potable Demand Assessment Methodology ................................... A
Appendix B - Recycled Water Customers and Demand Estimates [Confidential – Not
Included] B
Appendix C - Potential Uses Considered but Not Included .......................................... C
Appendix D - Opinions of Probable Costs ..................................................................... D
Appendix E - Concept Option Variations [Confidential – Not Included] ...................... E
Appendix F - Cost Per Unit of Water Analyses for Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima
Hills Water District and East Palo Alto [Confidential – Not Included] .................................. F
Appendix G - Funding Matrix .......................................................................................... G
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents
FINAL
July 2019 ii
Figures
Figure ES-0-1: Potential recycled water uses for both potable and non-potable reuse
applications ......................................................................................................................... ii
Figure 1-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................ 1-1
Figure 1-2: RWQCP Existing Water Reuse System ................................................................ 1-2
Figure 1-3: Proposed Phase 3 Recycled Water Project ........................................................... 1-3
Figure 1-4: Water Retailers (names indicated in black text)..................................................... 1-6
Figure 2-1: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types ............................................. 2-1
Figure 2-2: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types included in this Recycled Water
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2-3: Potential Non-Potable Users in Study Area ........................................................... 2-6
Figure 3-1: Summary of Overall Approach to Strategic Plan Concept Option Development and
Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2: Alignment for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 ................................... 3-7
Figure 3-3: Alignment for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills .. 3-9
Figure 3-4: Alignment for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and
Los Altos ....................................................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3-5: Alignment for Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View ...................................... 3-15
Figure 3-6: Alignment for Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos ... 3-18
Figure 3-7: Alignment for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park .............. 3-20
Figure 3-8: Alignment for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant ....................... 3-23
Figure 3-9: Alignment for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR ................................ 3-26
Figure 3-10: Alignment for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR ............................... 3-29
Figure 3-11: Alignment for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 3-
32
Figure 3-12: Alignment for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ............................ 3-35
Tables
Table ES-0-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse ...................................... ii
Table ES-0-2: Summary of Concept Options including Yield, Engineer’s Opinion of Probable
Capital and O&M Costs ...................................................................................................... iv
Table ES-0-3: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost .................................................................... v
Table ES-0-4: Ranking of Concept Options by Non-Cost Criteria ................................................ v
Table ES-0-5: Ranking Considering Cost and Non-Cost Evaluation Criteria .............................. vi
Table 1-1: Summary of Water Supply Sources and Needs...................................................... 1-8
Table 2-1: Summary of Recycled Water Interests ................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2: Demand Peaking Factors ....................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-3: Non-Potable Demand Summary ............................................................................. 2-5
Table 2-4: IPR Demand and Groundwater Project Yield Summary ......................................... 2-8
Table 2-5: DPR Demand Estimate Summary .......................................................................... 2-9
Table 3-1: Hydraulic Criteria .................................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-2: Maximum AWTS Sizes Without Requiring Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Treatment
........................................................................................................................................ 3-5
Table 3-3: Demand and Facility Summary for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 .... 3-6
Table 3-4: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills ....................................................................................................... 3-8
Table 3-5: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills and Los Altos .............................................................................. 3-11
Table 3-6: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A4, Mountain View ............. 3-14
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents
FINAL
July 2019 iii
Table 3-7: Demand and Facilities Summary of Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View
Extended to Los Altos ................................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3-8: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and
Menlo Park .................................................................................................................... 3-19
Table 3-9: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment
Plant .............................................................................................................................. 3-22
Table 3-10: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3-
24
Table 3-11: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR . 3-
28
Table 3-12: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR
from Phase 3 Pipeline ................................................................................................... 3-31
Table 3-13: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
...................................................................................................................................... 3-34
Table 4-1: Unit Cost of HDPE Pipe ......................................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-2: Special Crossing Unit Costs ................................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-3: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs .................... 4-7
Table 4-4: Concept Option Scores for Water Supply Resiliency .............................................. 4-8
Table 4-5: Concept Option Scores for Public Acceptance ....................................................... 4-9
Table 4-6: Concept Option Scores for Adaptability ................................................................ 4-10
Table 4-7: Concept Option Scores for Level of Agency Coordination .................................... 4-11
Table 4-8: Concept Option Scores for Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination .................. 4-12
Table 4-9: Concept Option Scores for Regulatory Complexity ............................................... 4-13
Table 4-10: Concept Option Scores for Institutional Complexity ............................................ 4-14
Table 4-11: Concept Option Scores for Regional Perspective ............................................... 4-16
Table 4-12: Concept Option Scores for Social and Economic Benefit ................................... 4-17
Table 4-13: Concept Option Scores for Environmental Benefit .............................................. 4-18
Table 4-14: Non-Cost Criteria Weighting ............................................................................... 4-19
Table 4-15: Non-Cost Ranking .............................................................................................. 4-19
Table 4-16: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost .................................................................. 4-20
Table 4-17: Combined Weighting Including both Cost and Non-Cost Criteria ........................ 4-21
Table 4-18: Combined Ranking Considering Cost at 30% of the Score ................................. 4-21
Table 5-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse ........................................ 5-1
Table 5-2: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs .................... 5-1
Table 5-3: Recommended Next Steps for Type of Opportunity ............................................... 5-5
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents
FINAL
July 2019 iv
Abbreviations
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
AF Acre feet
AFY Acre feet per year
AOP Advanced oxidation process
AWPF Advanced water purification facility [for potable reuse]
AWTS Advanced water treatment system [for enhanced recycled water]
CCI Construction cost index
CIP Cast iron pipe
CIPP Cured in place pipe
DDW Division of Drinking Water
DIP Ductile iron pipe
DPR Direct potable reuse
ENR Engineering News Record
EPASD East Palo Alto Sanitary District
ESDC Engineering services during construction
FAT Full advanced treatment
gpm Gallons per minute
HDD Horizonal directional drill
HGL Hydraulic grade line
HP Horsepower
ID Internal diameter
IPR Indirect potable reuse
LF Linear feet
MF Membrane filtration
MGD Million gallons per day
MV Mountain View
NPR Non-potable reuse
OD Outside diameter
O&M Operations and maintenance
PHWD Purissima Hills Water District
psi Pressure per square inch
PTGAB Pilot tube guided auger boring
RO Reverse osmosis
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents
FINAL
July 2019 v
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant
RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total dissolved solids
UV Ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WBSD West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary
FINAL
July 2019 i
Executive Summary
The Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was undertaken by the City of Palo
Alto, in collaboration with Valley Water, to assess drought-proof recycled water expansion opportunities
throughout the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) service area (i.e., Palo Alto,
Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District)
including additional portions of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not serviced by the East Palo Alto
Sanitary District.
To aid in future decisions regarding RWQCP recycled water expansion and commitments, Palo Alto, as
the owner and operator of the RWQCP, saw a need to assess other RWQCP Partner Agencies’ interests in
recycled water. The RWQCP is interested in expanding the recycled water program to help move itself
towards becoming a resource recovery facility by providing a drought-proof, sustainable, local water
supply, and for recycled water’s potential to help meet future regulatory actions pertaining to discharge
limitations. Palo Alto, similar to many of the other RWQCP Partner Agencies’, is subject to water supply
reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the
future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water
and groundwater are at risk during dry periods. In order to understand how to best expand the RWQCP
recycled water program, a comprehensive and holistic evaluation was needed to reassess the service area
needs and acceptance given changes in water supplies and governing regulations.
The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to evaluate potential additional uses of recycled water Study Area
through the year 2030, to identify recycled water concepts that look beyond individual agency boundaries,
and to evaluate previously recommended recycled water projects with new options developed through this
Strategic Plan.
Types of Water Reuse Considered
The Strategic Plan builds off of the work from the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) to
incorporate options for new and different kinds of reuse. Recycled water can be used for various demands
based on its level of treatment. Non-potable reuse, such as that for irrigation or toilet flushing, requires
more treatment than wastewater that is treated for discharge to the Bay. Similarly, potable reuse requires
significantly more treatment than non-potable reuse to ensure public safety when ingesting the water.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary
FINAL
July 2019 ii
Figure ES-0-1: Potential recycled water uses for both potable and non-potable reuse applications
Note: City of Palo Alto does not have an existing Drinking Water Treatment Plant
The potential reuse demand for the various types of water reuse considered in the Strategic Plan is
summarized in Table ES 0-1.
Table ES-0-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse
Type of Reuse Annual Average Demand Comments
Non-Potable Reuse 4,456 AFY Throughout RWQCP service area, not one
specific concept
Indirect Potable
Reuse 2,800 / 5,900 AFY For City of Palo Alto only
Direct Potable Reuse 5,300 AFY For City of Palo Alto only
Note: IPR annual average demand reflects volume recharged to the groundwater basin and volume extracted from
the groundwater basin
Results of Concept Options Development and Analysis
Through collaborative development with the RWQCP Partner Agencies, water retailers, and neighboring
agencies, 11 concept options (i.e., recycled water expansion opportunities) were developed for detailed
analysis in the Strategic Plan. In summary, the concept options could provide between 200 and 6,100
AFY of water supplies at an annual unit cost ranging from $2,100 per AF to $8,900 per AF (see Table ES
0-2). For comparison with other non-water reuse water supplies, potable water from SFPUC is projected
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary
FINAL
July 2019 iii
to cost $3,000 per AF in 2030, and groundwater, including wellhead treatment and the Valley Water
groundwater pumping charge, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF. 1
To provide a basis for comparison, cost estimates reflect the incremental cost of pursuing each concept
option. For the NPR options, the cost estimates include distribution to the end-user. Consistent with the
incremental cost methodology, this report does not estimate the total cost of providing the IPR or DPR
water to end-users as Palo Alto’s existing potable water distribution system costs are not included in the
estimates.
The concept options were selected based on cost effectiveness and applicability to solving regional water
supply issues. The concept options are divided into four categories:
“A” series for centralized non-potable reuse (NPR) concept options
“B” concept option for NPR from satellite treatment
“C” series for indirect potable reuse (IPR) concept options
“D” concept option for direct potable reuse (DPR)
The concept options were evaluated for capital and operational costs and scored on a variety of non-cost
criteria including water supply resiliency, public acceptance, adaptability, regulatory complexity, and
regional perspective. Concept option ranking by cost is included in Table ES 0-3. Concept option ranking
by non-cost criteria is included in Table ES 0-4. The summary of weighted ranking of concept options
including both cost and non-cost criteria is included in Table ES 0-5.
NPR concept options evaluated multiple pipeline extensions throughout the Study Area. Concept Option
A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ranks highly because it delivers among the largest
volumes of the NPR concept options and strikes a balance between offering regional benefits while
requiring few agencies to implement and operate.
NPR is challenging for Los Altos and Los Altos Hills because their customers are located furthest from
the RWQCP and existing recycled water infrastructure and coordination with the Partner Agencies
upstream would be needed. Between the two options to serve Los Altos – Concept Option A3, NPR
Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A1) and
Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option
A4) – Concept Option A3 is preferred due to preliminary costs. Between the two options to serve Los
Altos Hills - Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Concept Option
A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos – Concept Option A2 is ranked
higher.
Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View, was previously recommended in the 2014 Mountain View
Recycled Water Feasibility Study, due to its low cost and average non-cost score, was determined to be a
reasonable investment compared to the other concept options explored in the Strategic Plan. Currently
(July 2019), Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 Recycled Water Feasibility Study
focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101; this update
may alter the facility needs and costs for Concept Option A4.
Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto, is low cost, and the average non-cost score make it a
reasonable investment compared to other concept options.
The IPR concept options are attractive due to the large amount of water supplied combined with greater
ability to repurpose the infrastructure and only one agency required to implement and operate.
1 These are the estimated costs to the City of Palo Alto of purchasing SFPUC water or pumping groundwater and
these cost estimates do not include distribution system costs.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary
FINAL
July 2019 iv
Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR delivers the greatest volume of recycled water out of all
the concept options, requires only one agency to implement and operate, and does not require
infrastructure changes by customers. The notable drawback of Concept Option D1 is the implementation
process. Given the lack of established regulations, pursuing a DPR project at this time would require more
effort by Palo Alto to establish a process that regulatory agencies will permit. Even when DPR
regulations are established, the hurdles that agencies must clear to permit DPR projects will likely be
more challenging compared to other recycled water projects. Another challenge will be hiring/training
staff to operate the new treatment facilities.
The presumed benefit of Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was the ability to create a
compact recycled water distribution system closer to the customer locations rather than requiring an
extensive pipe network extending from the RWQCP. However, in this setting, the preferred location for
diverting flows from the sewer system does not correspond to the areas of potential recycled water nor is
there land available in the immediate vicinity of the diversion point to site a satellite treatment facility that
is cost effective.
Table ES-0-2: Summary of Concept Options including Yield, Engineer’s Opinion of Probable
Capital and O&M Costs
Concept Option Yield (AFY) Capital
Cost
O&M
($/Y)
Unit
Cost
($/AF)
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 800 $47.8M $0.29M $3,400
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 1,100 $63.0M $0.52M $3,400
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
and Los Altos
1,200 $85.1M $0.68M $4,000
A4: NPR Mountain View 200 $6.2M $0.1M $2,100
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 900 $72.6M $0.4M $4,600
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 500 $20.7M $0.15M $2,400
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 900 $129.6M $1.37M $8,900
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5,900 $92.2M $14.83M $3,300
C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 6,100 $152.1M $16.92M $4,000
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 5,900 $198.4M $15.78M $4,400
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5,300 $104.6M $8.01M $2,500
Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI San Francisco index for June 2018 of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class
5 estimate (-20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary
FINAL
July 2019 v
Table ES-0-3: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost
Rank Score Concept Option
1 5
(<$3,500/AF)
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
A4: NPR Mountain View
A6: NPR East Palo Alto
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
2
3
(>$4,000/AF and
<$4,500/AF)
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
3
2
(>$4,500/AF and
<$5,000/AF)
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
4 1
(>$5,000/AF)
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
Table ES-0-4: Ranking of Concept Options by Non-Cost Criteria
Rank
Score
(Maximum =
500)
Concept Option
1 291 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
2 290 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
3
289 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR
289 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
4 286 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
5
285 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
285 A4: NPR Mountain View
285 A6: NPR East Palo Alto
6 282 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
7 271 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
8 269 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary
FINAL
July 2019 vi
Table ES-0-5: Ranking Considering Cost and Non-Cost Evaluation Criteria
Rank Concept Option
1
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
2
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
A4: NPR Mountain View
A6: NPR East Palo Alto
3 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
4 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR
5 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
6 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
7 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
8 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
Next Steps
Results of the Strategic Plan indicate that there are multiple water reuse expansion opportunities within
the Study Area that agencies could pursue, including NPR, IPR, and DPR. Next steps would include
undertaking a variety of activities including:
Facilities planning
Funding and financing
Inter-agency agreements
Environmental documentation
Reuse permitting
Customer and public outreach
Note that one of the options being considered by Valley Water’s Countywide Plan, currently under
development, is export of water from the RWQCP for potable reuse further south in Santa Clara County,
where Valley Water operates recharge ponds. Depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some
of the Concept Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled
water; further evaluation for joint implementation may be required as a next step.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Purpose of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan
The Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was undertaken by the City of Palo
Alto (Palo Alto), in collaboration with Valley Water (formerly the Santa Clara Valley Water District), to
assess recycled water expansion opportunities throughout the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant (RWQCP) service area (i.e., Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford
University, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District) including additional portions of East Palo Alto and
Menlo Park not serviced by the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View,
Los Altos, the town of Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD), and Stanford
University are known as the RWQCP Partner Agencies. Figure 1-1 shows the boundaries of the RWQCP
service area as well as each of the RWQCP Partner Agencies.
Figure 1-1: Study Area
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-2
The last comprehensive recycled water planning study for the RWQCP service area was the 1992
Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP). Since the completion of the RWMP, Palo Alto and Mountain
View implemented Phase 2 of the RWQCP’s Regional Recycled Water System, which replaced the
deteriorated non-potable recycled water pipeline from Phase 1 and expanded non-potable recycled water
service to the Shoreline area of Mountain View (see Figure 1-2). Both Palo Alto and Mountain View have
completed individual planning studies looking at opportunities to expand recycled water in their
respective service areas.
Figure 1-2: RWQCP Existing Water Reuse System
In 2008, Palo Alto completed a Recycled Water Facility Plan that recommended a Phase 3 project. The
Phase 3 project would expand the non-potable recycled water system to South Palo Alto to serve
landscape irrigation demands and potential dual-plumbed systems mainly within the Stanford Research
Park area (see Figure 1-3). In the time that it took to certify the Program Environmental Impact Report for
the Phase 3 project (2015), the recycled water setting changed. Notably, prolonged drought conditions
and notable water shortages in southern California has moved forward public acceptance of potable reuse
options and policy makers have begun to question the expansion of non-potable reuse (NPR) systems
over long-term potable reuse options, including indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse
(DPR). Spurred by the recent drought, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of
Drinking Water (DDW) adopted a final version of the Groundwater Replenishments Regulations in 2014,
providing a formal pathway for permitting IPR through groundwater augmentation. Regulations for
permitting surface water augmentation, another type of IPR, were adopted in 2018. With the passage of
Assembly Bill 574, the SWRCB is required to develop regulations for potable reuse through raw water
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-3
augmentation, a form of DPR, by 2023. While there is not yet a timeline established for development of
potable reuse through treated drinking water augmentation, another form of DPR, several California
agencies have begun to investigate this option. Accordingly, this Strategic Plan considers NPR, IPR, and
DPR opportunities.
Figure 1-3: Proposed Phase 3 Recycled Water Project
Source: Woodard & Curran, 2018, Preliminary Design for Phase 3 Recycled Water Distribution System Final Report
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-4
In 2014, Mountain View completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study that recommended near-term
extension of recycled water into the NASA Ames Research Center and a longer-term extension south of
US-101. These extensions would serve landscape irrigation demands and dual-plumbed systems.
Currently (July 2019), Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 RWFS focusing on
extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101.
To aid in future decisions regarding RWQCP recycled water expansion and commitments, Palo Alto, as
the owner and operator of the RWQCP, saw a need to assess other RWQCP Partner Agencies’ interests in
recycled water. The RWQCP is interested in expanding the recycled water program to help move itself
towards becoming a resource recovery facility by providing a drought-proof, sustainable, local water
supply, and for recycled water’s potential to help meet future regulatory actions pertaining to discharge
limitations. In order to understand how to best expand the program, a comprehensive and holistic
evaluation was needed to reassess the service area needs and acceptance given changes in water supplies
and governing regulations.
Valley Water is also interested in understanding how flows from the RWQCP can support countywide
water supply planning and its goal of using recycled and purified water to meet at least 10% (24,000
AFY) of the total county water demand by 2025. Valley Water recently completed a Pure Water Program
planning study that looked at opportunities to implement potable reuse projects using water from the San
Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility and the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant. Valley
Water is now developing a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan to understand recycled water
opportunities, including NPR, IPR, and DPR, throughout Santa Clara County. The information from this
Strategic Plan will support the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan and help Valley Water identify
wastewater flows that may be available for export from the RWQCP service area to other parts of the
county.
The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to evaluate potential additional uses of recycled water within the
RWQCP service area through the year 2030, to identify recycled water expansion concept options that
look beyond individual agency boundaries, and to evaluate previously recommended recycled water
projects with new expansion options developed through this Strategic Plan.
1.2 Organization of this Report
This report is organized as follows:
Chapter 1: Background and Purpose of the Strategic Plan –Background on previous recycled
water projects in the Study Area and a description of the wastewater and water agencies in the
Study Area
Chapter 2: Recycled Water Demand Assessment –Description of allowable recycled water
uses and the Study Area market assessment
Chapter 3: Project Concept Options –Description of the different recycled water concept
options developed under this Strategic Plan
Chapter 4: Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation –Summary of the evaluation of the
concept options based on cost and non-cost criteria
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Next Steps –Summary of the conclusions on the Strategic Plan
concept options and next steps to be undertaken if the concept options are to move into
implementation
1.3 Study Area
The Study Area for the Strategic Plan encompasses the RWQCP service area, shown in Figure 1-1, as
well as additional areas in the Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not served by EPASD.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-5
EPASD, which is one of the RWQCP Partner Agencies, covers the majority of East Palo Alto and a small
section of Menlo Park. The portions of these cities not served by EPASD are served by West Bay
Sanitary District (WBSD), which is a tributary agency to Silicon Valley Clean Water in Redwood City.
Currently recycled water infrastructure does not exist in these areas, although both WBSD and Redwood
City have looked at opportunities to provide recycled water to these areas. Given the proximity of the
RWQCP to East Palo Alto and Menlo Park and water supply shortfalls that existed in these communities
when this project was initiated, the Study Area for this project was extended beyond the RWQCP service
boundary to include the entirety of East Palo Alto and the northern portion of the Menlo Park Municipal
Water’s service area.
1.3.1 Water Supply Agencies
The Study Area is served by two water wholesalers and a number of retailers (Figure 1-4 and Table 1-1).
The wholesalers are Valley Water and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and the
retailers are Palo Alto, Mountain View, California Water Service Company (Cal Water), Purissima Hills
Water District (PHWD), East Palo Alto, Stanford University, Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company,
O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company, Federal Government (NASA Ames), and Menlo Park
Municipal Water.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-6
Figure 1-4: Water Retailers (names indicated in black text)
Valley Water distributes potable water to portions of Santa Clara County, which encompasses all but the
EPASD portion of the RWQCP service area. Valley Water sells water to 13 retailers including 2 retailers
in the Study Area – Mountain View and Cal Water. Valley Water is a special district that was formed to
address groundwater overdraft in the county. The water delivered to retailers is a combination of local
surface water, imported water from the State Water Project and Central Valley Project and water
transfers. As the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, Valley
Water manages the groundwater in Santa Clara County. Valley Water diverts local surface water as well
as imported water to recharge facilities to augment natural groundwater recharge.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-7
SFPUC is the water retailer for San Francisco as well as wholesaler to 26 agencies in the San Francisco
Bay Area including 6 retailers in the Study Area – Palo Alto, Mountain View, PHWD, East Palo Alto,
Stanford University, and Menlo Park Municipal Water. SFPUC’s primary source of water is the Hetch
Hetchy watershed of the Tuolumne River. The Tuolumne River is the largest tributary to the San Joaquin
River, which feeds into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta.
In addition to water purchased from Valley Water and SFPUC, the majority of the Study Area retailers
either utilize groundwater or have plans to develop groundwater supplies to meet demand projections.
Cal Water and Stanford University currently use groundwater to meet demands. Palo Alto Park Mutual
Water Company and the O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company rely solely on groundwater. Palo
Alto and Mountain View maintain groundwater wells for emergency supply. East Palo Alto has plans to
rehabilitate an existing well and develop an additional well for emergency and potential future water
supply. Menlo Park Municipal Water has plans to develop groundwater as an emergency supply as well.
Stanford University is unique among the water retailers in this area in that its water supplies include local
surface water and captured stormwater, which it uses to meet non-potable demands. Groundwater is used
to supplement this non-potable system.
A review of retailers’ 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) identified the demand imbalances
described herein. Although the planning horizon for the Strategic Plan is through 2030, the water supply
shortfalls summarized here go through the UWMPs’ planning horizon of 2040. In normal years, East Palo
Alto projected a shortfall by 2040; however, since completion of its 2015 UWMP, East Palo Alto has
secured additional SFPUC supplies. During a single dry year, Menlo Park Municipal Water projected
shortfalls beginning in 2020, and Mountain View, Cal Water and East Palo Alto projected shortfalls by
2040; however, since completion of its 2015 UWMP and given some major changes in land use policies,
Mountain View has updated their projected shortfalls in a single dry year to occurred starting in 2020.
During multiple dry years, Mountain View and Menlo Park Municipal Water project shortfall in all years
beginning in 2020, and East Palo Alto projected shortfalls in all years given 2040 demands and in the
second and third years under 2035 demands. Palo Alto, similar to many of the other RWQCP Partner
Agencies’, is subject to water supply reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more
frequent and more severe in the future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California
water system. Both imported water and groundwater are at risk during dry periods.
Table 1-1 summarizes the water supply sources for each city as well as the current uses, projected needs,
and the local wastewater agency.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-8
Table 1-1: Summary of Water Supply Sources and Needs
City Wholesaler Retailer(s)
Current/
Planned
Groundwater
User (Y/N)
Projected
Water
Supply
Shortfall1
(Y/N)
Current
Recycled
Water
User
(Y/N)
Wastewater
Agency
East Palo
Alto
SFPUC /
Self
East Palo Alto
(SFPUC,
groundwater)
Palo Alto Park
Mutual Water
Company (100%
groundwater)
O’Connor Tract Co-
operative Water
Company (100%
groundwater) Yes
Yes
(2040) No RWQCP
Los Altos Valley Water Cal Water Yes
Yes
(2040) No RWQCP
Los Altos
Hills SFPUC PHWD No No No RWQCP
Menlo
Park SFPUC
Menlo Park Municipal
Water Yes
Yes
(2020) No
West Bay
Sanitary
District
Mountain
View
SFPUC &
Valley Water Mountain View Yes
Yes
(2020) Yes RWQCP
Palo Alto SFPUC Palo Alto No No Yes RWQCP
Stanford
University SFPUC Stanford University Yes No No RWQCP
1Projections for single dry year taken from retailer 2015 Urban Water Management Plans except Mountain View which is based
on more updated information.
1.3.2 Wastewater Agencies & Current Recycled Water Programs
Palo Alto owns and operates the RWQCP, a 39.0 MGD-dry weather capacity wastewater treatment plant
for the benefit of the RWQCP Partners. The RWQCP discharges treated effluent to an outfall in Lower
South San Francisco Bay and to Renzel Marsh, which ultimately drains to the Lower South San Francisco
Bay via Matadero Creek. The RWQCP treats an average of 20 MGD of wastewater. In addition, a portion
of RWQCP effluent is further treated at tertiary recycled water facilities located at the RWQCP. The
tertiary recycled water facilities have a capacity of 4.5 MGD, though currently production averages 0.6
MGD. The RWQCP has existing agreements with its Partner agencies that provide them with the right to
acquire all wastewater by-products, such as recycled water, in the proportion to their percentage of
influent flow. Recycled water from the RWQCP is available to Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford
University and EPASD through truck-fill stations, while Palo Alto and Mountain View receive recycled
water through a purple-pipe distribution system. Palo Alto and Mountain View are the only retailers in the
Study Area that currently use recycled water via a purple-pipe distribution system. The RWQCP has
committed a peak flow of up to 1.0 MGD to Palo Alto and 3.0 MGD to Mountain View under an
agreement that extends until 2060.
Palo Alto, Valley Water, and Mountain View partnered in the development of an Advanced Water
Purification Feasibility Study and Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report in 2017 to evaluate advanced
treatment options for total dissolved solids (TDS) reduction in the RWQCP’s recycled water for use in
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction
FINAL
July 2019 1-9
irrigating salt-sensitive plants and industrial processes. The Feasibility Study recommended
implementation of an Advanced Water Treatment System (AWTS) to provide 1.125 MGD of reverse
osmosis treated water, with optional future expanded production reaching 2.25 MGD. The AWTS water
will be blended at a 1:1 ratio with tertiary recycled water from the RWQCP to bring salinity levels
between 400-500 mg/L TDS, below the Palo Alto goal of 600 mg/L TDS.
The Study Area includes a portion of WBSD’s service area. WBSD provides wastewater collection
services for Menlo Park, Atherton, and Portola Valley; the portion of East Palo Alto that is not served by
EPASD; and areas of Woodside, unincorporated San Mateo County, and unincorporated Santa Clara
County. WBSD is currently implementing a satellite recycled water facility in the southern portion of
Menlo Park Municipal Water’s service area and is investigating the potential to implement a satellite
recycled water facility in the northern portion of Menlo Park.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-1
Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
2.1 Recycled Water Uses
2.1.1 Types of Recycled Water
There are a variety of types of recycled water, as shown in Figure 2-1, covering both non-potable and
potable reuse applications. These types of recycled water can lead to various options for how to
implement conceptual projects in a specific setting. The applicability of these types of recycled water in
the local setting is described in further detail later in this chapter.
Figure 2-1: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types
Because there is no suitable reservoir or a raw water treatment facility in the RWQCP service territory,
reservoir augmentation and treated water augmentation were not evaluated. Figure 2-2 is an overview of
the non-potable and potable options included in this report.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-2
Figure 2-2: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types included in this Recycled Water
Strategic Plan
Currently, the RWQCP produces recycled water that is treated to disinfected tertiary treatment standards
and is compliant with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. This is defined as oxidized, filtered,
and disinfected wastewater that meets a median concentration of total coliform requirements < 2.2
MPN/100mL and 5.0-log removal of viruses. This disinfected tertiary recycled water is suitable for all
NPR uses considered in this study, which include landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, cooling towers,
industrial process water and habitat enhancement. Further details about these non-potable uses, including
associated water quality requirements requested by users and examples of potential users in the service
area, are outlined in Section 2.2. The methodology used to assess NPR demands is summarized in Section
2.2.2.
IPR includes groundwater augmentation, either through percolation ponds or injection wells, where the
purified recycled water mixes with the local groundwater and the mixture is extracted through existing or
new wells for use in the potable (i.e., drinking) distribution system. IPR also includes reservoir
augmentation, which is adding purified recycled water mixed in with local supplies in a reservoir that
feeds to a surface water treatment plant, but is not considered in this Strategic Plan because no suitable
reservoirs or surface water treatment plants exist proximate to the Study Area. The process to model
available groundwater capacity to accept purified recycled water for recharge is included in Section 2.3.2.
DPR includes raw water augmentation, which would introduce purified recycled water upstream of a
surface water treatment plant, and treated drinking water augmentation, which would introduce the
purified recycled water directly to the drinking water distribution system. Raw water augmentation was
not considered in this Strategic Plan because there are no surface water treatment plants within the service
area of the one agency interested in DPR that also had sufficient information for this evaluation at the
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-3
time of this writing (i.e., Palo Alto). The methodology to estimate the amount of water available to direct
towards DPR is included in Section 2.4.2.
2.1.2 Interests of the RWQCP Partner Agencies
The Strategic Plan team sent out surveys to the RWQCP Partner Agencies and other interested parties to
gauge their interest in using recycled water to meet their current and projected demands. These
stakeholders were asked about their interest in non-potable as well as potable uses, and the information
received was used to inform the development of the concepts within this study. The results of the surveys
are summarized in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Summary of Recycled Water Interests
Agency
Interested in
use of
Recycled
Water from
RWQCP
Types of Use of Interest
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(N
P
R
)
Du
a
l
P
l
u
m
b
e
d
T
o
i
l
e
t
F
l
us
h
i
n
g
(
N
P
R
)
Ind
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Wa
t
e
r
(
N
P
R
)
Co
o
l
i
n
g
T
o
w
e
r
(
N
P
R
)
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
(N
P
R
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Au
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
I
P
R
)
Dir
e
c
t
P
o
t
a
b
l
e
(
D
P
R
)
City of Palo Alto Yes x x x x x x x
City of Mountain View Yes x x x
City of Los Altos Yes x x x
Town of Los Altos Hills Yes x
East Palo Alto Sanitary District Yes x x x x
Stanford University No1 x
Cal Water Yes x x x
City of East Palo Alto Yes x x x x x x x
City of Menlo Park Yes x x x x
West Bay Sanitary District Yes x x x x x
Note:
1. Though Stanford University is not interested in receiving recycled water from the RWQCP, Stanford
University is interested in using recycled water generated on-site for dual plumbed toilet flushing.
2.2 Non-Potable Uses
2.2.1 Potential Non-Potable Uses
Landscape Irrigation
Landscape irrigation sites identified for this study include parks, schools, commercial landscaping, multi-
family residential landscaping, cemeteries, and golf courses. Irrigators in the Study Area have historically
expressed concern with the salinity content in recycled water and its specific impacts to salt-sensitive
species such as Redwood trees. To address these concerns and improve the quality of this water, Palo
Alto, in collaboration with Valley Water and Mountain View, is planning to construct an AWTS facility
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-4
(see Section 1.3.2) to decrease RWQCP recycled water salinity and improve marketability for landscape
irrigation purposes.
Dual Plumbing
Dual plumbing uses identified for this study include urinal and toilet flushing in existing dual-plumbed
buildings and future developments identified in General Plans or Specific Plans where dual plumbing
could be incorporated into the design of new commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings as well as
multi-family residences. Existing buildings with dual-plumbing systems were included in the demand
assessment; however, retrofitting existing buildings was not considered due to the cost and complexity of
typical retrofits.
Because the majority of the Study Area is built out, there are few opportunities to implement dual-
plumbing. East Palo Alto has the greatest potential for new development and redevelopment. This
includes plans to redevelop the Ravenswood area to add various commercial and industrial buildings. In
addition, various multi-residential developments were considered.
To promote dual-plumbing, Palo Alto has adopted an ordinance requiring buildings greater than 10,000
square feet within a designated Recycled Water Use Area to incorporate dual-plumbing (Palo Alto has yet
to designate such an area), while Mountain View adopted the same guidelines for buildings greater than
25,000 square feet. Buildings in the planning phase that are anticipated to meet these thresholds were
included as potential users. Many buildings currently under construction were approved prior to these
ordinances and were not included in the demand assessment. As of this writing, no other dual plumbing or
recycled water use ordinances exist within the RWQCP service area.
Cooling Tower
Cooling tower uses identified for this study include larger commercial and industrial buildings in the
Study Area. Like landscape irrigation uses, cooling towers are sensitive to salinity levels in recycled
water (as well as ammonia and certain metals). The AWTS (see Section 1.3.2) will make RWQCP
recycled water more marketable for cooling tower purposes.
Industrial Process Water
Industrial process water use identified for this study was limited to one industrial customer in Palo Alto
along the Phase 3 project pipeline alignment. The redevelopment in the East Palo Alto Ravenswood area
has the potential to include industrial process water demands. However, given the uncertainty of future
development plans, these potential industrial demands were not included.
Habitat Enhancement
Habitat enhancement is a potential non-potable use. While several stakeholders indicated an interest in
habitat enhancement opportunities, only two specific concepts were identified:
A horizontal levee near the RWQCP; however, because this project would be served with treated
effluent without a chlorine residual and using a small dedicated pipeline, this opportunity is
considered a potential habitat enhancement project beyond the scope of concept options
developed for this study.
Byxbee Park in Palo Alto was included in this study. Currently, through a pilot project, Byxbee
Park receives recycled water to irrigate vegetated islands (Engelage, 2018).
Other Non-Potable Uses
Other non-potable uses in the Study Area that did not fall into the specific categories outlined above
include street cleaning, car washes, and demands for Boronda Lake at Foothill Park.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-5
2.2.2 Non-Potable Market Assessment
Site-specific water use estimates were obtained from the partner agencies, as available, including demand
estimates for Palo Alto Phase 3 that were recently updated as part of the Palo Alto Phase 3 Business Plan
and the Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study.
Where site-specific information was not available from the agency, the methodologies described in
Appendix A were used to estimate landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, and cooling tower demands.
Estimates for other uses were developed as needed on a case by case basis. Peaking factors are
summarized in Table 2-2.
For potential customers with the largest demand estimates, Palo Alto coordinated with the partner
agencies to reach out to these potential customers to further refine the recycled water estimates.
2.2.3 Non-Potable Demand
The potential annual average recycled water demand for all non-potable users in the Study Area is 4,456
AFY or 3.98 MGD. These potential users are shown in Figure 2-3. Potential recycled water demand
estimates for each non-potable customer, including a breakdown of estimated annual average, maximum
day, and peak hour demands, are included in Appendix B. Appendix B includes each potential user’s
location, type of use (e.g. landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, industrial process water, cooling tower,
etc.), site status (e.g. existing recycled water customer, existing water customer, future customer), Partner
Agency, and water retailer. Appendix C contains a discussion of potential uses considered but not
included in the Strategic Plan. These appendices are excluded from the public version of this report in
compliance with the California Public Records Act, which protects certain utility usage data and customer
information from disclosure.
The maximum day demand, defined as the average daily demand in July, for all non-potable uses in the
service area is 6.84 MGD. The peaking factors used to develop the non-potable maximum day and peak
hour demands are summarized in Table 2-2, and annual average and maximum day demands are
summarized in Table 2-3. Peaking factors are a ratio of the maximum day or maximum hourly demand to
the average day or average hourly demand.
The peak maximum day flows were used to size treatment facilities and peak hour demands were used to
size pump stations and pipelines.
Table 2-2: Demand Peaking Factors
Demand Type Peaking Factor
Maximum Day
Irrigation 1.7
Cooling Tower 2.7
Hourly
Irrigation1 3.0
Dual Plumbing 2.0
Cooling Tower 2.0
1. Irrigation hourly peaking factor applies to irrigation users who use water on demand. There are a small
number of irrigation customers in the Study Area with on-site water storage where this peaking factor does
not apply.
Table 2-3: Non-Potable Demand Summary
Demand Type Value
Annual Average 4,456 AFY (3.98 MGD)
Maximum Day 6.84 MGD
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-6
Figure 2-3: Potential Non-Potable Users in Study Area
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-7
2.3 Indirect Potable Uses
2.3.1 Potential Indirect Potable Uses
Indirect potable uses identified for this study focused on groundwater augmentation via injection wells.
Due to the densely developed nature of the Study Area and high cost of land, groundwater augmentation
via surface spreading is not viable. IPR requires full advanced treatment of recycled water. The
conventional full advanced treatment train consists of membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and an
ultraviolet light -advanced oxidation process. These advanced water purification processes are designed to
remove or inactivate a spectrum of constituents, including viruses, parasites, N-Nitrosodimethylamine,
and 1,4-dioxane.
Within East Palo Alto, the potential to use the city’s existing or future wells for IPR extraction was
considered. However, after additional discussion regarding injection well siting and uncertainty of the
benefit of groundwater augmentation in this area, IPR use in East Palo Alto was not considered further.
Groundwater augmentation within the Cal Water service area in Los Altos was also discussed but
eliminated from the project concept options analysis. Cal Water’s service area is within the area of the
groundwater basins that is actively managed by Valley Water, and groundwater use in this area was
deemed to be better addressed through the Valley Water’s countywide efforts rather than through this
Strategic Plan.
Results from a recently completed Groundwater Assessment, and Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility
Evaluation and Implementation Strategy (IPR Feasibility Evaluation) indicated that IPR within Palo Alto
was technically feasible given the current condition of the aquifers in northwestern Santa Clara County
and the potential to supplement Palo Alto’s water supply with groundwater. Modeling results from the
IPR Feasibility Evaluation and the scenario that was selected to be included in this study’s project concept
options are discussed in the following section.
2.3.2 Indirect Potable Reuse Assessment
The IPR Feasibility Evaluation (Todd 2018) included a characterization of hydrogeologic conditions in
Palo Alto and the surrounding areas. An initial evaluation of the feasibility of increased pumping by Palo
Alto was based on historical and contemporary groundwater balances in the area. Subsequently,
groundwater modeling was conducted to refine the estimate of groundwater yield available to Palo Alto
with and without varying levels of IPR. From the groundwater modeling assessment, one scenario was
selected for use in this Strategic Plan as it represented a technically feasible recharge and extraction
scenario with no projected adverse impacts, and the volume was deemed conservative and achievable
while still providing a substantial volume for use. The selected scenario, referenced as Scenario 4 in the
IPR Feasibility Evaluation, includes recharge of 2,800 AFY of fully advanced treated recycled water with
Palo Alto extracting 5,900 AFY of augmented groundwater (i.e., mixture of groundwater and injected
recycled water) to supplement potable water supplies.
2.3.3 Indirect Potable Demand
Based on Scenario 4 of the IPR Feasibility Evaluation, the annual recycled water IPR demand is 2,800
AFY. This converts to a daily demand of 2.5 MGD and is the volume of treated water that can be used for
injection purposes. Once injected, the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the
groundwater basin (or the “Project Yield”) under this scenario is 5,900 AFY (or 5.27 MGD). These
demands and yields are summarized in Table 2-4.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-8
Table 2-4: IPR Demand and Groundwater Project Yield Summary
Demand Type Value
Annual Recycled Water Demand (Daily Recycled Water
Demand)
2,800 AFY (2.50 MGD)
Annual Project Yield (Daily Project Yield) 5,900 AFY (5.27 MGD)
These demand and project yield values were adjusted for IPR concept options that included NPR uses.
This is further detailed in Section 3.5.3.
2.4 Direct Potable Uses
2.4.1 Potential Direct Potable Uses
At the initial stages of this study, Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, East Palo Alto, and Cal
Water all expressed an interest in DPR. Although DPR regulations for both raw water and treated
drinking water augmentation are not yet developed, the SWRCB’s DDW released a framework for these
regulations in April 2018. This framework considered recycled water used for DPR purposes to be treated
by full advanced treatment standards, at a minimum.
This framework also included surface water treatment as a necessary component of raw water
augmentation. Because there is no dedicated surface water treatment plant in the Study Area, treated
drinking water augmentation is considered the only feasible DPR option available at this time. Per
anticipated DDW regulations, treated drinking water augmentation (colloquially called a “pipe-to-pipe”
approach) requires water to be treated to potable standards at the advanced water treatment plant (AWTP)
that would include full advanced treatment plus other treatment processes. For DPR use in Palo Alto, an
AWTP would be located at the RWQCP. Meanwhile for DPR use in the East Palo Alto Sanitary District,
East Palo Alto, or the Cal Water service area, the AWTP could be located at the RWQCP or a satellite
site. AWTP water would then be kept in engineered storage and delivered directly to the potable water
distribution system.
DPR use in Palo Alto was considered as a project concept option (D1) in this study and is further
discussed in Section 3.6.
2.4.2 Direct Potable Reuse Assessment
Each partner agency to the RWQCP (including Palo Alto) retains the right to reuse as much recycled
water as wastewater that was sent from their agency to the RWQCP for treatment. As such, the amount of
potential DPR yield was based on Palo Alto’s share of the RWQCP effluent flow, which is 7.31 MGD or
about 36% of the RWQCP’s average annual flow (20.3 MGD, 2010-2018 average). With 1.0 MGD
assumed to be dedicated to other recycled water customers in Palo Alto, the available flow estimated to
feed a DPR facility is 6.31 MGD. Finally, after accounting for a 25% rejection rate during the treatment
process, the amount of produced water for potable consumption was estimated to be 4.73 MGD (average
and maximum day are the same in this case such that the DPR facility operates at a constant steady rate).
Similarly, this converts to an average annual demand of 5,300 AFY of 4.73 MGD. The development of
this DPR demand estimate is summarized in Table 2-5.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
FINAL
July 2019 2-9
Table 2-5: DPR Demand Estimate Summary
RWQCP Average
Annual Flow (2010-
2018)
Palo Alto’s Share of
RWQCP Effluent Flow
Flow Available as DPR
Input
Flow Produced as
DPR Output
20.3 MGD 7.31 MGD 6.31 MGD 4.73 MGD
(5,300 AFY)
2.5 Other Potential Uses Outside of Study Area
In addition to the Strategic Plan, Valley Water is collaborating with local stakeholders to develop a
Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (Countywide Plan). This effort aims to integrate and expand
recycled and purified water as a local and drought-proof water supply throughout Santa Clara County.
The plan is projected to be completed by June 2020. Valley Water’s goal is to develop recycled water to
provide for at least 10% of the total county demands by 2028 by developing up to 24,000 AFY of
additional potable reuse. Valley Water is exploring sourcing water from a variety of wastewater treatment
facilities in Santa Clara County. One of the options being considered by the Countywide Plan is export of
water from the RWQCP for potable reuse further south in Santa Clara County, where Valley Water
operates recharge ponds. Depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept
Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further
evaluation for joint implementation may be required.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-1
Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
3.1 Summary of Approach
Figure 3-1 summarizes the process used to develop the Strategic Plan concept options, or expansion
opportunities. The approach was to start by incorporating key findings from previous studies, and to then
survey and meet with the various agencies to validate previous findings and to confirm future interests.
Through a Visioning Workshop, the consultant team aided the agencies in identifying and prioritizing
opportunities for recycled water within the study area and to select concept options for further analysis.
The consultant team then provided technical development of the concept options and preliminary
evaluations which were confirmed with the agencies at an Evaluation Workshop. After completion of the
evaluation of the concept options, implementation strategies for each recycled water use type were then
defined.
Figure 3-1: Summary of Overall Approach to Strategic Plan Concept Option Development and
Assessment
3.2 Concept Option Development Process
This section summarizes the objectives, screening process, and engineering design criteria used to
develop the Strategic Plan concepts considered in the study.
3.2.1 Objectives in Concept Option Development
The following objectives guided the development of Strategic Plan Concept Options for the Study Area:
1) Develop Cost Effective Concept Options: To meet this objective, concept options were
developed around large potential users as well as dense areas of users. Users with estimated
demands greater than 50 AFY were included in at least one of the preliminary concept options
presented to stakeholders for screening. The intent was that these customers would serve as
anchor customers along an alignment, providing sufficient demand to justify needed
infrastructure costs. However, because many of the large users are on the edge of the Study Area,
the cost effectiveness of including some of these customers became less certain. While aiming to
Demand
Assessment
•Agency Survey
•Meetings with
Partners
•Previous Studies
Visioning
Workshop
Develop-
ment of
Concept
Options
•Sizing Facilities
•Developing
Costs
Evaluation
of
Concept
Options
•Non-Cost
Criteria
Scoring
Evaluation
Workshop
Outreach
• Utilities
Advisory
Committee
(Sept. 2018)
• Palo Alto City
Council Study
Session (Nov.
2018)
• Pubic Meeting
(Apr. 2019)
Implemen
-tation
Strategies
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-2
meet the most demand in each concept option, the distance between customers was also
considered such that concept options focused on clusters of users that could be served from a
common pipeline. Extensions off the main pipeline generally were not pursued for users with less
than 5 AFY of demand.
2) Pursue Regional Solutions: One of the primary goals of the Strategic Plan is to assess whether a
regional approach to recycled water projects in the RWQCP service area would result in concept
options that are more economically-feasible to implement and multi-beneficial. With this in mind,
concept options were developed that incorporated multiple jurisdictions and water retailers to
analyze whether this created beneficial outcomes in the Study Area.
3.2.2 Preliminary Concept Options Screening
In March 2018, Palo Alto and Valley Water conducted a Visioning Workshop with interested RWQCP
Partner Agencies, water retailers, and neighboring agencies. At the workshop, a number of preliminary
concept options were presented to the stakeholder group and valuable input received. Through discussion
with the stakeholders, some of the concept options were modified, while others were eliminated.
Additionally, a concept option looking at satellite treatment for non-potable reuse – versus centralized
treatment at the RWQCP – was added.
The remainder of this chapter, beginning in Section 3.3, includes a description of each of the concept
options evaluated. The concept options are divided into four categories:
“A” series for NPR concept options from RWQCP (Section 3.2)
“B” concept option for NPR from satellite treatment (Section 3.3)
“C” series for IPR concept options (Section 3.4)
“D” concept option for DPR (Section 3.5)
3.2.3 Engineering Design Criteria
Hydraulic Criteria
The criteria used to size the distribution infrastructure for new concept options developed as part of this
study are summarized in Table 3-1. In general, the minimum pressure criterion establishes the hydraulic
grade line (HGL) required, which in turn helps define pumping requirements. The maximum flow
velocity criterion generally governs pipe sizing.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-3
Table 3-1: Hydraulic Criteria
Description Value
Pipelines
Minimum Pressure at Standard Pressurized Customer Connections 40 psi
Minimum Pressure at Injection Well Connections1 15 psi
Minimum Pressure at Pond Storage Customer Connections 10 psi
Maximum Customer Pressure2 120 psi
Minimum Pipe Size 6 in
Maximum Flow Velocity 5 ft/s
Pump Stations
Assumed Pumping Efficiency 75%
Non-Overloading Horsepower Adjustment 10%
Maximum Standard Motor Size, Each Pump 100 hp
Notes:
1. Determined to be the minimum required pressure for injection wells, per communication with Sally
McCraven, Todd Groundwater.
2. Certain customer demand nodes exceed the maximum pressure criterion at times, which is acceptable to
maintain minimum service pressures elsewhere. Customers with high pressures will require a pressure
regulating valve on the service line.
A spreadsheet was developed to model each concept option’s pipe network and optimized backbone pipe
sizes. Each alignment was divided into segments, and peak hour flows for each customer along or
downstream of a given segment were aggregated to determine the minimum pipeline diameter needed to
convey maximum flows. This model was utilized to check pressure at customer connections and
determine each concept option’s pump station sizes.
To develop conceptual costs at this planning level, hydraulic head required at the RWQCP to serve the
concept options was treated as a separate pump station at the RWQCP location. The potential for
integrating this hydraulic capacity to existing facilities at the RWQCP would need to be analyzed upon
further development of any concept option. The results for each concept option’s hydraulic analysis,
including pipeline and pump station sizing, are summarized in Sections 3.3 to 3.6.
Treatment Criteria
Palo Alto has committed to delivering 3.0 MGD of enhanced recycled water to Mountain View and 1.0
MGD to Palo Alto for non-potable uses. As discussed in Section 1.3.2, Palo Alto is planning to
implement an AWTS to provide 1.125 MGD of reverse osmosis treated water, which will be blended at
with RWQCP tertiary recycled water to produce enhanced recycled water with a target TDS level below
600 mg/L. Plans for the AWTS include potential expansion to produce 2.25 MGD of reverse osmosis
treated water.
In evaluating additional treatment needs for the centralized NPR concept options (“A” series) in this
study, it is assumed that the 2.25 MGD AWTS facility will be constructed. If a combination of the AWTS
facility and the existing 4.5 MGD granular media filters can be used to meet the total demand for a
concept option including the current flow commitments for NPR in Mountain View and Palo Alto while
still meeting a 600 mg/L TDS target, additional treatment is not included. As such, the 1:1 blend ratio
used in the 2017 Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study and Preliminary/Conceptual Design
Report is not used for this study. Rather, 2.25 MGD AWTS produced water with TDS of 50 mg/L is
assumed to be combined with the balance of RWQCP tertiary recycled water needed to meet the concept
option demand with TDS of 900 mg/L. Consequently, the final TDS concentration varied depending on
the concept option tertiary recycled water demand, however all concept options remained below the 600
mg/L TDS goal. This approach allows the NPR concept options to be consistent with the previously
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-4
completed Feasibility Study while maintaining sufficient operational flexibility to ensure cost effective
solutions to meet enhanced recycled water demands.
For non-potable uses served from a satellite treatment facility, this study assumes the facility to provide
disinfected tertiary treated recycled water and that saline inflow and infiltration is negligible.
For IPR, recycled water would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection (membrane
filtration, reverse osmosis, and an ultraviolet light -advanced oxidation process). In addition, each
extraction well is planned to have wellhead treatment per Option 4 of Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated
Resources Plan. Option 4 includes treatment for iron, manganese, and TDS at each well site such that the
extracted water will be comparable to SFPUC water supplies. Option 4 is the treatment option assumed
for this study since this is most comparable to the existing Palo Alto supply and most likely to gain
customer acceptance.
For DPR, treatment standards were designed to align with guidance provided by the SWRCB in its
Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California (April 2018). Also, the SWRCB’s
Feasibility Report on Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for DPR indicated that DPR
treatment trains should be sourced from tertiary recycled water (defined as any process employed after
secondary treatment to further improve water quality). Therefore, the water quality of the influent
wastewater for DPR was assumed to be final effluent from the RWQCP; the RWQCP is a tertiary
treatment facility that treats all of its wastewater beyond secondary treatment standards. In addition to the
steps required to treat recycled water to full advanced treatment standards, the DPR train would include
ozone, biologically active filtration, and free chlorine process steps.
Reverse osmosis concentrate treatment is included in concept options as necessary to maintain
compliance with the RWQCP’s NPDES discharge permit. The 2017 Advanced Water Purification
Feasibility Study identified maximum AWTS sizes to comply with the RWQCP’s permit without
concentrate treatment under the following scenarios:
Scenario 1. All enhanced recycled water: This scenario assumes all of the advanced treated water
from the AWTS is blended with tertiary-treated recycled water at a 1:1 ratio and distributed to
customers.
Scenario 2. All potable reuse: This scenario assumes all of the advanced treated water from the
AWTS would be used for potable reuse and no blending with tertiary-treated recycled water
would occur.
Scenario 3. Enhanced recycled water with additional potable reuse: This scenario assumes
implementation of a 2.25 MGD AWTS for enhanced recycled water production (4.5 MGD of
total enhanced recycled water capacity) with the remaining advanced water purification facility
(AWPF) capacity for potable reuse.
Table 3-2 summarizes the findings from the feasibility study which were based on a conservative
approach in order to meet the various maximum daily permit limits. The scenarios relevant to this
planning effort are Scenarios 1 and 3. The Strategic Plan assumes that the 2.25 MGD enhanced recycled
water AWTS will be constructed to meet the RWQCP’s existing commitments to Mountain View and
Palo Alto. If any of the NPR concept options were to require additional AWTS treatment capacity, the
threshold above which concentrate treatment would be needed is an additional 1.65 MGD of AWTS
capacity (for total enhanced recycled water capacity of 7.8 MGD). For the IPR and DPR concept options
(which both including reverse osmosis in their treatment trains), the threshold above which concentrate
treatment would be needed is 2.5 MGD.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-5
Table 3-2: Maximum AWTS Sizes Without Requiring Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Treatment
Maximum
AWTS Size
(MGD)
AWTS for
Enhanced
Recycled
Water Size
(MGD)
Enhanced
Recycled
Water
Produced
(MGD)
AWPF for
Potable
Reuse
Size
(MGD)
Scenario 1: All Enhanced Recycled Water 3.9 -- 7.8 --
Scenario 2: All Potable Reuse 5.8 -- -- 5.8
Scenario 3: Enhanced Recycled Water
AWTS of 2.25 MGD with Additional Potable
Reuse
4.8 2.25 4.5 2.5
Note: The sizing is based on the RWQCP’s minimum daily flow of 12 MGD. See MNS Advanced Water
Purification System Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report, December 2017, for additional details.
3.3 Concept Options A: NPR from RWQCP
There are six concept options in the “A” series that contain different pipeline alignments to meet differing
NPR demands throughout the Study Area:
A1: The Phase 3 Pipeline to south Palo Alto recommended in the 2008 City of Palo Alto
Recycled Water Facility Plan and reassessed through the 2018 Phase 3 Business Plan and 2018
Preliminary Design Report. This concept option was included in this study in order to evaluate its
feasibility relative to other concept options.
A2: Extends the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) to serve additional customers in the Palo
Alto Foothills and Los Altos Hills.
A3: Extends Concept Option A2 to serve additional customers in Los Altos.
A4: Extends the Mountain View Systems in accordance with the Long-Term Expansion Project
from the 2014 Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. This concept option was
included in this study in order to evaluate its feasibility relative to other concept options.
A5: Extends Concept Option A4 to service customers in Los Altos.
A6: Serves existing and future customers in East Palo Alto and Palo Alto and includes sizing
facilities for an extension to Menlo Park.
3.3.1 Concept Option A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Concept Option A1 is the Phase 3 Pipeline to south Palo Alto recommended in the 2008 Palo Alto
Recycled Water Facility Plan and reassessed through the 2018 Phase 3 Business Plan and 2018
Preliminary Design Report. Facilities for the concept option are summarized in Table 3-3 and shown on
Figure 3-2.
Notable items from Concept Option A1 are:
Customers: Unlike other customers on Phase 3, the anchor customer for this Concept Option
relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo
Alto.
Pipelines: Build off the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone along Embarcadero Road.
Pump Stations: Two - 1) expansion of existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP; and
2) a booster pump station along the Phase 3 alignment.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-6
Table 3-3: Demand and Facility Summary for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY)
Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634
Anchor Customer1 1 167
Total 110 801
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 18,500
8 9,000
10 7,200
12 23,200
Total Length (LF) 57,900
Total Length (mi) 11.0
Description Performance Requirements
Recycled Water
Pump Station
Phase 3 Booster
Pump Station
Required Flow 1,637 gpm 1,408 gpm
Discharge Head 200 ft 198 ft
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2 (duty) 3+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp 60 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 240 hp
Notes:
1. Anchor customer is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because, unlike others, this
customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo
Alto.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-7
Figure 3-2: Alignment for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-8
3.3.2 Concept Option A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
Concept Option A2 extends the Phase 3 Pipeline in Concept Option A1 to serve additional customers in
the Palo Alto Foothills and Los Altos Hills. The Concept Option A2 alignment is shown in Figure 3-3. A
summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding demand values and
facilities are outlined in Table 3-4.
Some notable items for Concept Option A2 are:
Customers: Concept Option A2 captures two additional high demand customers and benefits an
additional RWQCP partner by including a branch to Los Altos Hills.
Pipelines: Build off of the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone in Embarcadero Road.
Pump Stations: Four - Expansion of the existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP and
three booster pump stations at optimized locations throughout the alignment.
Table 3-4: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY)
Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634
Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167
Anchor Customer No. 2 1 169
Foothills Park 1 75
Los Altos Hills 3 24
Total 115 1069
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 55,100
8 8,600
10 5,900
12 1,000
16 8,000
Total Length (LF) 78,600
Total Length (mi) 14.9
Description Performance Requirements
Recycled
Water Pump
Station (PS1)
Booster
Pump
Station #2
(PS2)
Booster
Pump
Station #3
(PS3)
Booster
Pump
Stations #4
(PS4)
Required Flow 2,270 gpm 1,887 gpm 268 gpm 161 gpm
Discharge Head 178 ft 285 ft 174 ft 588 ft3
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 3+1 1+1 2+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp 75 hp 20 hp2 20 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 300 hp 40 hp 60 hp
Notes:
1. Required discharge head at Booster Pump Station #4 is notably larger due to the 610-foot elevation increase from its
location to the end user (Foothills Park).
2. After assessing the feasibility of other hydraulic configurations (including removing Booster Pump Station #3 and
upsizing other booster pump stations), it was determined that including Booster Pump Station #3 at the specified pump
motor rating was optimal to meet pressure criteria at nearby customers.
3. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because, unlike other customers on
Phase 3, this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo
Alto.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-9
Figure 3-3: Alignment for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-10
3.3.3 Concept Option A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
Concept Option A3 extends the Phase 3 Pipeline to serve additional customers in the Palo Alto Foothills,
Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills to capture some of the highest potential demands as well as create a more
regional NPR concept option.
The original intent of this concept option was to capture customers within the northern portion of Los
Altos by branching off of the proposed Phase 3 pipeline on Arastradero Road, crossing Adobe Creek and
ending at Hillview Community Center. However, during development of the proposed alignment, it was
determined that crossing to Los Altos from the Alta Mesa Memorial Park region required too much
disruption and coordination with private entities. As such, the alignment to Los Altos extends eastward to
Briones Park, down El Camino Real, and southwards towards Covington Elementary School, resulting in
a longer length of pipeline than initially envisioned.
The Concept Option A3 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-4. A summary of the
customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-5.
Customers: Serves customers in Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills including Briones Park
and Elementary School in Palo Alto.
Pipelines: Concept Option A3 would be built off of the 24-inch recycled water pipeline on East
Bayshore. In order to meet the additional demands in the Palo Alto Foothills, Los Altos, and Los
Altos Hills, some of the Phase 3 pipeline segments were upsized for additional capacity.
Pump Stations: Five – expansion of the existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP and
four booster pump stations at optimized locations throughout the alignment.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-11
Table 3-5: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY)
Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634
Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167
Briones Park 1 14
Briones Elementary School 1 5
Anchor Customer No. 2 1 169
Foothills Park 1 75
Los Altos 8 143
Los Altos Hills 3 24
Total 125 1231
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 65,000
8 32,700
12 3,600
16 9,000
Total Length (LF) 116,200
Total Length (mi) 22.0
Description Performance Requirements
Recycled
Water
Pump
Station
(PS1)
Booster
Pump
Station #2
(PS2)
Booster
Pump
Station #3
(PS3)
Booster
Pump
Station #4
(PS4)
Booster
Pump
Station #5
(PS5)
Required Flow 2,783 gpm 2,399 gpm 268 gpm 161 gpm 454 gpm
Discharge Head 204 ft 271 ft 174 ft 588 ft 133 ft2
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 4+1 1+1 2+1 2+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 75 hp 60 hp 20 hp 20 hp3 23d hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp 300 hp 40 hp 60 hp 69 hp
Notes:
1. Anchor Customer No.1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on
groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto.
2. Required discharge head at Booster Pump Station #4 is notably larger due to the 610-foot elevation increase from its
location to the end user (Foothills Park).
3. After assessing the feasibility of other hydraulic configurations (including removing Booster Pump Station #3 and
upsizing other booster pump stations), it was determined that including Booster Pump Station #3 at the specified pump
motor rating was optimal in order to avoid exceeding pressure criteria for customers near Booster Pump Station #5.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-12
Figure 3-4: Alignment for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-13
3.3.4 Concept Option A4: NPR Mountain View
Concept Option A4 is the Mountain View Long-Term Expansion Project from the 2014 Mountain View
Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS). This concept option was included in this study to evaluate its
feasibility relative to other concept options. Note that the distribution system hydraulic analysis criteria
used in the Mountain View RWFS differ slightly from those presented in Table 3-1 but resulting facility
sizing would be similar. Also of note, Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 RWFS
focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101.
The Concept Option A4 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-5. A summary of the
customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-6.
Notable items from Concept Option A4 are:
Customers: Same as the customers identified in the Mountain View RWFS for the Long-Term
Expansion Project continuing to build off of Mountain View’s Phase 2 pipeline.
Pump Station: Additional pumping capacity at the Charleston Pump Station and NASA Pump
Station to meet peak hour demands for Concept Option A4.
Pump Stations
The Recommended Project presented in Mountain View RWFS Study consists of three phases: the Short-
Term Expansion, the Mid-Term Expansion, and the Long-Term Expansion. The Short-Term and Mid-
Term Expansions are constructed or planned to be constructed by 2020, while the construction of the
Long-Term Expansion is unscheduled. The total system for all phases of the Mountain View
Recommended Project requires two pump stations: one at Charleston Park and one at NASA’s Ames
Research Park (NASA Pump Station). The Charleston Park Pump Station was initially sized at 450 hp to
meet demands included in the Short-Term and Mid-Term Expansions. To meet the peak hour demand for
the Long-Term Expansion, two additional variable frequency drive units with a combined capacity of 100
hp would need to be added to the Charleston Park Pump Station for a total installed horsepower of 550.
Additional capacity would need to be installed at the 275-hp NASA Pump Station to meet Long-Term
Expansion demands. This includes an additional 25-hp variable frequency drive unit for a total capacity of
300 hp.
Storage Tank Sizing
As part of the Mid-Term Phase, a storage tank with 1.6 MG capacity was included to meet demands
included in all phases of the Recommended Project. This storage facility is sited at NASA’s Ames
Research Park and is planned to be constructed. Therefore, the cost of the storage tank is included in the
Mid-Term Phase construction and is not considered in the Concept Option A4 cost estimate. Pending the
results of the current update to the 2014 RWFS, previous recommendations for sizing of storage and
pump stations may be altered.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-14
Table 3-6: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A4, Mountain View
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY)
Mountain View – Long-Term Expansion 42 216
Total 42 216
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 12,200
10 1,500
12 2,500
Total Length (LF) 16,200
Total Length (mi) 3.1
Description Additional Capacity Requirements
Charleston Park
Pump Station NASA Pump Station
Required Flow 900 gpm 1 600 gpm2
Pump Configuration (duty only)3 24 14
Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp4 25 hp4
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 100 hp (for 550 hp total
system capacity)4
25 hp (for 300 hp total
system capacity)4
Notes:
1. Calculated as the difference between the total design flow (6,100 gpm; Mountain View RWFS, p. 7-11) and the design
flow for the Mid-Term Expansion (5,200 gpm; Mountain View RWFS, p. 7-9).
2. Calculated as the difference between the total design flow (4,300 gpm) and the design flow for the Mid-Term
Expansion (3,700 gpm). Both values were found in the Mountain View RWFS, Table 7.4.
3. The Mountain View RWFS installed pump horsepower does not include spare pumping capacity, per the note in Table
7.4.
4. The pumps’ configuration, motor rating, and total installed horsepower are on page 7-11 of the Mountain View RWFS.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-15
Figure 3-5: Alignment for Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-16
3.3.5 Concept Option A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
Concept Option A5 would serve customers from Concept Option A4 and includes an extension that was
considered in the 2014 Mountain View RWFS “Alternative 3”. While initially considered as a long-term
extension for the Mountain View system, “Alternative 3” was not included as part of Mountain View’s
final Recommended Project to due financial considerations. For the purposes of this study, Concept
Option A5 uses that same alignment and customer base, then extends service to Los Altos customers
south of Central Expressway to El Camino Hospital and Cooper Park, including the Los Altos Golf &
Country Club. The Concept Option A5 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-6. A
summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined
in Table 3-7.
Notable items from Concept Option A5 are:
Customers: Concept Option A4 with expansion to service additional Mountain View and Los
Altos customers.
Pump Stations: Two - 1) located at the NASA’s Ames Research Park that serves all users on the
Long-Term Expansion alignment and 2) another located at Central Expressway that serves all
other users.
Storage Tank: Operational volume of 1.2 MG to serve Concept Option A5 users beyond the
Long-Term Expansion demands, located at NASA Ames Research Park.
Storage Tank Sizing
To provide enough supply during peak hours, Concept Option A5 requires a storage tank. The Mountain
View RWFS included a “NASA Storage Tank” at the connection between the Mid-Term and Long-Term
Expansion alignments, located at NASA’s Ames Research Park. This tank is sized to meet demands
through the Long-Term Expansion. Additional storage capacity is required to meet Mountain View and
Los Altos demands beyond the Long-Term Expansion users. For planning purposes, this increased
capacity requirement was sized and cost as a separate storage tank at the NASA Storage Tank location.
The potential for adding this capacity to existing storage facilities at NASA’s Ames Research Park
location would need to be evaluated upon further development of this concept option. The storage tank
operational volume needed to serve Concept Option A5 users beyond the Long-Term Expansion demands
is 1.2 MG.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-17
Table 3-7: Demand and Facilities Summary of Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended
to Los Altos
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY)
Mountain View – Long-Term Expansion 42 216
Mountain View – Alternative 3 53 274
Additional Mountain View Site 1 12
Los Altos 10 370
Total 106 872
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 21,600
8 14,900
10 5,600
16 45,000
Total Length (LF) 87,100
Total Length (mi) 16.5
Storage Tank 1.2 MG
Description Performance Requirements
NASA Pump
Station (PS1)
Booster Pump Station
#2 (PS2)
Required Flow 3,031 gpm 1,799 gpm
Discharge Head 190 ft 187 ft
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 2+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 75 hp 75 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp 225 hp
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-18
Figure 3-6: Alignment for Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-19
3.3.6 Concept Option A6: NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park
Concept Option A6 would serve customers (including yet to be constructed customers) in East Palo Alto,
with facilities sized to extend to areas of developments in Menlo Park that are east of U.S. Highway 101.
Menlo Park does not currently use any recycled water and does not own or operate a wastewater
treatment facility. Menlo Park has expresses interest in receiving recycled water supplies from other
agencies, including Redwood City, West Bay Sanitary District, and Palo Alto’s RWQCP (West Yost,
2017). The Concept Option A6 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-7. A summary of
the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-8.
Notable items from Concept Option A6 are:
Customers: Potential demand for Menlo Park was obtained through discussions with Menlo Park
and WBSD, both of which have conducted recycled water assessments for this area. Note that
East Palo Alto is continuing to see increases in development such that these demand estimates
may be lower than actuals.
Pipelines: Builds off of the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone along Embarcadero Road.
Pump Stations: One – expanded existing recycled water pump station at RWQCP
Table 3-8: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo
Park
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY)
East Palo Alto 10 145
East Palo Alto – yet to be constructed 17 192
Palo Alto 6 114
Subtotal 33 451
Menlo Park N/A1 250
Total 701
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 14,100
8 10,200
10 10,000
Total Length (LF) 34,300
Total Length (mi) 6.5
Description Performance Requirements
Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1)
Required Flow 1,000 gpm
Discharge Head 250 ft
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 150 hp
Note:
1. The number of users in Menlo Park was not identified as part of the Strategic Plan. The estimated demand is based on
discussions with Menlo Park and WBSD.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-20
Figure 3-7: Alignment for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-21
3.4 Concept Option B: NPR from Satellite Location
3.4.1 Concept Option B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
Concept Option B1 is a satellite treatment plant that would treat wastewater flows from a more proximate
location to recycled water customers compared to the RWQCP. Based on a planning-level assessment of
wastewater flow volumes available in the Study Area, the satellite plant would treat wastewater from Los
Altos to provide NPR water to customers in Palo Alto and Los Altos. The Concept Option B1 alignment
and the locations of the satellite treatment plant and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-8. A
summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined
in Table 3-9.
Notable items from Concept Option B1 are:
Location: The satellite plant could be located at Robles Park in Palo Alto and would treat
wastewater from Los Altos.
Customers: Customers would be located nearby in Los Altos and in Palo Alto
Pump Stations: Four – 1 raw influent pump station to feed wastewater to the satellite plant and
three to distribute and boost recycled water to customers
Storage: Satellite plant would include 1.4 MG of treated water storage to meet peak hour
demands
Treatment Facilities
A potential site for the satellite facility is Robles Park in Palo Alto. Due to the urban setting of the Study
Area, there are limited opportunities to site new treatment facilities. There are no vacant properties in the
immediate vicinity of the sewer diversion point. Robles Park was identified as a potential site because it is
a public property and has sufficient open space to accommodate the satellite facilities. Although, public
use of the treatment plant site would be lost. For purposes of this study, the facilities are assumed to be
above ground at Robles Park. Use of Robles Park would also require City Council adoption of a Parks
Improvement Ordinance approving any substantial construction or development per Palo Alto Municipal
Code 22.08.005. However, if this concept option were to be pursued further, alternative treatment facility
siting may be considered, for example purchasing private property closer to the diversion point or siting
facilities below ground at Robles Park.
Pipelines
Concept Option B1’s distribution system would consist of approximately 12.8 miles of pipeline, including
6,000 LF of pipeline to convey influent wastewater flows from the sewer diversion point to the satellite
treatment facilities.
Pump Stations
To meet the pressure criteria, Concept Option B1 includes three pump stations: one at the satellite plant
site and two booster pump stations at optimized locations on the Phase 3 alignment and in Los Altos.
In addition, a Satellite Influent Pump Station is required to transport raw wastewater flows from the
diversion point at the end of the Los Altos sewer system to the satellite treatment facility in Palo Alto.
This influent pump station is co-located at the Pump Station #3 site.
Storage Tank Sizing
In order to meet demands during peak hours, Concept Option B1 requires a storage tank. The storage tank
is sized to store the maximum day demands for this concept option (1.4 MG) and is assumed to be sited
next to the satellite treatment plant.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-22
Table 3-9: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY)
Palo Alto – Phase 32 83 595
Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 2 28
Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167
Los Altos 5 104
Total 91 894
Treatment (MBR) 1.5 MGD
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 39,800
8 4,000
10 6,400
12 11,500
16 (influent to satellite plant) 6,000
Total Length (LF) 67,700
Total Length (mi) 12.8
Storage Tank 1.4 MG
Description Performance Requirements
Satellite
Plant
Pump
Station
(PS1)
Booster Pump
Station 2
(PS2)
Booster
Pump
Station 3
(PS3)
Satellite Influent
Pump Station
(PS4)
Required Flow 1,676
gpm 416 gpm 329 gpm 1,979 gpm
Discharge Head 252 ft 204 ft 288 ft 75 ft 3
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 4+1 2+1 2+1 2+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 40 hp 20 hp 20 hp 2 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 60 hp 60 hp 6 hp
Notes:
1. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on
groundwater for its water supply and does not receive water from Palo Alto.
2. These customers represent a subset of Phase 3 alignment customers from Concept Option A1.
3. Required discharge head at the Satellite Influent Pump Station is notably smaller due to the 30-foot elevation decrease
from its location to the satellite facility site.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-23
Figure 3-8: Alignment for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-24
3.5 Concept Option C: IPR Concept Options
3.5.1 Concept Option C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
Concept Option C1 was developed as Scenario 4 under the IPR Feasibility Evaluation (Todd 2018).
Concept Option C1 provides purified water for injection at five injection well sites in Palo Alto. The
Concept Option C1 alignment and the locations of injection wells are shown in Figure 3-9. As discussed
in Section 2.3.2, the volume of fully advanced treated recycled water that can be used for injection
purposes is 2,800 AFY, while the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater
basin (or the Project Yield) is 5,900 AFY (a mixture of recycled water and groundwater). These values
are summarized in Table 3-10.
Notable items from Concept Option C1 are:
Treatment: full advanced treatment facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on
the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the
designated use to include treatment facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be
injected and mixed into the local groundwater system.
Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers.
Pipeline: Dedicated pipeline to bring fully advanced treated recycled water from treatment
facilities at the RWQCP to the injection wells.
Pump Stations: One – dedicated pump station for purified recycled water at RWQCP
Table 3-10: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
Customer Location Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY)
Palo Alto - IPR Injection Wells 2,800 5,900
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 2,000
8 1,500
10 5,000
12 21,000
Total Length (LF) 29,500
Total Length (mi) 5.6
Description Performance Requirements
Purified Recycled Water Pump Station
(PS1)
Required Flow 1,736 gpm
Discharge Head 269 ft
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp
Recycled Water Treatment Wellhead Treatment
Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced
Oxidation Process with UV
Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS
concentrations
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-25
Treatment Facilities
Recycled water from the RWQCP would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. The
treatment facilities would be sized to produce 2.5 MGD to meet the daily flow required to be injected into
the groundwater basin to achieve 2,800 AFY. This assumes each of the five proposed injection wells is
constantly operating and does not account for downtime. The treatment facilities for this concept option
are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E Site. The Measure E site is a 10-acre site adjacent to the
RWQCP that includes a relatively flat portion that could be suitable for treatment facilities. Use of this
site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities.
Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the
groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply.
Pipelines
Concept Option C1’s distribution system would consist of approximately 5.6 miles of pipeline. A
dedicated IPR transmission main would be needed to convey fully advanced treated recycled water from
the RWQCP to the injection well field while the existing recycled water pipeline would continue to
deliver disinfected tertiary recycled water to non-potable demands.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-26
Figure 3-9: Alignment for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-27
3.5.2 Concept Option C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR
Concept Option C2 expands upon Concept Option C1 to include service of non-potable demands along or
in close proximity to the alignment. Both uses (IPR and NPR) would share a transmission line and
consequently, fully advanced treated recycled water would be served to all customers in this concept
option despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR.
The Concept Option C2 alignment is shown in Figure 3-10. A summary of the customers included in this
concept option and their corresponding demands are outlined in Table 3-11. As discussed in Section
2.3.2, the volume of fully advanced treated recycled water that can be used for NPR and injection
purposes is 2,800 AFY, while the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater
basin (or the Project Yield) is 5,900 AFY (a mixture of recycled water and groundwater). These values
are summarized in Table 3-11.
Notable items from Concept Option C2 are:
Treatment: Full advanced treatment is assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the
Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated
use to include treatment facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected and
mixed into the local groundwater system.
Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers and 18 non-potable customers along the
pipeline route. Both potable and non-potable customers would receive fully advanced treated
recycled water due to use of the same transmission pipeline despite the additional treatment being
unnecessary for NPR customers.
Pipeline: Dedicated pipeline to bring fully advanced treated recycled water from treatment
facilities at the RWQCP to the injection wells will also serve non-potable demands in close
proximity (with higher quality fully advanced treated recycled water).
Pump Stations: One – dedicated pump station for purified recycled water at the RWQCP.
Treatment Facilities
RWQCP recycled water will be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. Because the
potable and non-potable demands will be served from the same pipeline, the treatment facilities must be
sized to treat the base flows to the injection wells plus the maximum day demand for the non-potable
users. This translates to a total maximum day demand of 2.8 MGD. The treatment facilities for this
concept option, which would include reverse osmosis concentrate treatment facilities (see Section 3.2.3),
are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter
approval to change the designated use to include these treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included
to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo
Alto’s existing SFPUC supply.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-28
Table 3-11: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY)
Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 18 189 189
IPR Injection Wells - 2800 5900
Total 18 3,000 6,100
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 11,300
8 5,500
10 3,000
12 2,500
16 19,100
Total Length (LF) 41,400
Total Length (mi) 7.8
Description Performance Requirements
Purified Recycled Water Pump Station
(PS1)
Required Flow 2,334 gpm
Discharge Head 265 ft
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 4+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 60 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp
Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment
Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced
Oxidation Process with UV
Needed due to total reuse quantity;
nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017)
Wellhead Treatment
Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS
concentrations
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-29
Figure 3-10: Alignment for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-30
3.5.3 Concept Option C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
Concept Option C3 is similar to Concept Option C2 but uses an extension from the Phase 3 Pipeline
(Concept Option A1) to serve the injection well sites. Similar to Concept Option C2, fully advanced
treated recycled water would be served to all customers (NPR and IPR) in this concept option. Concept
Option C3 is unique in that it assumes that the Phase 3 Pipeline for NPR has already been constructed and
flows to the injection well field are limited by the excess capacity in the Phase 3 Pipeline during off-peak
hours and outside of the peak irrigation season. This concept option mitigates the risk of decreasing NPR
demand along the Phase 3 Pipeline and would enable phased implementation with NPR in the near term
and IPR in the longer term.
The Concept Option C3 alignment is shown in Figure 3-11. A summary of the customers included in this
concept option and their corresponding demands are outlined in Table 3-12. The values shown assume the
estimated demand for the Phase 3 Pipeline is maintained, which allows for approximately 2,280 AFY to
be sent to IPR versus the 2,800 AFY in Concept Options C1 and C2. Correspondingly the project yield
(total of recycled water and groundwater) was reduced to 5,000 AFY from 5,900 AFY.
Notable items from Concept Option C3:
Phasing: Concept Option C3 represents a potential phased implementation with NPR in the near
term and IPR in the longer term.
Treatment: Full advanced treatment facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on
the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the
designated use to include treatment facilities .AWTS Fully advanced treated recycled water
would be injected and mixed into the local groundwater system.
Customers: In a future phase, customers on the Phase 3 Pipeline would receive fully advanced
treated recycled water through a new dedicated connection from the RWQCP. Both potable and
non-potable customers would receive fully advanced treated recycled water due to use of same
transmission pipeline despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR customers.
Pipeline: Includes the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) and, in a future phase, a new
connection from the RWQCP full advanced treatment facilities to Phase 3 and an extension to
IPR injection wells.
Treatment Facilities
Recycled water from the RWQCP would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection.
Because the potable and non-potable demands would be served from the same pipeline, the treatment
facilities must be sized to treat both the flows to the injection wells plus the flows to the non-potable
users, or 3.3 MGD. The non-potable demands will be served by nearly potable water. This concept option
includes reverse osmosis concentrate treatment (see 3.2.3) that is assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s
Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to
include treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS
concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply.
Pump Stations
To meet the pressure criteria, Concept Option C3 includes an additional pump station beyond the ones
identified for the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1). This additional pump station would be at the
connection between the Phase 3 Pipeline and the IPR extension pipeline.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-31
Table 3-12: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from
Phase 3 Pipeline
Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY)
Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 634
Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 167
Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 10 119 119
Palo Alto – IPR Injection Wells - 2,280 5,000
Total 120 3,200 5,900
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
6 20,000
8 12,500
10 9,900
12 48,300
16 900
Total Length (LF) 91,600
Total Length (mi) 17.3
Description Performance Requirements
IPR Booster
Pump Station
(PS1)
Recycled Water
Pump Station
Phase 3 Booster
Pump Station
Required Flow 2,108 gpm 1,637 gpm 1,408 gpm
Discharge Head 302 ft 200 ft 198 ft
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 2 3+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp 100 hp 60 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 400 hp 200 hp 240 hp
Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment
Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation
Process with UV
Needed due to total reuse quantity;
nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017)
Wellhead Treatment
Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations
Notes:
1. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on
groundwater for its water supply and does not receive water from Palo Alto.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-32
Figure 3-11: Alignment for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-33
3.6 Concept Option D: DPR Concept Options
3.6.1 Concept Option D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
Concept Option D1 uses advanced treated recycled water to directly supplement the potable water supply
for customers in Palo Alto. As discussed in Section 2.4, because there is no dedicated surface water
treatment plant in the service area, treated drinking water augmentation is the only feasible DPR option
available at this time.
Treated water would be stored in a purified water tank for 8 hours and delivered to the potable water
distribution system. A map showing the approximate alignment and connection points to the potable
water system for Concept Option D1 is shown in Figure 3-12. As explained in Section 2.4.2, the demand
for DPR (Table 3-13) was based on Palo Alto’s share of the RWQCP effluent flow.
Notable items from Concept Option D1:
Treatment: Full advanced treatment plus other treatment process facilities are assumed to be
constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto
voter approval to change the designated use to include these facilities. Fully advanced treated
recycled water would be injected directly into the potable distribution system. Additional
monitoring and reporting of treatment performance is anticipated to demonstrate protection of
public health.
Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers.
Pump Stations: Two pump stations: one to convey fully advanced treated recycled water to
storage (Storage Pump Station) and one from the storage to the distribution system (Distribution
Pump Station).
Pipeline: Connects from treatment facilities to storage and from storage to potable water system
at three separate points to add in blending and to match existing potable water system hydraulics.
Storage: Engineered storage of 4.75 MG is assumed to be located beneath the Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course driving range.
Treatment Facilities
Consistent with the SWRCB’s Feasibility Report on Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for
DPR, the water quality of the influent wastewater for DPR was assumed to be final effluent from the
RWQCP (filtered and disinfected secondary effluent). Without specific regulatory requirements, the
assumed Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) treatment train is the full advanced treatment
train with the additions of ozone-biologically active filtration and free chlorine process steps. In order to
comply with the RWQCP discharge limits, facilities to treat the reverse osmosis concentrate would also
be part of the AWTP. The AWTP treatment facilities are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E
site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include these
facilities. Additional monitoring and reporting of treatment performance is anticipated for DPR to
demonstrate protection of public health. Concept Option D1 includes additional annual costs to reflect
this additional, but undefined by regulations, monitoring.
Storage Tank Sizing
It is anticipated that an engineered storage buffer will be required between the AWPF and introduction of
purified water to the potable distribution system. A potential location for this tank is beneath the Palo
Alto Municipal Golf Course driving range. A preliminary estimate of the storage tank operational volume
needed to serve Concept Option D1 users is 4.75 MG assuming 8 hours of cycling storage (filling, testing,
and distributing from three different cells within the storage tank operational volume).
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-34
Table 3-13: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
Customer Location Demand Total (AFY)
Palo Alto 5,300
Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF)
10 5,000
16 1,700
18 1,400
24 2,600
Total Length (LF) 10,700
Total Length (mi) 2.0
Description Performance Requirements
To Storage Pump
Station (PS1)
Distribution Pump
Station (PS2)
Required Flow 4,382 gpm 3,285 gpm
Discharge Head 31 ft 257 ft
Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 3+1
Pump Motor Rating (each) 15 hp 100 hp
Total Installed Motor Horsepower 60 hp 400 hp
Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment
Ozone, Biologically Active Filtration, Membrane
Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation
Process with UV, Free Chlorine
Needed due to total reuse quantity;
nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017)
Storage
4.75 million gallons
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options
FINAL
July 2019 3-35
Figure 3-12: Alignment for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-1
Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
4.1 Approach for Concept Options Evaluation
The concept options described in Chapter 3 were evaluated for estimated costs (e.g., capital, annual, unit
cost of water) and for non-cost criteria. Section 4.2 describes the basis of the preliminary cost estimates
while Section 4.3 presents the cost information by concept option. Section 4.4 describes the non-cost
criteria scoring. Section 4.5 provides the evaluation of concept options with weighted scores for cost and
non-cost criteria.
Each concept option was evaluated for implementation costs (capital, operations, maintenance) based on
technical information developed by the consulting team, described in Chapter 3, and using an approach
for planning-level costs development discussed in this chapter. Following the implementation cost
development, the concept options were evaluated for non-cost related criteria in a collaborative approach
using input from agency stakeholders on priorities for the criteria and how to weigh criteria relative to one
another.
4.2 Basis of Preliminary Cost Estimate
This section provides an overview of the approach and methodology used to develop a preliminary
estimate of costs for each concept option developed in this study. The estimated costs represent the
Engineer’s opinion based on the current state of development for the project components. Specific
information on the unit costs and source for each element is identified in the unit cost spreadsheets that
are part of the detailed cost estimate provided in Appendix D.
4.2.1 Cost Estimate Classification
The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) has
developed a cost estimate classification system that provides guidelines for applying the general
principles of estimate classification to project cost estimates. The five estimate classes are presented in
AACE International Recommended Practice No. 56R-08 (Cost Estimate Classification System – As
Applied for the Building and General Construction Industries). The guideline establishes a relationship
between the project maturity (i.e. project definition as percent of complete definition) and the accuracy
and methodology used to produce the cost estimate. Based on the level of project definition, the cost
estimates developed for this report are Class 5 as defined by Publication 56R-08. The accuracy range for
Class 5 estimates in the Strategic Plan is between 20% below and 50% above estimated bid cost.
4.2.2 Cost Estimating Approach
Cost estimates have been developed based on preliminary facility layouts and design criteria for pipeline
alignments and pump stations. Construction costs were estimated using unit costs developed from past
construction projects, industry cost estimate resources (primarily RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost
Data) as well as engineering allowances based on engineering judgement and previous project experience.
Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are based on estimated labor hours, consumables, significant
regular O&M activities (e.g. recoating of exposed metallic surfaces) and energy costs.
Raw Construction Cost
Raw construction costs are estimated by major work or component line item based on a unit cost
multiplied by estimated quantity. Unit costs were developed using:
RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data (RSMeans);
Manufacturer’s equipment proposals; and
Experience with prior projects and activities of similar size or configuration.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-2
Historic unit cost or out-of-area unit cost information was adjusted to June 2018 dollars for the project
vicinity using Engineering News Record’s (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) and the RSMeans
Location Factor.
Cost Estimate Benchmark Index
The concept options’ preliminary cost estimates presented herein are benchmarked to ENR CCI for San
Francisco. The estimate is in June 2018 dollars, with an ENR CCI SF index of 12,015.
Construction Cost Allowances and Contingencies
From the raw construction cost subtotal, several construction cost factors are applied to develop an
estimated total construction cost. The construction cost factors used are listed below.
9% Sales Tax on Materials. Sales tax on materials was estimated as 9.0% (local sales tax)
applied to 50% of capital costs (not including General Requirement costs). The assumption is that
materials and equipment represent 50% of the raw construction cost.
40% Construction Contingency. The construction contingency is defined as unknown costs due
to incomplete engineering during the preliminary design phase and uncertainty about full scope of
the project. The contingency is applied to the construction cost subtotal that are estimated as a
percentage of defined project costs (i.e. raw construction cost subtotal). As the level of project
definition and understanding increases and the level of unknown decreases, the construction
contingency typically decreases. For this report, a construction contingency of 40% was applied
to the raw construction cost estimates.
10% Market Adjustment Factor. To account for bidding market price increases, a Market
Adjustment Factor of 10% has been applied.
Capital Cost Allowances
15% Engineering Services (Design) & Administration Services. Engineering services include
field investigations (e.g. surveys, geotechnical reports, hazardous materials investigations), final
design, contract document development (i.e. plans and specifications), preparation of detailed
cost estimates, and project scheduling. Administration costs include Palo Alto’s project
management and staff time during construction. An engineering and City administrative services
allowance of 15% was applied to the total construction cost.
10% Construction Management. Costs for construction management, including inspection, can
vary greatly with project size and complexity and whether the Owner performs this work with in-
house staff or through a consultant. A construction management factor of 10% was applied to the
total construction cost.
3% Engineering Services During Construction. Engineering services during construction
(ESDC) includes submittal and request for information reviews, design clarifications, and startup
support services. An ESDC factor of 3% was applied to the total construction cost.
Property Acquisition
For facilities such as pump stations and satellite treatment located outside of the public right of way or
outside the RWQCP, land would need to be purchased or leased. The market rate for the project area was
assumed to be $500 per square foot. These land costs were added to a concept option’s total capital cost
following the allowances and contingencies. Purchase or lease of land includes RWQCP partner-owned
properties. However, in the case of Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR, which assumes the
engineered storage tank is beneath the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, acquisition of the land is not
required since normal golf course operations can resume following construction. In order to account for
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-3
the potential loss of revenue due to construction of this storage facility, an allowance for loss of revenue
was applied. This cost was added to total capital cost following all allowances and contingencies.
Property acquisition was not included for injection wells since the impact to properties is considered
minimal.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
O&M requirements and annual costs were derived from experience on similar projects, as well as input
from Palo Alto. The three components used to develop annual O&M costs were:
Labor – Labor costs associated with the water treatment and pump station O&M is calculated on
an hourly basis. The required labor hours are estimated based on historical data. The average
hourly cost of O&M personnel, which includes all wages and benefits to the operator, is assumed
to be $100 per hour. Annual inspection and maintenance for storage tanks were estimated as 1
percent of the total capital costs for that element, while conveyance O&M was based on a cost
metric per linear foot of pipeline.
Energy – Energy costs for pump stations are a combination of an energy charge (per kWh) and
the kWh required input for each pump station in a concept option. Energy costs for treatment are
estimated as a combined cost with consumables on a per unit of water basis (cost per MGD).
Consumables – Consumables are a major component of operational expenditures and include
resources that are intended and expected to be used and replaced routinely. Consumable costs for
treatment were estimated on a per unit of water basis (cost per MGD). Consumable costs for
pump stations were estimated as a percentage of the raw construction cost. Consumable costs are
not applied to the pipeline portion of each concept option.
4.2.3 Wastewater/Recycled Water Treatment Construction Costs
Wastewater and recycled water treatment construction costs have been developed for each concept option,
where needed, on a per MGD basis. Per MGD cost estimates for membrane bioreactor (MBR) and for the
advanced treatment facilities (membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation process with UV,
ozone, biologically active filtration, chlorination) are based on previous project experience.
4.2.4 Pipeline Construction
Pipeline construction costs have been developed for each concept option as described in the following
sections. Pipeline capital costs include open-cut, special crossing elements, and pipe rehabilitation.
Pipeline Construction Cost – Open Cut
The pipe material for open cut installation is assumed to be high density polyethylene (HDPE). Based on
the estimated pressures within the system and a surcharge allowance, a pressure rating of 200 psi was
chosen as a suitable pressure rating for the pipe network. The corresponding dimension ratio resulted in
DR 11.
A pipeline cost estimating tool was used to generate unit costs for underground pipeline construction for
HDPE ranging in size from 8- to 30-inch (nominal diameter) assuming an average of 5-foot depth of
cover, in urban settings. The estimating tool uses the following to develop installed unit costs:
Historical engineering and bid price data for HDPE pipelines, appurtenances, traffic control,
potholing, cathodic protection, excess soil disposal tipping fees, and urban setting production
rates.
RSMeans unit costs for trench shoring, excavation, backfill, backfill compaction, pavement,
grinding and milling, aggregate base, and pavement restoration including valves, haul to disposal,
labor/installation, and dewatering.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-4
The tool contains various input parameters including depth of cover, type of trench backfill and source
(i.e. import vs. native material), condition of soil (i.e. clean vs. contaminated), percentage of backfill to be
imported, amount of traffic control needed (i.e. none, light, or heavy), percentage of alignment requiring
dewatering, production rate, and valve and pothole frequency. Using these inputs, the tool estimates the
construction quantities related to buried piping (i.e. excavation volume), and subsequently, the associated
unit cost per length of pipe.
The unit costs are summarized in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Unit Cost of HDPE Pipe
Modeled Pipe Internal
Diameter (ID) (in) HDPE DR 11 ID (in)
HDPE DR 11 Nominal
Outer Diameter (OD)
(in) Unit Cost ($/LF)
6 6.96 8 $200
8 8.68 10 $212
10 10.29 12 $254
12 12.92 16 $277
16 16.15 20 $334
18 19.37 24 $381
24 24.22 30 $462
Assumptions:
Pipeline is in an urban setting
o Asphalt concrete pavement replacement would be the width of the trench plus 6-inches on each side
o Heavy traffic control required
o One pothole per 100 LF of pipe required
Average depth of cover of 5 feet
100% of soil excavated is hauled to a landfill or reused offsite and 100% of soil required for backfill is imported
Isolation valves and other appurtenances amount to 20% or the pipeline material costs
Production rate is 150-linear feet of pipeline construction per day
Note: HDPE pipe sizes are IPS (outside diameter controlled) based on AWWA C906
Pipeline Construction Cost – Special Crossings
For special crossings (such as highway and creek crossings), a range of crossing methods was assessed
for the preferred crossing method at each location. Following this assessment, Pilot Tube Guided Auger
Boring (PTGAB) was considered the default method for all trenchless underground crossings. PTGAB is
a costlier method compared to other trenchless techniques and may be required due to the concept
option’s smaller pipeline diameters and certain soil conditions in the Study Area. Therefore, it is a
conservative basis for the purpose of developing a planning-level cost estimate. PTGAB is favorable in
conditions with little to no groundwater; therefore, if further geotechnical investigations identify high
groundwater along the pipeline route, another trenchless method should be considered.
Each special crossing was evaluated as a potential trenchless underground crossing, but where feasible,
crossings were also evaluated for less costly construction methods. Therefore, non-trenchless installation
methods were utilized where possible. This was applied when pipeline alignments crossed bridges and
box culverts; it was assumed that under these specific conditions, a pipe bridge could be used rather than
a trenchless method. Pipe bridges are generally lower cost and allow for reduced permitting efforts and
traffic control during construction compared to trenchless methods.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-5
Under the Phase 3 Pipeline design (Woodard & Curran 2018), feasible trenchless construction methods
included microtunneling and horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Open cut methods were assumed
when the alignment crossed over an existing culvert and there is adequate cover over the box culvert.
Table 4-2 summarizes the unit costs used for special crossings. These costs were developed based on a
collection of past project experience and unit costs taken from RSMeans.
Table 4-2: Special Crossing Unit Costs
Element Unit Unit Cost
Trenchless
Microtunnel Launch Pit Lump sum $300,000
Microtunnel Receiving Pit Lump sum $150,000
Microtunnel Casing and Pipe (36-inch) Linear foot $1,728
HDD (24-inch bore diameter) Linear foot $528
PTGAB (HDPE)
6-inch Linear foot $375
8-inch Linear foot $500
10-inch Linear foot $625
12-inch Linear foot $750
16-inch Linear foot $1,000
20-inch Linear foot $1,250
PTGAB Launch Pit Lump sum $258,000
PTGAB Receiving Pit Lump sum $148,000
Pipe Bridge (DIP, Class 50, Mechanical Joint)
6-inch Linear foot $66
8-inch Linear foot $86
10-inch Linear foot $108
16-inch Linear foot $175
Pipe Bridge Support Lump sum $5,000
Pipeline Construction Cost – Pipe Rehabilitation
Pipelines that serve Los Altos Hills under Concept Options A2 and A3 were assumed to convey recycled
water via re-lined abandoned PHWD 6- and 8-inch cast iron pipe (CIP) water mains in Purissima Road.
The 6- and 8-inch water mains were abandoned in 1995. The condition of the pipes is unknown but was
assumed to be in relatively good condition. Under current recycled water demand projections, there is
sufficient capacity in the existing pipes.
Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) lining was assumed to be the more practical method of rehabilitation
compared to pipe bursting due to the minimal pipe cover depths, which were estimated by PHWD to be
approximately three to four feet. The shallow cover could present problems of ground heave and soil
displacement if pipe bursting were to take place.
CIPP lining costs, for both the 6- and 8-inch mains, were estimated from historical data. Unit costs
include closed-circuit television inspection and minor cleaning prior to lining. Advanced cleaning
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-6
mechanisms to address instances of tuberculation and point repair to address structural deficiencies are
not included in the cost.
4.2.5 Pump Station Construction Cost
Pump station costs for concept options were estimated using a pump cost curve based on each pump
station’s total installed motor horsepower. This cost curve is applicable to pump stations of average
complexity. The pump cost curve was determined using the following equation:
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 $
𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟= 17437 ∗𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟.
Pump station costs for Concept Option A1, Phase 3 Pipeline, including costs for the Phase 3 recycled
water pump station and booster pump station were taken from the Phase 3 Preliminary Design Report
(Woodard & Curran 2018).
Hydropneumatic and Surge Tanks Costs
Concept Options with multiple pump stations would benefit from the installation of recycled water tanks,
but given the challenge of acquiring land in the Study Area to construct such tanks, hydropneumatic tanks
were assumed instead. Hydropneumatic tanks would regulate system pressures to meet demand while
acting as a cushion for pumps in series in a closed conduit system. Since the tanks contain both water and
air under pressure, they can exert or absorb pressure throughout the system when needed.
Costs for surge tanks were also included for some concept options assuming the need to mitigate
variations due to rapid changes in flow. A surge analysis would be required to determine the need for
surge tanks. The tank costs were estimated from previous experience with projects of similar
characteristics and configuration.
4.2.6 Extraction Well Treatment Construction Costs
For IPR concept options, wellhead treatment was assumed to be required at all extraction wells. The
wellhead treatment capital and O&M costs were developed based on calculations completed for Palo
Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. Wellhead treatment capital costs include reverse osmosis
treatment for iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids (Option 4 from the 2000 Long Term Water
Supply Study, updated for the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan). These wellhead treatment capital
costs do not account for land acquisition. Therefore, separate land costs were developed for the
Rinconada and Peers wells, which would require additional land to be purchased to locate wellhead
treatment facilities. These land costs are also sourced from Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources
Plan.
In addition to wellhead treatment, O&M costs for extraction wells also included the Valley Water
groundwater pumping charge. This cost was based on projected Valley Water rates for groundwater
pumping in the Study Area.
4.3 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost Summary
Table 4-3 below provides a summary of probable capital and O&M costs, as well as unit costs, for each
developed concept option. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix D.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-7
Table 4-3: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs
Concept Option ID & Name Capital Cost O&M
($/Year)
Yield
(AFY)
Unit
Cost
($/AF)
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 $47,800,000 $290,000 800 $3,400
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills $63,000,000 $520,000 1,100 $3,400
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and
Los Altos
$85,100,000 $680,000 1,200 $4,000
A4: NPR Mountain View $6,200,000 $100,000 200 $2,100
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos $72,600,000 $400,000 900 $4,600
A6: NPR East Palo Alto $20,700,000 $150,000 500 $2,400
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant $129,600,000 $1,370,000 900 $8,900
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR $92,200,000 $14,830,000 5,900 $3,300
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR $152,100,000 $16,920,000 6,100 $4,000
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 $198,400,000 $15,780,000 5,900 $4,400
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR $104,600,000 $8,010,000 5,300 $2,500
Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI June 2018 SF index of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class 5 estimate (-
20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years.
4.4 Concept Option Evaluation Non-Cost Criteria
In evaluating concept options, Palo Alto and Valley Water solicited input from stakeholders on factors to
consider in addition to cost. The stakeholders aided in developing the list of non-cost criteria and Palo
Alto and Valley Water staff participated in the development of scoring rubrics to apply each non-cost
criteria to the various concept options. The selected non-cost criteria are:
Water Supply Resiliency
Public Acceptance
Adaptability
Level of Agency Coordination
Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination
Regulatory Complexity
Institutional Complexity
Regional Perspective
Social and Economic Benefit
Environmental Benefit
For each criterion, concept options could score up to 5 points. A description of the criteria, the scoring
rubric for that criteria, and how each concept option scored with respect to those criteria are described in
the following sections.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-8
4.4.1 Water Supply Resiliency
This criterion evaluates concept options based on their total potential recycled water demand or amount of
water supplied. Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: potential demands totaling > 2,000 AFY
4 points: potential demands totaling between 1,501 and 2,000 AFY
3 points: potential demands totaling between 1,001 and 1,500 AFY
2 points: potential demands totaling between 501 and 1,000 AFY
1 point: potential demands totaling ≤ 500 AFY
Table 4-4: Concept Option Scores for Water Supply Resiliency
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 800 AFY
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 1,100 AFY
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los
Altos
3 1,250 AFY
A4: NPR Mountain View 1 200 AFY
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 2 900 AFY
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 1 500 AFY
B1: NPR Sate Satellite Treatment Plant 2 900 AFY
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 2,800 AFY
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 3,000 AFY
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 3,200 AFY
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 5,300 AFY
Note. For IPR options, the rationale is based on purified recycled water yield.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-9
4.4.2 Public Acceptance
Public acceptance criterion gauges the likelihood of potential customers accepting recycled water and
continuing to use it for the foreseeable future. Customer acceptance of NPR is assumed to be greater than
potable reuse. Public properties, which are mainly owned by agencies that have been engaged in the
recycled water planning process, are assumed to be easier to convert to recycled water usage than
privately owned properties. For potable reuse options, given initial feedback from members of the Palo
Alto Utilities Advisory Commission and City Council at their respective study sessions held in 2018,
DPR is assumed to have greater public acceptance than IPR.
Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: NPR concept options serving public properties only
4 points: NPR concept options including private properties but with customers (or an anchor
customer) eager to accept recycled water or where a detailed market assessment has been
performed
3 points: NPR including private properties
2 points: DPR concept options
1 point: IPR concept options
Table 4-5: Concept Option Scores for Public Acceptance
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 Demands recently refined during pre-design
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills
4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design.
Additional area includes strong anchor
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills and Los
Altos
4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design.
Additional area includes strong anchor
A4: NPR Mountain View 4 Demands from Mountain View RWFS
A5: NPR Mountain View
Extended to Los Altos
3 Mountain View demands from RWFS.
Demand in Los Altos includes a large private user.
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 Includes numerous private properties in East Palo Alto
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment
Plant
4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design.
Demand in Los Altos is non-potable for public properties
only
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 IPR
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 IPR
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR
from Phase 3
1 IPR
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 2 DPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-10
4.4.3 Adaptability
Adaptability criterion assesses the potential to repurpose the proposed facilities in case of changes in the
demand base. Concept options with the lowest risk of assets being stranded in the future scored highest.
The concept options that included both NPR and IPR uses were considered most adaptable. Because the
recycled water used for these concept options would be fully-advanced treated water suitable for
groundwater injection, if NPR decreased, the water could be redirected to groundwater recharge. After the
combined NPR and IPR concept options, the IPR-only concept option was considered the most adaptable
given the ability to use the IPR treatment train within the DPR treatment train and repurpose the pipeline
to the injection wells for conveyance of DPR water to the drinking water distribution system. IPR and
DPR conveyance infrastructure could be repurposed to serve NPR customers if potable reuse for some
reason became unacceptable to the community, but the injection wells and the advanced water
purification facilities would be stranded assets. The NPR pipelines, which generally consist of smaller
diameters than the IPR and DPR concept options, provide fewer repurposing opportunities than the IPR
and DPR pipelines. Among the NPR concept options, those with larger diameter pipelines provide more
opportunities for future uses.
Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: NPR/IPR
4 points: IPR only
3 points: DPR or NPR with backbone ≥ 16-inch and non-extensive branching
2 points: NPR with backbone < 16-inch and non-extensive branching
1 point: NPR with extensive branching
Table 4-6: Concept Option Scores for Adaptability
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 NPR, pipeline backbone 12-inch
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills
1 NPR, extensive pipeline branches
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills and Los Altos
1 NPR, extensive pipeline branches
A4: NPR Mountain View 2 NPR, pipeline ranges from 12- to 6-inch
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los
Altos
3 NPR, pipeline backbone 6-inch with several long
branches following the 16-inch segment
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 2 NPR, pipeline backbone ranges from 12- to 10-
inch with a few relatively short branches
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 1 NPR, pipeline branching begins at satellite facility
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 4 IPR only
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 NPR with IPR
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 NPR with IPR
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 3 DPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-11
4.4.4 Level of Agency Coordination
This criterion reflects the effort required by the lead agency to implement the concept option including
design, use permitting, and operating requirements. Centralized NPR concept options were considered
preferable to satellite NPR, IPR and DPR, all of which require new treatment processes to operate. DPR,
which requires a new classification of treatment operators, was considered the least favorable concept
option in this regard.
Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: Project previously evaluated and supported by community
4 points: NPR serving only lead agency or RWQCP partner owned sites or Project has already
gone through public reviews
3 points: NPR serving various sites
2 points: NPR with satellite treatment or IPR
1 point: DPR
Table 4-7: Concept Option Scores for Level of Agency Coordination
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 Completed facilities plan and EIR
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills
3 NPR including non-partner sites in Palo Alto and Los Altos
Hills
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills and Los
Altos
3 NPR including non-partner sites in Palo Alto, Los Altos, and
Los Altos Hills
A4: NPR Mountain View 5 Mountain View prepared to implement project pending
current update (July 2019) of RWFS
A5: NPR Mountain View
Extended to Los Altos
3 NPR including non-partner sites in Los Altos
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 NPR including non-partner sites in East Palo Alto
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment
Plant
2 New satellite treatment facilities
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 New treatment facilities for IPR
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 2 New treatment facilities for IPR
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR
from Phase 3
2 New treatment facilities for IPR
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 New treatment facilities for DPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-12
4.4.5 Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination
Level of customer retrofits/coordination criterion is the effort and improvements required by the customer
to use the recycled water. Having no retrofit requirements would be preferred, followed by changing
meters for customers who already have a separate irrigation meter. Conversion of existing buildings is the
least preferred due to anticipated complications with local public health approvals to verify there are no
cross-connections within the retrofitted building. Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: No customer retrofits
4 points: Irrigation use only with separate meters
3 points: Irrigation use only, or indoor use limited to future development
2 points: Irrigation and indoor uses within existing buildings
1 point: Indoor uses only within existing buildings
Table 4-8: Concept Option Scores for Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills
2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills and Los
Altos
2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers
A4: NPR Mountain View 2 Includes indoor use for existing Mountain View customer
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended
to Los Altos
2 Includes indoor use for existing Mountain View customer
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 Includes indoor uses limited to future developments in
East Palo Alto
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 IPR does not require customer retrofits
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 3 NPR limited to irrigation
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from
Phase 3
3 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 DPR does not require customer retrofits
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-13
4.4.6 Regulatory Complexity
Regulatory complexity criterion is a measure of the precedence of proposed uses of recycled water and
permitting required for implementation. As a well-established practice, permitting for NPR will be more
streamlined than potable reuse. Permitting for IPR which has established regulations will be less complex
than DPR which does not yet have established regulations.
Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: NPR for irrigation only
4 points: NPR including non-irrigation uses
3 points: IPR only
2 points: NPR with IPR
1 point: DPR only
Table 4-9: Concept Option Scores for Regulatory Complexity
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills
4 NPR including non-irrigation uses
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills and Los Altos
4 NPR including non-irrigation uses
A4: NPR Mountain View 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los
Altos
4 NPR including non-irrigation uses
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3 IPR
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 2 NPR with IPR
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 2 NPR with IPR
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 DPR
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-14
4.4.7 Institutional Complexity
Institutional complexity criterion reflects the number of local agencies that would be involved in
implementation and operation of the concept option. The more favorable concept options were those with
fewer agencies involved since institutional complexity increases with the number of agencies involved.
Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: One local agency
4 points: Two local agencies
3 points: Three local agencies
2 points: Four local agencies
1 point: Five local agencies
Table 4-10: Concept Option Scores for Institutional Complexity
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 5 1 agency: Palo Alto
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills
3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, Purissima
Hills Water District
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills and Los Altos
1 5 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District
A4: NPR Mountain View 5 1 agency: Mountain View
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los
Altos
3 3 agencies: Mountain View, Los Altos, Cal Water
A6: NPR East Palo Alto1 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, East Palo Alto Sanitary
District, East Palo Alto
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cal Water
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 1 agency: Palo Alto
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto
Note: 1. Although the infrastructure for Concept Option A6 is sized for anticipated Menlo Park demands, the short-term project does
not require coordination with Menlo Park.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-15
4.4.8 Regional Perspective
Regional perspective criterion reflects the number of local agencies benefitting from the implementation
of the concept option. In contrast to the institutional complexity criterion, the more favorable concept
options were those that included multiple agencies. Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: Majority of RWQCP partners, multiple water retailers and multiple wholesalers benefit
4 points: Multiple water retailers and multiple wholesalers benefit
3 points: Multiple water retailers but only one wholesaler benefit
2 points: One water retailer but multiple wholesalers benefit
1 point: One water retailer and one wholesaler benefit
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-16
Table 4-11: Concept Option Scores for Regional Perspective
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto; Retailers: Palo Alto; Wholesaler:
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills 3
Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills
Retailers: Palo Alto, Purissima Hills Water District
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills and Los
Altos 4
Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills
Retailers: Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water
District
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
Valley Water
A4: NPR Mountain View
1
Partner Agency: Mountain View
Retailers: Mountain View
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
A5: NPR Mountain View
Extended to Los Altos 4
Partner Agency: Mountain View, Los Altos
Retailers: Mountain View, Cal Water
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
Valley Water
A6: NPR East Palo Alto1
3
Partner Agency: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Palo Alto
Retailers: East Palo Alto, Palo Alto
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment
Plant 4
Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos
Retailers: Palo Alto, Cal Water
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
Valley Water
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
1
Partner Agency: Palo Alto
Retailers: Palo Alto
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR
1
Partner Agency: Palo Alto
Retailers: Palo Alto
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR
from Phase 3 1
Partner Agency: Palo Alto
Retailers: Palo Alto
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
1
Partner Agency: Palo Alto
Retailers: Palo Alto
Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Note: 1. Although the infrastructure for Concept Option A6 is sized for anticipated Menlo Park demands, the short-term project does
not directly benefit Menlo Park
.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-17
4.4.9 Social and Economic Benefit
Social and economic benefit criterion reflects the benefits of improved water supply reliability. Concept
Options were scored as follows:
5 points: Supports a disadvantaged community
4 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2020 in normal years
3 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2020 in dry years
2 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2040
1 point: No projected shortfalls
Table 4-12: Concept Option Scores for Social and Economic Benefit
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 1 No projected shortfalls
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills
1 No projected shortfalls
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills and Los Altos
1 No projected shortfalls
A4: NPR Mountain View 2 Mountain View has projected shortfall by 2040
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los
Altos
2 Mountain View has projected shortfall by 2040
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 5 East Palo Alto is a disadvantaged community;
East Palo Alto and Menlo Park have projected
shortfalls
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 1 No projected shortfalls
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 No projected shortfalls
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 No projected shortfalls
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 1 No projected shortfalls
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 No projected shortfalls
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-18
4.4.10 Environmental Benefit
Environmental benefit criterion considers the improvement to the RWQCP’s discharge to the San
Francisco Bay. NPR diverts more contaminants from Bay discharge, and it is assumed that IPR and DPR
will involve discharge of reverse osmosis concentrate with trace organics, nutrients, and trace metals.
Concept Options were scored as follows:
5 points: NPR > 999 AFY
4 points: NPR 0 to 999 AFY
3 points: NPR with IPR
2 points: IPR only
1 point: DPR only
Table 4-13: Concept Option Scores for Environmental Benefit
Concept Option ID Score Rationale
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 NPR 800 AFY
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills
5 NPR 1,100 AFY
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills and Los Altos
5 NPR 1,200 AFY
A4: NPR Mountain View 4 NPR 200 AFY
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los
Altos
4 NPR 900 AFY
A6: NPR East Palo Alto 4 NPR 500 AFY
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 5 NPR 900 AFY
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 IPR only
C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 3 NPR with IPR
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 3 NPR with IPR
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 DPR only
4.5 Concept Option Scoring
4.5.1 Non-Cost Scoring
Palo Alto, Valley Water, and Mountain View, as the Strategic Plan primary stakeholders, weighted the
non-cost criteria. Table 4-14 shows the average of the provided weights.
Table 4-15 presents the ranking of concept options based on the non-cost criteria alone. Considering only
the non-cost criteria, the top scoring concept options are A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to
Foothills and the IPR concept options (Concept Options C1- C3) while the lowest scoring concept options
are D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR and B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant. The previously recommended
Palo Alto Phase 3 (Concept Option A1) and Mountain View long term project (Concept Option A4) rank
in the middle.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-19
Table 4-14: Non-Cost Criteria Weighting
Criteria
Percent of Non-Cost
Score
Weighted Maximum Score per Criteria (Maximum
score per Criteria being 5)
Amount of water
supplied
19% 95
Public acceptance 17% 85
Adaptability 10% 50
Level of agency
coordination
9% 45
Level of customer
retrofits/coordination
5% 25
Regulatory complexity 6% 30
Institutional complexity 9% 45
Regional perspective 8% 40
Social and economic
benefit
10% 50
Environmental benefit 7% 35
Total 100% 500
Table 4-15: Non-Cost Ranking
Rank
Score
(Maximum
Score = 500)
Concept Option
1 291 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
2 290 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
3
289 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR
289 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
4 286 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
5
285 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
285 A4: NPR Mountain View
285 A6: NPR East Palo Alto
6 282 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
7 271 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
8 269 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
The IPR concept options are scored well with non-cost criteria due to the large amount of water supplied
combined with greater ability to repurpose the infrastructure and only one agency required to implement
and operate.
Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ranks highly because it delivers
among the largest volumes of the NPR concept options and strikes a balance between offering regional
benefits while requiring few agencies to implement and operate.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-20
Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR delivers the greatest volume of recycled water out of all
the concept options, requires only one agency to implement and operate, and does not require
infrastructure changes by customers. The notable drawback of Concept Option D1 is the implementation
process. Given the lack of established regulations, pursuing a DPR project at this time would require more
effort by Palo Alto to establish a process that DDW will permit. Even when DPR regulations are
established, the hurdles that agencies must clear to permit DPR projects will likely be more challenging
compared to other recycled water projects. Another challenge will be hiring/training staff to operate the
new treatment facilities.
The presumed benefit of Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was the ability to create a
compact recycled water distribution system rather than requiring an extensive network extending from the
RWQCP. However, in this setting, the preferred location for diverting flows from the sewer system does
not correspond to the areas of potential recycled water nor is there land available in the immediate
vicinity of the diversion point to site a satellite treatment facility. As shown in Figure 3-8, Concept Option
B1 involves a significant, branched pipe network.
4.5.2 Cost and Non-Cost Scoring
Table 4-16 presents the ranking of concept options by cost using the scoring listed herein. Factoring cost
in at 30% of the score, concept options were scored as follows:
5 points: < $3,500/AF
4 points: ≥ $3,500/AF and < $4,000/AF
3 points: ≥ $4,000/AF and < $4,500/AF
2 points: ≥ $4,500/AF and < $5,000/AF
1 point: ≥ $5,000/AF
Factoring in cost at 30% of the total score was selected after testing for sensitivity to prevent cost from
overtaking or from not having an impact on the total non-cost criteria scores. From the sensitivity
analysis, weighting cost at 50% yielded similar results to weighting at 30%. Table 4-17 presents the
combined weighting of the cost and non-cost criteria together. Table 4-18 presents the ranking of concept
options combining the non-cost criteria and estimated costs.
Table 4-16: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost
Rank Score Concept Option
1 5
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
A4: NPR Mountain View
A6: NPR East Palo Alto
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
2 3
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
3 2 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
4 1 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-21
Table 4-17: Combined Weighting Including both Cost and Non-Cost Criteria
Criteria
Percent of Non-Cost
Score (Rounded)
Weighted Maximum Score per Criteria (Maximum
score per Criteria being 5)
Amount of water
supplied
13% 67
Public acceptance 12% 61
Adaptability 7% 35
Level of agency
coordination
6% 30
Level of customer
retrofits/coordination
4% 19
Regulatory complexity 4% 21
Institutional complexity 6% 30
Regional perspective 6% 28
Social and economic
benefit
7% 36
Environmental benefit 5% 23
Cost 30% 150
Total 100% 500
Table 4-18: Combined Ranking Considering Cost at 30% of the Score
Rank
Score
(Maximum
Score = 500) Concept Option
1
354 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
353 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR
2
350 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
350 A4: NPR Mountain View
350 A6: NPR East Palo Alto
3 339 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR
4 323 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR
5 317 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos
6 293 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline
7 260 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos
8 220 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant
Factoring in costs at 30% of the score, the top scoring concept options are NPR Palo Alto Phase 3
Extended to Foothills (Concept Option A2), Palo Alto Dedicated IPR (Concept Option C1), the
previously recommended NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 (Concept Option A1) and Mountain View long-term
project (Concept Option A4) and the NPR East Palo Alto concept option (Concept Option A6).
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation
FINAL
July 2019 4-22
Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ranks in the middle. With the greatest amount of water
supplied and one of the lowest estimated unit costs, Concept Option D1 scores well for the two most
highly weighted evaluation criteria. The attractive cost helps to offset the DPR implementation challenges
noted above.
Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant remains solidly at the bottom. As discussed
previously, Concept Option B1 requires a significant investment of infrastructure to convey flows from
the sewer diversion point to treatment facilities and then to customers. The cost of conveyance
infrastructure plus the cost of new treatment facilities including land acquisition are significant and, when
factored into the scoring, further reduces the ranking of this concept option relative to the others.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps
FINAL
July 2019 5-1
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 Summary of Demands and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Table 5-1 provides a summary of potential demand by water reuse type considered in this Strategic Plan.
The potential market for NPR demands includes the entire RWQCP service area, not one specific concept
option. Table 5-2 summarizes the capital, O&M, and unit costs for the various concept options
investigated in this Strategic Plan.
Table 5-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse
Type of Reuse Annual Average Demand Comments
NPR 4,456 AFY Throughout RWQCP service area
IPR 2,800 / 5,900 AFY For Palo Alto only
DPR 5,300 AFY For Palo Alto only
Note: IPR annual average demand reflects volume recharged to the groundwater basin/ volume extracted from the
groundwater basin
Table 5-2: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs
Concept Option Capital
Cost
O&M
($/year)
Unit Cost
($/AF)
A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 $47.8M $0.29M $3,400
A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills $63.0M $0.52M $3,400
A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos $85.1M $0.68M $4,000
A4: NPR Mountain View $6.2M $0.1M $2,100
A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos $72.6M $0.4M $4,600
A6: NPR East Palo Alto $20.7M $0.15M $2,400
B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant $129.6M $1.37M $8,900
C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR $92.2M $14.83M $3,300
C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR $152.1M $16.92M $4,000
C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline $198.4M $15.78M $4,400
D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR $104.6M $8.01M $2,500
Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI San Francisco index for June 2018 of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class
5 estimate (-20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years.
For comparison with other non-water reuse water supplies, potable water from SFPUC is projected to cost
$3,000 per AF in 2030, and groundwater, including wellhead treatment and the Valley Water
groundwater pumping charge, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF. 2
To provide a basis for comparison, cost estimates reflect the incremental cost of pursuing each concept
option. For the NPR options, the cost estimates include distribution to the end-user. Consistent with the
incremental cost methodology, this report does not estimate the total cost of providing the IPR or DPR
water to end-users as Palo Alto’s existing potable water distribution system costs are not included in the
estimates.
2 These are the estimated costs to the City of Palo Alto of purchasing SFPUC water or pumping groundwater and
these cost estimates do not include distribution system costs.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps
FINAL
July 2019 5-2
5.1.2 General Conclusions Regarding NPR Concept Options
The Strategic Plan determined that there is interest throughout most of the RWQCP service area and
neighboring communities in receiving recycled water from the RWQCP for NPR uses. The one Partner
Agency that is not interested is Stanford University. Stanford University maintains a diverse water supply
portfolio consisting of water from SFPUC, groundwater, local surface water, and captured stormwater.
Stanford University does have significant non-potable water demands, but the university does not foresee
a need for recycled water from the RWQCP due to the existence of its separate non-potable irrigation
water system that meets over 30% of the campus’ water demands (over 80% of irrigation demands). As
such the NPR concept options evaluated under this Strategic Plan did not include service to Stanford.
The Strategic Plan considered NPR concept options with both centralized treatment at the RWQCP (“A”
concept options) and a satellite treatment option (“B” concept option).
Of the centralized treatment options, Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills
scored highest both with and without the cost criteria. The unit cost for Concept Option A2 is estimated to
be similar to the cost of the previously recommended Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3.
Therefore, should Palo Alto elect to move forward with an NPR project, Concept Option A2 or variants,
as shown in Appendix D, should be given additional consideration. An analysis of the cost implications of
removing various branches of the base concept option will inform discussions regarding cost sharing
between the relevant stakeholders in Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills as well as support rate analyses for
Palo Alto and PHWD (the two retailers that would be involved in the concept option).
Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View, was previously recommended in the 2014 Mountain View
RWFS, due to its low cost and average non-cost score, was determined to be a reasonable investment
compared to the other concept options explored in the Strategic Plan, and during the stakeholder
evaluation process, Mountain View staff indicated their commitment to implementing this extension.
Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto scored similarly to the Concept Options A1, NPR Palo Alto
Phase 3 and A4, NPR Mountain View. Concept Option A6 is low cost, and the average non-cost score
make it a reasonable investment compared to other concept options. Implementation will require
coordination with EPASD, who is the Partner Agency that owns the wastewater flows from East Palo
Alto to the RWQCP. Though implementation of the concept option does not require coordination with
Menlo Park, if East Palo Alto chooses to move forward with the concept option, Menlo Park’s level of
interest should be verified prior to sizing the infrastructure. Appendix E presents variants of Concept
Option A6 and the cost implications of including or not including Menlo Park’s demands as well as the
benefits of including Palo Alto’s demands. This information can inform cost sharing discussion among
the relevant stakeholders in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park and support a cost of service
analysis for the City of East Palo Alto, the likely recycled water retailer.
NPR is challenging for Los Altos and Los Altos Hills because their customers are located furthest from
the RWQCP and existing recycled water infrastructure and coordination with the Partner Agencies
upstream would be needed. Between the two options to serve Los Altos – Concept Option A3: NPR Palo
Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A1) and Concept
Option A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A4) –
Concept Option A3 is preferred due to preliminary costs. Between the two options to serve Los Altos
Hills - Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Concept Option A3: NPR Palo
Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos – Concept Option A2 is higher ranked. To assist Los
Altos and its retailer Cal Water, and to assist Los Altos Hills and its retailer Purissima Hills Water
District, in evaluating an extension from the Palo Phase 3 Pipeline, Appendix E presents variants of
Concept Options A2 and A3 that can inform cost sharing discussions among the relevant stakeholders and
cost of service analyses for Cal Water and Purissima Hills Water District.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps
FINAL
July 2019 5-3
Satellite NPR
Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was included to bridge the gap between the source of
recycled water at the RWQCP and customers at the periphery of the RWQCP’s service area. However,
the satellite option was found to be impractical for this setting given the mismatch between the ideal
sewer diversion point and where demands are concentrated plus the limited availability of land and the
cost of acquiring land to construct a new treatment facility in this area.
Treatment
Both distribution infrastructure and treatment facilities were considered for each of the NPR concept
options. Palo Alto has committed to providing enhanced recycled water quality for NPR, meaning water
delivered to non-potable customers would be a blend of advanced treated recycled water and disinfected
tertiary recycled water to reduce TDS concentration to below 600 mg/L. Assuming implementation of the
2.25 MGD AWTS (which was recommended to provide a 1:1 blend of advanced and tertiary recycled
water for the RWQCP’s flow commitments of 3.0 MGD for Mountain View and 1.0 MGD for Palo Alto),
each of the centralized NPR concept options presented in this Strategic Plan can independently be
implemented without additional treatment facilities. The enhanced recycled water provided for these
NPR concept options would have a TDS concentration below the 600 mg/L target threshold based on the
RWQCP’s average TDS concentration of approximately 900 mg/L and an anticipated advanced treated
recycled water concentration of 50 mg/L.
Note that the three highest ranked NPR options (without overlap to other options) are A2, A4 and A6;
together these options could all be implemented without triggering the need for reverse osmosis
concentrate treatment but would require additional advanced or tertiary treatment facilities to produce
enough enhanced recycled water, particularly to meet a 1:1 blend ratio.
The City has considered setting a more aggressive goal for the enhanced recycled water of maintaining
TDS between 400 to 500 mg/L. Only the Mountain View concept option (Concept Option A4) would
meet this goal during peak month demands without additional treatment facilities.
5.1.3 General Conclusions Regarding IPR Concept Options
Several of the RWQCP Partner Agencies and Strategic Plan stakeholders expressed interest in IPR.
However, Palo Alto is the only agency that is actively investigating this option and that had groundwater
data to support development of IPR concept options.
The IPR concept options that were considered in the Strategic Plan include a concept option dedicated to
providing water to Palo Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR),
a concept option that captures non-potable uses in the vicinity of the pipeline needed to reach the Palo
Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR), and a concept option
that builds off of the Palo Alto Phase 3 Pipeline to convey water to the Palo Alto groundwater injection
wells (Concept Option C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline). Without considering cost, all
three IPR concept options are among the top ranked concept options given the large amount of water they
supply and lack of institutional complexity. With cost factored into the scoring, only Concept Option C1,
Palo Alto Dedicated IPR remains a top scoring IPR concept option.
Implementation of an IPR project would require Palo Alto to incorporate groundwater into its water
supply, and Palo Alto is assessing its desire to pursue groundwater use. In some other communities, IPR
has generally been seen as a first step towards DPR, gaining customer acceptance of the concept of
potable reuse before moving to DPR. However, Palo Alto does not currently use groundwater, and during
preliminary study sessions, members of the Utilities Advisory Commission and City Council expressed a
preference for DPR over IPR.
Given concerns regarding customer acceptance of groundwater quality compared to the existing SFPUC
supply, Palo Alto is assumed to provide wellhead treatment at the groundwater extraction wells to lower
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps
FINAL
July 2019 5-4
iron, manganese and TDS concentrations. Costs of this treatment were included in each IPR concept
option and overall unit costs ranged from $3,300 - $4,400/AF for IPR concept options. For comparison,
groundwater use with wellhead treatment and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge but without
any injection of recycled water, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF (in 2018 dollars).
Treatment costs also include new full advanced treatment facilities, including reverse osmosis concentrate
treatment, as needed, and associated land acquisition costs. Reverse osmosis concentrate treatment is
estimated to be needed to ensure compliance with the RWQCP discharge permit for Concept Options C2
and C3 and thus included in the associated cost estimates.
5.1.4 General Conclusions Regarding DPR Concept Option
Because DPR regulations are not established, developing DPR concept options and drawing conclusions
about the feasibility of DPR requires interpretation of the SWRCB’s Proposed Framework for Regulating
Direct Potable Reuse in California. The uncertainty in regulations is reflected in the low score that the
Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR received when considering only the non-cost criteria.
However, when factoring in the estimated unit cost of Concept Option D1, which included extensive
additional treatment facilities and engineered storage, the concept option rose to the middle of the
rankings. Given the significant volume of existing potable supply that could be offset through Concept
Option D1, its low estimated unit cost ($2,500/AF), and the presumably greater acceptance of DPR over
IPR in this setting, this concept option deserves further evaluation by Palo Alto and refinement as
regulations emerge. For comparison, potable water from SFPUC is projected to cost approximately
$3,000 per AF in 2030.
5.2 Next Steps
Results of the Strategic Plan indicate that there are multiple water reuse expansion opportunities within
the Study Area that agencies could pursue, including NPR, IPR, and DPR. The following are general next
steps that should be considered for any of the concept options to move forward. Table 5-3summarizes the
recommended next steps by each category of water reuse.
Note that depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept Options described in
this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further evaluation for joint
implementation may be required as a next step.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps
FINAL
July 2019 5-5
Table 5-3: Recommended Next Steps for Type of Opportunity
NPR – Next Steps IPR- Next Steps DPR – Next Steps
Facilities
Planning
Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements
and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to
+30%).
Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements
and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to
+30%).
Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements
and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to
+30%). Prepare various treatment train options with cost estimates to
reflect uncertainty to regulatory requirements for treatment.
Funding and
Financing
Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding
and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water
projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse.
Develop recycled water rates to be applied to recycled water customers.
Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding
and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water
projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse.
Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding
and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water
projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse.
Inter-agency
Agreements
If the NPR project involves more than one of the RWQCP Partners, an
inter-agency agreement would be needed. New agreements could be
modeled after the existing agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain
View for the Phase 2 system.
With Valley Water’s role as Groundwater Sustainability Agency, an
agreement between Palo Alto and Valley Water is needed for an IPR
project.
For a DPR project serving Palo Alto only (as described in Concept
Option D1), no specific inter-agency agreements are identified at this
time.
Environmental
Documentation
NPR concept options could be covered under a new environmental
document or possibly an amendment to the Phase 3 Environmental
Impact Report, depending on the concept option. Either document
should meet the requirements of CEQA, and pending selected funding
and financing options, the requirements of CEQA-Plus or NEPA.
A new environmental document covering the IPR project would be
needed. This document should meet the requirements of CEQA; and,
pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of
CEQA-Plus or NEPA.
A new environmental document covering the DPR project would be
needed. This document should meet the requirements of CEQA; and,
pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of
CEQA-Plus or NEPA.
Reuse
Permitting
Covered under Statewide General Order for Recycled Water Use (WQ-
2014-009). Covered under SWRCB regulations, adopted by the State in 2014.
There are no established regulations for DPR projects and no proposed
timeline for the State to develop DPR regulations for treated drinking
water augmentation.
Customer and
Public
Outreach
Outreach to specific customers to be served by the NPR project to
confirm delivery location, confirm demand, discuss site retrofits, etc. For
NPR projects delivering to areas that do not have a mandatory use
ordinance in place, customer outreach to encourage customers to sign
on to the NPR project.
Public outreach to inform Palo Alto customers of changes to source
water (i.e. blending in groundwater to the existing SFPUC supplies)
should be considered.
Public outreach to inform Palo Alto customers of changes to source
water (i.e. blending in of DPR water to the existing SFPUC supplies)
should be considered.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report References
FINAL
July 2019
References
Anderson, Daren (Division Manager at the City of Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Department). Email
to Emmalynne Roy providing details on habitat enhancement water use at Foothill Park’s
Boronda Lake. 2018.
Association of the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE), 2008. International
Recommended Practice No. 56R-08:Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied for the
Building and General Construction Industries.
Brown and Caldwell, 1992. Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. April, 1992.
California Building Standards Commission, 2011. 2011 CalGreen Green Building Requirements. January,
2011.
Carollo, 2014. City of Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. March, 2014.
Engelage, Samantha (Senior Engineer at City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Program). Email to
Emmalynne Roy providing details on habitat enhancement water use at Byxbee Park. 2018.
City of Mountain View, 2017. Ordinance No. 17.16. Available:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=21813
City of Palo Alto. 2017. Clean Bay 2017 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56148
City of Palo Alto, 2008. Ordinance No. 5002. Available:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19503
City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2017. 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. January, 2017.
City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2016. City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June, 2016.
MNS, 2017. Advanced Water Purification System Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report. December,
2017.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2018. A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct
Potable Reuse in California. April, 2018.
SWRCB, 2016. Investigation on the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for
Direct Potable Reuse. December, 2016.
Todd Groundwater, 2018. Groundwater Assessment, and Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Evaluation
and Implementation Strategy Report. November, 2018.
Unites States Green Building Council, 2014. LEED Reference for Building Operations and Maintenance,
Version 4. October, 2014.
Unites States Green Building Council, 2012. LEED 2009 Water Use Reduction Additional Guidance
(Version 7). July, 2012.
West Yost Associates, 2017. City of Menlo Park Water Supply Master Plan, Draft. November, 2017.
Woodard & Curran, 2018. Preliminary Design for Phase 3 Recycled Water Distribution System Final
Report. February, 2018.
Appendix A - Non-Potable Demand Assessment
Methodology
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable
Demand Assessment
Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment
Landscape Irrigation
Landscape irrigation demands were the primary recycled water use identified within the study area . In
developing these demands, each customer’s landscaped area was estimated using recent aerial imagery from
Google Earth, as well as GIS-compatible aerial imagery. From the aerial review, the percentage of each
customer’s site that is landscaped was estimated and applied this percentage to the total parcel area. In
addition, recent aerial imagery was used to check that each site’s perceived irrigated space did not include
artificial turf. Parcel areas that had artificial turf fields were removed from the t otal irrigated acreage.
In order to calculate demand, an annual average irrigation factor of 3.4 acre -feet per year (AFY) per acre
of landscaped area was applied based on: annual evapotranspiration (ET o) of 44.8 inches; total annual
precipitation of 15.3 inches; and effective precipitation (Eppt) of 25% of total annual precipitation:
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 [𝐴𝐹𝑌
𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒]=
𝐸𝑇𝑜 [𝑖𝑛
𝑦𝑟]−𝐸𝑝𝑝𝑡[𝑖𝑛
𝑦𝑟]
12 [𝑖𝑛
𝑓𝑡]
=
44.8 𝑖𝑛
𝑦𝑟−0.25 × 15.3 𝑖𝑛
𝑦𝑟
12 𝑖𝑛
𝑓𝑡
=3.4 𝐴𝐹𝑌
𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒
The ETo and precipitation values are taken from the climate data presented in Palo Alto’s 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) and summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1: City of Palo Alto Climate Data
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Standard
Monthly
Average
ETo 1
1.4 1.9 3.4 4.4 5.5 6.0 6.2 5.5 4.4 3.1 1.7 1.3 44.8
Average
Rainfall2
(in)
3.2 2.9 2.3 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.7 2.7 15.3
Source: City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
Notes:
1. Average ETo data for closest active station (Hayward) reported by CIMIS website http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/
2. Average rainfall data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable
Demand Assessment
July is the maximum demand month for landscape irrigation, with a maximum day peaking factor of 1.7.
This maximum day peaking factor was applied for all landscape irrigation demands throughout the study
area. The peak hour landscape irrigation demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 3.0
assuming an 8-hour irrigation window at night. These peaking factors are summarized in Table 5.
Dual Plumbing
The first step to determining dual-plumbing demands was to estimate the total building square footage. For
future developments where site-specific details were not yet known, information was gathered on
anticipated building density from developers and architects. If this information was not available, the likely
building density was estimated using allowable floor area ratios (FARs) in the development’s respective
zoning code. The estimated total building square footage was found with the following calculation:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 [𝑆𝑞 𝐹𝑡] =𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 [𝑆𝑞 𝐹𝑡]∗𝐹𝐴𝑅∗𝐹𝐴𝑅 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
It was assumed that not all buildings would be calculated to the maximum FAR over the entire parcel area,
so a FAR reduction factor of 0.75 was applied to find the most likely building density. Any comments from
developers on likely development density were incorporated into the estimate.
After determining total building square footage, the total potential daily water demand for urinal and toilet
fixtures was determined using the following calculation:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 [𝐺𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝐷𝑎𝑦]
=𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 [𝐺𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑠ℎ]∗𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑠ℎ]∗𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑈𝑠𝑒∗𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑇𝐸𝑠
+ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 [𝐺𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑠ℎ]∗𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑠ℎ]∗𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑈𝑠𝑒∗𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑇𝐸𝑠
Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) are defined as the occupants who spend at least 40 hours per week (8 hours
per day) in the building. Transient FTEs represent occupants that do not utilize the building services on a
regular basis, such as visitors, customers, or delivery persons. The number of FTEs and Transient FTEs
were estimated from the total building footprint square footage and the space type metrics outlined in Table
2. Space types for existing buildings were determined based on known information about the site. Future
developments were categorized as “General Office,” “Service,” “R&D or Laboratory,” “Hotel,” or “Mixed
Use High” based on developer input and zoning descriptions.
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable
Demand Assessment
Table 2: Space Type Default Occupancy Numbers
Space Type Gross Square Feet per
Occupant – FTE
Gross Square Feet Per
Occupant – Transient FTE
General Office 250 0
Retail, general 550 130
Service (e.g. financial, auto) 600 130
Restaurant 435 95
Grocery Store 550 115
Medical Office 225 330
R&D or Laboratory 400 0
Warehouse, distribution 2500 0
Warehouse, storage 20000 0
Hotel 1500 700
Education, daycare 630 105
Educational, K–12 1300 140
Education, postsecondary 2100 150
Mixed Use Corridor1 480 90
Mixed Use High2 460 80
Source: LEED Reference for Building Operations and Maintenance, Version 4 Error! Reference source not found..
Appendix 2-Table 1. Default Occupancy Numbers.
Notes:
1. Developed based on zoning description, which averages General Office, Retail, Service, Restaurant, and Grocery
Store occupancy numbers.
2. Developed based on zoning description, which averages General Office, Retail, Service, Restaurant, Grocery Store,
and R&D/Laboratory occupancy numbers.
Water fixture metrics that were used for flow rate, duration and average daily use are summarized in Table
3.
Table 3: Water Fixture Metrics
Fixture Type
Flow Rate1
(gallons/flush)
Duration
(flush)
Avg Daily Use
– FTE1
Avg Daily Use –
Transient FTE2
Urinals 0.5 1 2 0.4
Toilet (Water Closet) 1.28 1 2 0.5
Notes:
1. Source: 2011 CalGreen Green Building Requirements. (Table 13C.5.303.2.2).
2. Source: LEED 2009 Water Use Reduction Additional Guidance (Version 7). Table 1. Non-residential Default
Fixture Uses.
IKEA and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center are the two customers in the service area
known to have dual plumbing. Since IKEA’s site-specific meter data was not available, its demands were
estimated using the methodology outlined above. For the Mitchell Park facilities, the demand was taken
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable
Demand Assessment
from the Phase 3 Business Plan in which it was assumed that 30% of the water measured by the site’s W4
meter is used for toilet flushing that could be converted to recycled water.
In order to adjust each site’s total daily water demand to an annual average demand, the daily demand was
multiplied by the customer’s assumed number of days of operation. The values used for days of operation
for different customer types are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Days of Operation
Space Type Days of Operation
Retail, general 365
Hotel 365
Mixed Use High 365
General Office 260
Service (e.g. financial, auto) 260
R&D or Laboratory 260
The peak hour dual-plumbing demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 2.0, assuming the
average occupancy of the buildings is 12 hours during the day. Peaking factors are summarized in Table 5.
Cooling Towers
Demands for cooling towers included customers previously identified as having cooling towers and
customers assumed to have cooling towers through review of building characteristics. In addition, certain
future developments were identified as potential cooling tower users through specific conversations with
developers and architects.
The magnitude of cooling tower demand was determined using the following equation:
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 (𝐴𝐹𝑌)=𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 [𝑆𝑞 𝐹𝑡]
330 [𝑆𝑞 𝐹𝑡
𝑇𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑]∗4.1
∗0.02 [𝐴𝐹𝑌
𝑇𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑]
This demand calculation was based on historical cooling tower use data from southern California, adjusted
for the climate in Palo Alto. The historical data from several office buildings in Burbank, California showed
about 330 square feet per ton of cooling tower load and about .02 AF of water use per ton of cooling tower
load. This resulted in an average cooling tower water demand of 0.073 AF per 1,000 square feet of building
area. This demand metric was then adjusted to Palo Alto’s climate using Cooling Degree Days – the number
of degrees that a day’s average temperature is above 65F (which is assumed to be when air conditioning
is needed), summed over an entire year. Since Burbank has approximately 4.1 times as many CDDs as Palo
Alto, the Burbank cooling tower use factor was divided by 4.1 to yield a cooling tower use factor of 0.018
AF per 1,000 square feet for the Palo Alto area. This factor was applied to all developments assumed to
have cooling towers in the service area.
Based on the total number of cooling degree days per month in Palo Alto, August is the maximum demand
month for cooling tower demands, with a maximum day peaking factor of 2.7. The peak hour cooling tower
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable
Demand Assessment
demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 2.0, assuming the average occupancy of the
buildings is 12 hours during the day.
These peaking factors are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5: Demand Peaking Factors
Demand Type Peaking Factor
Maximum Day
Irrigation 1.7
Cooling Tower 2.7
Hourly
Irrigation 3.0
Dual Plumbing 2.0
Cooling Tower 2.0
Appendix B - Recycled Water Customers and Demand
Estimates [Confidential – Not Included]
Appendix C - Potential Uses Considered but Not Included
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix C: Users
Considered but Eliminated
Appendix C: Users Considered but Eliminated
Appendix A identifies potential non-potable recycled water customers throughout the Strategic Plan study
area whereas this appendix identifies customers that were considered but not included in the study.
The 1992 Palo Alto Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) was used as the starting point for identifying
potential recycled water demands. Additional uses were then identified through review of available
recycled water feasibility studies, Urban Water Management Plans, General and Specific Plans and
aerials of the study area. The City and District then reached out to the Regional Water Quality Control
Plan (RWQCP) Partner Agencies and other stakeholders to verify if the customers identified in their areas
could realistically be expected to accept recycled water and whether additional customers should be
considered.
Customers from the 1992 RWMP that are not included in this Strategic Plan include:
• East Palo Alto Greenhouses – In the 1990s there were a number of functioning greenhouses in East
Palo Alto, but now there are not many greenhouses known to be operating in the area. Those that
are still operating are not anticipated to have significant demand.
• Medians and Streetscapes – The State Water Resources Control Board has proposed regulations
prohibiting the irrigation of ornamental turf in publicly owned medians and streetscapes (i.e. the
landscaped area between the street and sidewalk). The prohibition includes recycled water
irrigation systems unless the system was installed prior to 2018. While irrigation of trees within
medians and streetscapes are exempt from the proposed regulation, the default assumption for the
Strategic Plan was not to include medians and streetscapes unless stakeholders provided
information confirming the type of vegetation and associated water use for specific areas.
Stakeholders suggested that medians along Foothill Expressway be considered. However, through
field investigations, Palo Alto determined that the portion of Foothill Expressway in its service area
is not irrigated and verification of irrigation of the portion within Los Altos could not be obtained.
As such, Foothill Expressway was dropped from further consideration.
• Gate of Heaven Cemetery – This customer, though previously identified as a potential customer in
Los Altos’s service area, was found to be within Cupertino’s service area.
Additional customers considered but not included:
• Cooley Landing Park – Recycled water is currently being trucked to this East Palo Alto park to
support the establishment period for new native landscaping. Following the establishment period
there will be no irrigation demand.
• East Bayshore Redevelopment - East Palo Alto staff noted that the area along East Bayshore has
potential for significant multi-family residential redevelopment. However, there were no specific
redevelopment plans, and the City indicated it would probably not pursue dual-plumbing for
residential use.
• East Palo Alto Neighborhood Gardens and Sports Fields – Through review of aerials of East Palo
Alto, a number of sizeable gardens and what looked like communal sports fields in between
Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix C: Users
Considered but Eliminated
residences were identified. East Palo Alto city staff indicated that these are temporary uses that
sprung up on vacant lots. When the building moratorium in East Palo Alto is lifted, the City expects
that these sites will be developed.
• Edith Park – This park in Los Altos Hills was recently redone to minimize irrigation needs.
• Gateway District Retail Center Redevelopment – This potential redevelopment area was in review
in East Palo Alto’s General Plan, but East Palo Alto city staff noted there are no specific plans for
redevelopment of this area.
• Los Altos Redevelopment along El Camino – The majority of redevelopment will occur in the next
few years. Because the City currently does not require installation of recycled water infrastructure
for new developments, incorporating recycled water use within these buildings seems unlikely.
• Ravenswood Family Health Center – This facility in East Palo Alto is dual-plumbed. However,
review of the facility’s plans showed that the dual-plumbing was for on-site rain capture and not
designed to have recycled water incorporated.
• San Antonio Redevelopment – This redevelopment area in Mountain View received conditions of
approval prior to Mountain View’s dual-plumbing ordinance and, as a result, is not dual-plumbed
for recycled water.
• Single Family Residences – Los Altos Hills and Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) indicated
interest in working with large residential irrigators in Los Altos Hills to convert to recycled water
use. Review of potential residences focused on parcels along Purissima Road and Fremont Road
where PHWD identified the potential to repurpose abandoned or soon to be abandoned potable
water pipelines for recycled water distribution. In these areas the residences averaged less than 1
acre-foot per year (AFY) of total water consumption. These volumes are not considered significant
enough for residences to willingly undertake conversion of their irrigation systems plus the
regulatory complexity involved with using recycled water at single family residences.
• Sobrato Phase I – Construction for this site in East Palo Alto, which is also known as Amazon I,
was already underway at the time of the demand assessment and was determined not to include
purple pipe for recycled water.
• Stanford Shopping Center – The General Manager of Stanford Shopping Center contacted the City
at the start of the Strategic Planning process inquiring about the possibility of extending recycled
water infrastructure to the shopping center. Through subsequent discussions, the shopping center
indicated potential for both irrigation use as well as dual -plumbing use in future buildings.
However, estimated demands were not provided.
Appendix D - Opinions of Probable Costs
A1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $2,265,933
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $906,373
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0
RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 18,494 LF 200$ $3,699,008
10 Inch 9,029 LF 212$ $1,914,318
12 Inch 6,873 LF 254$ $1,747,873
16 Inch 22,301 LF 277$ $6,178,938
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $406,204
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")800 LF 1,728$ $1,382,400
Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000
Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0
Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 8 LF 5,000$ $40,000
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 65 LF 139$ $9,049
16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0
Potholing 579 EA 500$ $289,560
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $506,178
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 132 EA 15,000$ $1,980,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000
Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 1,389,000$ $1,389,000
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 918,000$ $918,000
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $25,832,000
Sales Tax 9%$1,020,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $26,852,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$2,685,000
Construction Contingency 40%$10,741,000
Construction Cost Total $40,300,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$4,028,000
Construction Management 10% $2,685,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$806,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0
Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $47,800,000
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Concept Option: A1
Page 1 of 22
A1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0
RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $44,942
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $0
Mechanical 1% $0
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $0
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 444,385 kWh/year 0.15$ $66,658
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 0 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 0 Hours 99.81$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 96,000$ $96,000
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 81,000$ $81,000
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$290,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $2,439,000
Annual O&M Costs $290,000
Total Annualized Cost $2,729,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,400
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
800 AFY
Concept Option: A1
Page 2 of 22
A2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $2,987,744
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,195,097
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0
RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 50,383 LF 200$ $10,077,166
10 Inch 8,600 LF 212$ $1,823,362
12 Inch 5,500 LF 254$ $1,398,705
16 Inch 1,000 LF 277$ $277,070
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 7,115 LF 334$ $2,375,058
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 2,200 LF 55$ $120,839
8 Inch 1,850 LF 66$ $121,540
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $478,541
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")820 LF 1,728$ $1,416,960
Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000
Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 236 LF 500$ $118,025
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000
Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 56 LF 5,000$ $280,000
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 431 LF 66$ $28,252
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 50 LF 108$ $5,424
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387
Potholing 746 EA 500$ $372,750
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $593,614
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 137 EA 15,000$ $2,055,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000
Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 200 7,444$ $1,488,839
Pump Station #2 300 6,433$ $1,929,951
Pump Station #3 40 13,288$ $531,505
Pump Station #4 60 11,483$ $688,978
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 9,100 Gal 29$ $266,555
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 8,500 Gal 30$ $258,258
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 2,900 Gal 41$ $117,657
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 700 Gal 45$ $31,202
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $34,060,000
Sales Tax 9%$1,344,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $35,404,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$3,540,000
Construction Contingency 40%$14,162,000
Construction Cost Total $53,200,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$5,311,000
Construction Management 10% $3,540,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,062,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0
Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $63,000,000
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Concept Option: A2
Page 3 of 22
A2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0
RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $58,100
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $46,393
Mechanical 1% $46,393
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $46,393
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 794,111 kWh/year 0.15$ $119,117
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 4 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 2,080 Hours 99.81$ $207,610
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$520,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $3,214,000
Annual O&M Costs $520,000
Total Annualized Cost $3,734,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,400
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
1,100 AFY
Concept Option: A2
Page 4 of 22
A3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,033,005
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,613,202
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0
RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 60,148 LF 200$ $12,030,275
10 Inch 32,577 LF 212$ $6,906,936
12 Inch 3,550 LF 254$ $902,801
16 Inch 5,500 LF 277$ $1,523,885
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 8,115 LF 334$ $2,708,868
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 2,200 LF 55$ $120,839
8 Inch 1,850 LF 66$ $121,540
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $722,183
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")820 LF 1,728$ $1,416,960
Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000
Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 236 LF 500$ $118,025
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000
Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 87 LF 5,000$ $435,000
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 566 LF 66$ $37,101
8 Inch 123 LF 86$ $10,631
10 Inch 50 LF 108$ $5,424
12 Inch 50 LF 139$ $6,961
16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387
Potholing 1,122 EA 500$ $560,750
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $845,358
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 147 EA 15,000$ $2,205,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000
Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951
Pump Station #2 300 6,433$ $1,929,951
Pump Station #3 40 13,288$ $531,505
Pump Station #4 60 11,483$ $688,978
Pump Station #5 69 10,920$ $753,446
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 11,200 Gal 25$ $285,278
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 10,500 Gal 27$ $280,820
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 2,900 Gal 41$ $117,657
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 700 Gal 45$ $31,202
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 1,900 Gal 42$ $80,542
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $45,976,000
Sales Tax 9%$1,815,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $47,791,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,779,000
Construction Contingency 40%$19,116,000
Construction Cost Total $71,700,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$7,169,000
Construction Management 10% $4,779,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,434,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0
Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $85,100,000
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Concept Option: A3
Page 5 of 22
A3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0
RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $87,864
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $58,338
Mechanical 1% $58,338
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $58,338
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 1,040,732 kWh/year 0.15$ $156,110
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 5 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 2,600 Hours 99.81$ $259,513
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$680,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $4,342,000
Annual O&M Costs $680,000
Total Annualized Cost $5,022,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,000
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
1,250 AFY
Concept Option: A3
Page 6 of 22
A4 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $0
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $0
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0
RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 200$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 212$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 254$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $0
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0
Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0
Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0
Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0
Potholing 0 EA 500$ $0
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $0
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0
Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
1 LS 3,326,000$ $3,326,000
Subtotal $3,326,000
Sales Tax 9%$150,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $3,476,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$348,000
Construction Contingency 40%$1,390,000
Construction Cost Total $5,300,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$521,000
Construction Management 10% $348,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$104,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0
Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $6,200,000
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Concept Option: A4
Page 7 of 22
A4 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0
RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $0
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $0
Mechanical 1% $0
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $0
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge - kWh/year 0.15$ $0
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 0 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 0 Hours 99.81$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
1 LS 100,000$ $100,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$100,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $316,000
Annual O&M Costs $100,000
Total Annualized Cost $416,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,100
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
200 AFY
Concept Option: A4
Page 8 of 22
A5 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,443,427
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,377,371
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0
RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 21,500 LF 200$ $4,300,241
10 Inch 14,500 LF 212$ $3,074,272
12 Inch 5,500 LF 254$ $1,398,705
16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 44,714 LF 334$ $14,925,980
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $710,976
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0
Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0
Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0
10 Inch 122 LF 625$ $76,266
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 114 LF 1,250$ $142,530
Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000
Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 61 LF 5,000$ $305,000
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 92 LF 66$ $6,031
8 Inch 240 LF 86$ $20,744
10 Inch 91 LF 108$ $9,871
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 172 LF 175$ $30,132
Potholing 870 EA 500$ $435,225
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $736,597
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 106 EA 15,000$ $1,590,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0
Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951
Pump Station #2 225 7,135$ $1,605,408
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 12,200 Gal 24$ $288,554
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 7,200 Gal 33$ $235,789
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 1.2 1,500,000$ $1,800,000
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $39,255,000
Sales Tax 9%$1,550,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $40,805,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,081,000
Construction Contingency 40%$16,322,000
Construction Cost Total $61,300,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$6,121,000
Construction Management 10% $4,081,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,224,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0
Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $72,600,000
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Concept Option: A5
Page 9 of 22
A5 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0
RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $68,908
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $35,354
Mechanical 1% $35,354
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $35,354
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 668,276 kWh/year 0.15$ $100,241
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 2 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 1,040 Hours 99.81$ $103,805
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $18,000
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$400,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $3,704,000
Annual O&M Costs $400,000
Total Annualized Cost $4,104,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,600
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
900 AFY
Concept Option: A5
Page 10 of 22
A6 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $980,415
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $392,166
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0
RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 14,100 LF 200$ $2,820,158
10 Inch 10,200 LF 212$ $2,162,592
12 Inch 10,000 LF 254$ $2,543,100
16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $225,775
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0
Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0
Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0
Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0
Potholing 343 EA 500$ $171,500
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $232,549
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 17 EA 10,000$ $170,000
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 16 EA 15,000$ $240,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0
Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 150 8,256$ $1,238,474
Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $11,177,000
Sales Tax 9%$441,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $11,618,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$1,162,000
Construction Contingency 40%$4,647,000
Construction Cost Total $17,500,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$1,743,000
Construction Management 10% $1,162,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$349,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0
Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $20,700,000
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Concept Option: A6
Page 11 of 22
A6 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0
RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $27,152
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $12,385
Mechanical 1% $12,385
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $12,385
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 201,615 kWh/year 0.15$ $30,242
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 1 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$150,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $1,056,000
Annual O&M Costs $150,000
Total Annualized Cost $1,206,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,400
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
500 AFY
Concept Option: A6
Page 12 of 22
B1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,956,940
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,982,776
Treatment
MBR 1.5 MGD 16,125,000$ $24,000,000
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0
RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 39,500 LF 200$ $7,900,443
10 Inch 4,000 LF 212$ $848,075
12 Inch 6,000 LF 254$ $1,525,860
16 Inch 11,500 LF 277$ $3,186,305
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 6,000 LF 334$ $2,002,860
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $463,906
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0
Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0
Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 179 LF 500$ $89,519
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0
Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 14 LF 5,000$ $70,000
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 123 LF 66$ $8,063
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0
Potholing 677 EA 500$ $338,260
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $486,295
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 139 EA 15,000$ $2,085,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0
Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 200 7,444$ $1,488,839
Pump Station #2 60 11,483$ $688,978
Pump Station #3 60 11,483$ $688,978
Pump Station #4 6 26,306$ $157,836
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 6,800 Gal 33$ $227,638
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 5,500 Gal 36$ $197,127
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 1,400 Gal 43$ $60,621
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 1.5 1,500,000$ $2,250,000
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $56,509,000
Sales Tax 9%$2,231,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $58,740,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$5,874,000
Construction Contingency 40%$23,496,000
Construction Cost Total $88,200,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$8,811,000
Construction Management 10% $5,874,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,762,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)50,000 SQ FT 500$ $25,000,000
Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $129,600,000
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Concept Option: B1
Page 13 of 22
B1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 2 MGD 540,000$ $810,000
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0
RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0
Labor for MBR 2 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $104,000
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $53,279
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $30,246
Mechanical 1% $30,246
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $30,246
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 550,080 kWh/year 0.15$ $82,512
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 4 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 2,080 Hours 99.81$ $207,610
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $22,500
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$1,370,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $6,612,000
Annual O&M Costs $1,370,000
Total Annualized Cost $7,982,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$8,900
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
900 AFY
Concept Option: B1
Page 14 of 22
C1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,353,169
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,341,268
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 2.5 MGD 1,317,000$ $3,300,000
RO System 2.5 MGD 1,586,000$ $4,000,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 2.5 MGD 470,000$ $1,200,000
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 2.5 MGD 134,000$ $340,000
Sitework/Piping/Structures 2.5 MGD 3,427,000$ $8,600,000
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 2,000 LF 200$ $400,023
10 Inch 1,500 LF 212$ $318,028
12 Inch 5,000 LF 254$ $1,271,550
16 Inch 20,500 LF 277$ $5,679,935
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $230,086
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0
Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0
Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 458 LF 1,000$ $458,096
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000
Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0
Potholing 295 EA 500$ $147,290
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $250,732
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0
Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951
Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $38,226,000
Sales Tax 9%$1,509,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $39,735,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$3,974,000
Construction Contingency 40%$15,894,000
Construction Cost Total $59,700,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$5,960,000
Construction Management 10% $3,974,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,192,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)20,000 SQ FT 500$ $10,000,000
Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000
Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $92,200,000
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Concept Option: C1
Page 15 of 22
C1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $860,000
RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,400,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $180,000
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $300,000
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $260,000
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $23,320
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $19,300
Mechanical 1% $19,300
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $19,300
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 342,958 kWh/year 0.15$ $51,444
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 1 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,900 AFY 1,960$ $11,564,000
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$14,820,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $4,704,000
Annual O&M Costs $14,820,000
Total Annualized Cost $19,524,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,300
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
5,900 AFY
Concept Option: C1
Page 16 of 22
C2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,213,006
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,685,202
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 2.8 MGD 1,317,000$ $3,700,000
RO System 2.8 MGD 1,586,000$ $4,400,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 0.9 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,400,000
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 2.8 MGD 470,000$ $1,300,000
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 2.8 MGD 134,000$ $370,000
Sitework/Piping/Structures 2.8 MGD 3,427,000$ $9,600,000
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 11,000 LF 200$ $2,200,124
10 Inch 5,500 LF 212$ $1,166,103
12 Inch 3,000 LF 254$ $762,930
16 Inch 2,500 LF 277$ $692,675
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 18,500 LF 334$ $6,175,485
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $329,920
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0
Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0
Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 160 LF 500$ $80,017
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 619 LF 1,250$ $773,912
Jacking Shafts 3 EA 258,000$ $774,000
Receiving Shafts 3 EA 148,000$ $444,000
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 19 LF 5,000$ $95,000
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 170 LF 66$ $11,143
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0
Potholing 414 EA 500$ $207,245
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $342,552
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 25 EA 15,000$ $375,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0
Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951
Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 983 AFY 2,937$ $2,887,865
Rinconada 983 AFY 2,937$ $2,887,865
Peers 983 AFY 3,353$ $3,296,834
El Camino 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774
Eleanor 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774
Library 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $70,489,000
Sales Tax 9%$2,907,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $73,396,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$7,340,000
Construction Contingency 40%$29,358,000
Construction Cost Total $110,100,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$11,009,000
Construction Management 10% $7,340,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$2,202,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)20,000 SQ FT 500$ $10,000,000
Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000
Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $152,100,000
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Concept Option: C2
Page 17 of 22
C2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $950,000
RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,600,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $210,000
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $200,000
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $340,000
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $290,000
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $32,816
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $19,300
Mechanical 1% $19,300
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $19,300
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 453,458 kWh/year 0.15$ $68,019
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 1 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,900 AFY 1,960$ $11,564,000
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 265$ $260,797
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 263$ $258,689
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 224$ $220,625
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 256$ $251,497
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 256$ $251,783
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 242$ $238,429
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$16,920,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $7,760,000
Annual O&M Costs $16,920,000
Total Annualized Cost $24,680,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,000
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
6,100 AFY
Concept Option: C2
Page 18 of 22
C3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $6,472,618
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $2,589,047
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0
BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0
MF/UF system 3.3 MGD 1,317,000$ $4,400,000
RO System 3.3 MGD 1,586,000$ $5,300,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 1.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,500,000
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3.3 MGD 470,000$ $1,600,000
Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 3.3 MGD 134,000$ $440,000
Sitework/Piping/Structures 3.3 MGD 3,427,000$ $11,000,000
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 19,994 LF 200$ $3,999,025
10 Inch 12,529 LF 212$ $2,656,383
12 Inch 9,873 LF 254$ $2,510,803
16 Inch 47,801 LF 277$ $13,244,223
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0
24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0
30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $672,313
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")800 LF 1,728$ $1,382,400
Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000
Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 160 LF 1,000$ $160,033
20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0
Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000
Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 8 LF 5,000$ $40,000
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387
Potholing 916 EA 500$ $457,860
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $785,141
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 142 EA 15,000$ $2,130,000
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000
Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 400 5,800$ $2,320,102
Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 1,389,000$ $1,389,000
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 918,000$ $918,000
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 5,800 Gal 35$ $204,714
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0
Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 833 AFY 2,937$ $2,447,343
Rinconada 833 AFY 2,937$ $2,447,343
Peers 833 AFY 3,353$ $2,793,927
El Camino 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012
Eleanor 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012
Library 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $92,822,000
Sales Tax 9%$3,769,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $96,591,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$9,659,000
Construction Contingency 40%$38,636,000
Construction Cost Total $144,900,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$14,489,000
Construction Management 10% $9,659,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$2,898,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)30,000 SQ FT 500$ $15,000,000
Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000
Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000
On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $198,400,000
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Concept Option: C3
Page 19 of 22
C3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0
BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0
MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $1,100,000
RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,900,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $220,000
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $240,000
Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0
Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $400,000
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $350,000
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $71,588
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $23,201
Mechanical 1% $23,201
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $23,201
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 466,792 kWh/year 0.15$ $70,019
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 1 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 96,000$ $96,000
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 81,000$ $81,000
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $0
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,000 AFY 1,960$ $9,800,000
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 265$ $221,014
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 263$ $219,228
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 224$ $186,970
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 256$ $213,133
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 256$ $213,376
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 242$ $202,059
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$15,780,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $10,122,000
Annual O&M Costs $15,780,000
Total Annualized Cost $25,902,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,400
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
5,900 AFY
Concept Option: C3
Page 20 of 22
D1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Capital Costs
General Requirements
Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,772,451
Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,508,980
Treatment
MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0
Ozone 4.7 MGD 360,000$ $1,700,000
BAC 4.7 MGD 323,000$ $1,500,000
MF/UF system 4.7 MGD 1,317,000$ $6,200,000
RO System 4.7 MGD 1,586,000$ $7,500,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 1.2 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,900,000
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 4.7 MGD 470,000$ $2,200,000
Free Chlorine 4.7 MGD 271,000$ $1,300,000
Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0
Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0
Conveyance
High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE
6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 200$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 212$ $0
12 Inch 5,000 LF 254$ $1,271,550
16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0
18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0
20 Inch 500 LF 334$ $166,905
24 Inch 1,400 LF 381$ $533,568
30 Inch 2,600 LF 462$ $1,202,422
Repurposing Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $59,161
Microtunneling
Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0
Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0
Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0
Horizontal Directional Drilling
24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0
PTGAB
6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0
20 Inch 1,200 LF 1,250$ $1,500,313
Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000
Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000
Pipe Bridge
Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0
Pipe Bridge Pipe
6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0
8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0
10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0
12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0
16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0
Potholing 107 EA 500$ $53,500
Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $97,008
Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0
Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0
Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0
Pump Stations
Pump Station #1 60 11,483$ $688,978
Pump Station #2 400 5,800$ $2,320,102
Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0
Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0
Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0
Storage Tank
Storage Tank 4.8 1,500,000$ $7,125,000
Underground Construction 1.0 LS 1,000,000$
Injection Well
0 EA 1,000,000$ $0
Extraction Wellhead Treatment
Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0
Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0
El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 3,326,000$ $0
Subtotal $43,006,000
Sales Tax 9%$1,698,000
Construction Cost Subtotal $44,704,000
Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,470,000
Construction Contingency 40%$17,882,000
Construction Cost Total $67,100,000
Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$6,706,000
Construction Management 10% $4,470,000
Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,341,000
Property Acquisition (Property Only)50,000 SQ FT 500$ $25,000,000
Property Acquisition (House on Property)0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0
Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0
Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0
On-Time Fee 1 LS 75,000$
Total Capital Cost $104,600,000
Total installed HP, including standby
MG
Applied to half of capital costs (not including General)
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Total installed HP, including standby
Concept Option: D1
Page 21 of 22
D1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life
Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years
CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72
Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
O&M Costs (Annual)
Advanced Water Treatment
MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0
Ozone 5 MGD 93,000$ $440,000
BAC 5 MGD 131,000$ $620,000
MF/UF system 5 MGD 342,000$ $1,600,000
RO System 5 MGD 574,000$ $2,700,000
RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $280,000
Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 5 MGD 73,000$ $350,000
Free Chlorine 5 MGD 32,000$ $150,000
Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0
Labor for Treatment (no MBR)5 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $490,000
Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0
Monitoring 1 $/year 1,000,000$ $1,000,000
Conveyance
LF $0.78 $6,434
Pump Stations
Consumables
Equipment 1% $30,091
Mechanical 1% $30,091
Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $30,091
Electricity Requirement
Energy Charge 718,547 kWh/year 0.15$ $107,782
Labor Costs
Total No. Operators 2 No.
Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours
Total Operator Hours per Year 1,040 Hours 99.81$ $103,805
Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0
Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0
Storage Tanks
Annual O&M 1% $71,250
Injection Wells
Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0
Extraction Wells
Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0
Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0
Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0
Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0
El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0
Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0
Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase
0 LS 100,000$ $0
Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$8,010,000
Annualized Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $5,337,000
Annual O&M Costs $8,010,000
Total Annualized Cost $13,347,000
Deliveries of Recycled Water
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,500
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per
5,300 AFY
Concept Option: D1
Page 22 of 22
Appendix E - Concept Option Variations [Confidential – Not
Included]
Appendix F - Cost Per Unit of Water Analyses for Palo Alto,
Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District and East
Palo Alto [Confidential – Not Included]
Appendix G - Funding Matrix
Page 1 of 4
Summary of Potential Recycled Water Funding Opportunities – Updated March 13, 2019
Program
Administering
Agency
Funding
Type
CEQA/
NEPA
Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses
Eligibility
Requirements
Due Date &
Future Rounds
Funding Amounts
& Terms
Cost
Share
Priority
Determination /
Critical Factors
Title XVI Water
Reuse &
Reclamation Grant
Program -
Construction
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
(Reclamation)
Grant CEQA and
NEPA
Construction of water
recycling treatment and
conveyance facilities.
Planning, design,
construction (can
include prior costs)
A Title XVI Feasibility
Study must be
submitted to
Reclamation for review
and approval prior to
submitting a
construction
application.
Project must receive
congressional
authorization in order to
receive construction
grant funding.
Most recent round
was due in Summer
2018.
Next round
anticipated spring
2019
The total amount of
available funds varies
each year. The 2018
FOA included $34M for
Title XVI. Historically,
there has been a max
of ~$4M per applicant,
though the new
administration has
favored funding fewer
projects with larger
awards per project.
Maximum grant award
of 25% of the total
project costs or $20
million, whichever is
less.
Grant funding is
provided over multiple
applications submitted
on an annual basis until
the project is complete
or the total federal cost
share has been
provided.
Typically limited to 3
years of costs per
application.
75% cost
share
1
Project must receive
congressional approval.
Website https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/index.html
Water Infrastructure
Improvements for
the Nation (WIIN)
Subset of Title XVI
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
(Reclamation)
Grant CEQA and
NEPA
Construction of water
recycling treatment and
conveyance facilities for
projects that have a
Title XVI Feasibility
Study completed, but
are not congressionally
authorized.
Similar to Title XVI:
planning, design,
construction (including
prior costs)
A Title XVI Feasibility
Study must have
already been submitted
to Reclamation for
review and approval
and the project must
have a Determination of
Feasibility from
Reclamation
Reclamation
appears to intend
three rounds of
funding – the first
was in 2017, the
second was in
2018, and a third to
be released shortly
after announcement
of Round 2 awards
– anticipated in
spring 2019.
$50M total has been
allocated under WIIN.
$10M released in first
FOA, $20M released in
second FOA, $20M
anticipated for third
FOA.
Maximum grant award
of 25% of the total
project costs.
Typically limited to 3
years of costs per
application.
75% cost
share
1
Competitive program,
but will only get more
competitive as
additional agencies
submit their Feasibility
Studies. Better to get
money early and keep
going back.
Website A specific funding website has not been developed. For reference, visit: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/index.html
Page 2 of 4
Program
Administering
Agency
Funding
Type
CEQA/
NEPA
Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses
Eligibility
Requirements
Due Date &
Future Rounds
Funding Amounts
& Terms
Cost
Share
Priority
Determination /
Critical Factors
Drought Response
Program – Drought
Resiliency Projects
Reclamation Grant CEQA and
NEPA
Increase the reliability of
water supply; improve
water management;
implement systems to
facilitate the voluntary
sale, transfer or
exchange of water; and
provide benefits for fish,
wildlife, and the
environment to mitigate
impacts caused by
drought.
Construction, tool
development to
improve water
management,
installation of data
collecting devices,
improving habitat.
Proposed resiliency
project should improve
ability of water
managers to deliver
water during a drought.
Based on most recent
FOA, project cannot be
part of a
congressionally
authorized Title XVI
Project.
Must demonstrate that
project is supported by
an existing drought
contingency plan;
quantify benefits during
droughts; address
urgent needs and
severe drought
impacts.
Anticipate FOA in
December 2018,
with applications
due February 2019
$8.3M was awarded in
2018 FY2019 budget
TBD
Funding Group I: up to
$300,000 for projects
that can be completed
within 2 years
Funding Group II: up to
$750,000 for larger
projects that can be
completed within 3
years
50% cost
share
4
Competitiveness would
be evaluated if and
when another FOA is
released based on
project status and
scoring criteria. Status
of next round is
unknown.
Website https://www.usbr.gov/drought/
Integrated Regional
Water Management
(IRWM)
Implementation
Grant Program
California
Department of
Water Resources
(DWR)
Grant CEQA Only Identify and implement
projects and programs
that increase regional
self-reliance, reduce
conflict, and manage
water to concurrently
achieve social,
environmental, and
economic objectives.
Planning, design, land
acquisition, legal fees,
environmental
documentation,
environmental
mitigation, construction/
implementation,
construction
administration
Project must be
included on the project
list of an IRWM
Region’s IRWMP. Palo
Alto is within the San
Francisco Bay IRWM
Region and thus, the
project must be in its
IRWMP.
Prop 1 – Round 1 is
underway; local call
for projects closed
Nov. 16, 2018
FY20/21: Round 2
Implementation
Grant Solicitation
anticipated
City submitted a
project in Fall 2018
for Round 1;
currently awaiting
selection for
inclusion in regional
application.
$58.5M for the 2 rounds
of implementation
funding in the SF
Funding Area, which
includes the entire SF
Bay Area IRWM Region
and a portion of the
East Contra Costa
IRWM Region.
($65M is allocated to
SF Funding Area,
$6.5M to be allocated
to DAC Involvement.)
$22.75M anticipated
available in each round
for non-DAC
implementation projects
50% cost
share
3
Limited funding
available for competitive
area. Participate in SF
Bay Area IRWM
process. Ultimately, up
to SF Bay Area project
prioritization and
selection process as to
which projects are
included in an
application
Website https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs or Bay Area IRWM Program: http://bayareairwmp.org/
Page 3 of 4
Program
Administering
Agency
Funding
Type
CEQA/
NEPA
Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses
Eligibility
Requirements
Due Date &
Future Rounds
Funding Amounts
& Terms
Cost
Share
Priority
Determination /
Critical Factors
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) loan
program
State Water
Resources Control
Board (SWRCB)
Loan CEQA+
(includes
CEQA and
select federal
crosscutters,
i.e., not full
NEPA)
Construction of publicly-
owned facilities
including wastewater
treatment, local sewers,
sewer interceptors,
water reclamation and
distribution, stormwater
treatment, and
combined sewers.
Planning, design,
construction,
construction
management,
mitigation measures
(can include prior
planning/design costs).
Construction costs
incurred prior to
executing funding
agreement NOT eligible
for reimbursement.
Must either provide
proof of submitted
UWMP, proof of
CUWCC MOU, or copy
of Water Conservation
Program for State
Board approval.
Letter of 2015 UWMP
approval from DWR
required prior to
executing financing
agreement.
Applications are
continuously
accepted, though
the State Board
now implements a
deadline of
December 31 and a
scoring system to
be added to the
Fundable List.
Projects must first
get on Fundable
Project List before
applications will be
reviewed. May be
as long as 2 years
from application
submittal to
contract
Typically, there is
$200M-$300M
available; Water
recycling projects are
given priority. Interest
rate is ½ of the General
Obligation Rate at the
time of award (SRF
i=1.9% for this year).
Financing term up to 30
years.
There is no maximum
financing amount for a
project / agency.
0% 2
Program is very
popular. Application
review can be up to 12
months, so financial
forecast could change
by the time an
application is prepared,
submitted, and
reviewed.
Highest scoring projects
will be “corrective”, or
address drinking water
or Delta water quality;
help implement a
climate change action
plan or address multiple
water quality issues;
and those with both a
complete application
and at least 90%
design/specs
Website https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/
Water Recycling
Funding Program
(WRFP)
Construction
Grants
SWRCB Loans &
Grant
CEQA+
(includes
CEQA and
select federal
crosscutters,
i.e., not full
NEPA)
Promote beneficial use
of recycled water to
augment fresh water
supplies in CA by
supporting water
recycling projects and
research.
Planning, design and
construction, including
reasonable costs to
provide emergency
backup water supply for
a recycled water
system; pilot projects
for new potable reuse
(can include prior
planning/design costs).
Construction costs
incurred prior to
executing funding
agreement NOT eligible
for reimbursement.
Apply through CWSRF
program.
Applications are
continuously
accepted, though
the State Board
now implements a
deadline of
December 31 and a
scoring system to
be added to the
Fundable List.
Projects must first
get on Fundable
Project List before
applications will be
reviewed. May be
as long as 2 years
from application
submittal to
contract
Prop 1 provided $625M
for planning and
construction of water
recycling projects;
however, this funding
has been exhausted.
Future allocations to
the WRFP are possible,
though currently TBD.
Project could receive
$15M or 35% of project
costs for construction,
whichever is less.
Offers 1% financing for
recycled water projects
through CWSF
N/A 2
By applying for
CWSRF, the City will
automatically be
applying for any
available grant funding
under the umbrella
CWSRF program.
Website https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/
Page 4 of 4
Program
Administering
Agency
Funding
Type
CEQA/
NEPA
Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses
Eligibility
Requirements
Due Date &
Future Rounds
Funding Amounts
& Terms
Cost
Share
Priority
Determination /
Critical Factors
Infrastructure SRF
(ISRF) Loan
Program
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
(I-Bank)
Loan Application
does not
consist of
environmental
portion;
however,
CEQA would
be required
prior to
construction
Construction and/or
repair of publicly-owned
wastewater collection
and treatment systems.
Architectural,
engineering, financial
and legal services,
plans, specifications,
admin expenses, land
acquisition,
construction,
machinery/equipment
Project complete
construction within 2
years of financing
approval.
Must have applied for
all required permits.
Applications are
continuously
accepted.
Loans typically
awarded three
months after
application
submittal
ISRF Program funding
is available in amounts
ranging from $50,000 to
$25M, with loan terms
of up to 30 years.
Pre-payment of loan
not allowed until Year
13 of loan
N/A 5
Projects must
demonstrate job
creation, though this is
only a small piece of the
application. Loan terms
not as good as other
programs, and there are
penalties to early
repayment
Website http://www.ibank.ca.gov/infrastructure-state-revolving-fund-isrf-program/
Water Infrastructure
Finance and
Innovation Act
(WIFIA)
USEPA Loan CEQA and
NEPA
Construction of
wastewater conveyance
and treatment projects,
drinking water treatment
and distribution
projects, desalination,
and water recycling
projects
Planning, preliminary
engineering, design,
environmental review,
revenue forecasting,
construction, land
acquisition, capitalized
interest
Federal assistance may
not exceed 80% of
project costs.
Letters of Interest
accepted during
selection periods.
FY 2018 solicited
letters of interest
from April-July
2018.
62 Letters of
Interest applied for
$9.1B; 39 projects
selected to apply
for $5B in loans
$5B was available in
2018.
Minimum project size
for large communities
(population > 25,000) is
$20M; for small
communities is $5M.
Interest rate greater or
equal to U.S. Treasury
rate of similar maturity,
based on the weighted
average life of the loan.
Loans for 35 years or
useful life of project,
whichever is less.
WIFIA received a 2-
year $100M
reauthorization at end
of 2018.
51% non-
WIFIA;
(up to
80% of
project
costs can
be
covered
by federal
funds,
using a
combinati
on of
programs)
6
Non-refundable
application fees of
$25,000 (small
communities) or
$100,000 (>25,000
people). Total fees:
$250K-$500K plus
possibly additional fees
for administration of
loan. Low funding
amount available.
National program.
Better local/state
options.
Website https://www.epa.gov/wifia
DRAFT September 9, 2019
1
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PALO ALTO, MOUNTAIN VIEW, AND THE SANTA
CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT TO ADVANCE RESILIENT WATER REUSE
PROGRAMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
WORKING DRAFT
This Agreement to Advance Resilient Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
(Agreement) is entered into on ________________[date] by the City of Palo Alto (“Palo
Alto”), the City of Mountain View (“Mountain View”), and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (“Valley Water”).
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water
(collectively, the Parties) have established policy goals for long term sustainability,
which include maintaining effective use of existing infrastructure, lowering the carbon
footprint of energy use, deploying water use efficiency programs, capturing local
storm water, managing groundwater basins, and expanding use of recycled water;
and
B. WHEREAS, the Parties have long-standing responsibilities and services to supply
water to their customers in Santa Clara County (County) under both normal and
drought conditions; and
C. WHEREAS, the Parties seek to develop locally reliable water supply sources to
offset supplies of water that would otherwise have to be imported via the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and its tributaries, including the Tuolumne
River and other mountain streams; and
D. WHEREAS, the Parties together are finalizing the Northwest County Recycled Water
Strategic Plan to inform their respective policy makers of opportunities in the north-
west portion of Santa Clara County, including Palo Alto and Mountain View, for
groundwater recharge, further recycled water development, and deployment of
highly purified wastewater to supplement drinking water; and
E. WHEREAS, increasing the use of Recycled Water decreases contaminants
discharged to San Francisco Bay where harm to wildlife can occur; and
F. WHEREAS, Valley Water has established a goal that at least 10 percent of total
County water demands be supplied by recycled water by 2025; and
G. WHEREAS, decreasing the salinity of the treated wastewater from the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) through further treatment will allow it to be
used on more types of flora, especially redwood trees, thereby increasing its overall
use, and further reducing the need to import water from mountain streams including
the Tuolumne River; and
DRAFT September 9, 2019
2
H. WHEREAS, decreasing the salinity in Recycled Water used for irrigation keeps that
salt out of the soil and ultimately out of the groundwater; and
I. WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that well-purposed and managed partnerships
can serve the public interest more effectively than their individual efforts to develop
and manage water supplies; and
J. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to cooperate to achieve the most cost effective,
environmentally beneficial utilization of treated wastewater in the County.
AGREEMENT
DEFINITIONS
Designated Representatives: Employees or officials designated in writing by each of the
respective Parties to serve as representatives for purposes of this Agreement. In the
absence of such written notice, the Designated Representatives shall be the Valley
Water Chief Executive Officer, the Mountain View City Manager, and the Palo Alto City
Manager.
Dispute Resolution Procedure: The alternative dispute resolution process to be used for
disputes arising out of this Agreement. The procedure is set forth in more detail in
Article 26 below.
Effluent: Tertiary treated wastewater from the RWQCP meeting National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit requirements.
Effluent Transfer Option: Valley Water’s option to secure Effluent, as described in Article
13 of this Agreement.
Enhanced Recycled Water: Non-potable water produced by the Local Plant which is
blended with Recycled Water from the RWQCP.
Local Plant: A salinity removal unit to produce 1.25 MGD Enhanced Recycled Water for
the RWQCP service area, for initial use within Palo Alto and Mountain View service
areas.
MGD: million gallons per day.
Minimum Flow Delivery: an annual average of 9 MGD of Effluent to be supplied by the
RWQCP to Valley Water, consistent with Appendix 1.
Parties: The City of Palo Alto (“Palo Alto”), the City of Mountain View (“Mountain View”),
and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (“Valley Water”).
Recycled Water: Effluent that is treated to meet Title 22 regulations for non-potable
water.
Regional Plant: A purification treatment facility capable of treating Effluent flows of 9
MGD or greater for the purpose of regional water supply benefit.
DRAFT September 9, 2019
3
Regional Program: Valley Water’s program to derive benefits from the Effluent under
the terms of this Agreement.
Remaining Funds: Funds available for use by the RWQCP Partners pursuant to Article
6(f).
Responsible Agencies: Responsible Agencies are agencies other than the lead
agency, that have some discretionary authority for carrying out or approving a project,
as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act and its associated regulations.
RWQCP: The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
RWQCP Partners: The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos; the Town of
Los Altos Hills; the East Palo Alto Sanitary District and Stanford University.
RWQCP Partner Agreements: Agreements between Palo Alto and one or more of the
RWQCP Partners regarding provision of Effluent to Valley Water for its Regional
Program.
RWQCP Service Area: RWQCP Service Area includes the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain
View, and Los Altos; the service area of the East Palo Alto Sanitary District; the Town of
Los Altos; and Stanford University.
Startup: The point in time when Valley Water begins to receive regular Effluent flows. If
at the Regional Plant, Startup will occur following initial testing and commissioning.
Startup can alternatively mean the point in time when Valley Water begins to pay for the
Effluent as part of its Regional Program, pursuant to this Agreement.
Water Supply Option: Palo Alto’s and Mountain View’s option to secure additional water
supply as described in Article 21 of this Agreement.
SECTION A - General Provisions
1. Term.
This Agreement shall be in effect upon execution by the Parties. The Term of the
Agreement shall be 43 years from date of execution; however, if Valley Water exercises
its Effluent Transfer Option as described in Section C, the Term of this Agreement shall
be extended to 63 years from Startup, for a maximum of 76 years.
2. Termination.
This Agreement may be terminated by the Parties as follows:
a. Termination by Valley Water. Valley Water may terminate [Section C] this
Agreement at its sole discretion by providing Palo Alto and Mountain View with at
least five years’ written notice if Valley Water has commenced receiving Effluent
pursuant to Section C of this Agreement or at least one years’ written notice if
Valley Water has not commenced receiving Effluent. However, Valley Water’s
termination date shall not occur before eighteen years from the date of execution
of this Agreement.
DRAFT September 9, 2019
4
b. Termination by Palo Alto or Mountain View. [Proposed language to be provided –
to include force majeure occurrences such as if compliance with the Agreement
would result in a violation of state/federal law or regulatory permits; also to
include if Valley Water does not utilize the Effluent within 23 years, consistent
with Article 14.b.
3. Governance.
A joint committee comprised of elected officials from Valley Water, Palo Alto and
Mountain View will be established to review and accept updates on the design,
construction, operation and regulatory compliance of the Local Plant and the Regional
Plant if the Regional Plant is located in Palo Alto. If the Regional Plant is not located in
Palo Alto then the aforementioned committee will operate only with respect to the Local
Plant. The committee’s role will be advisory to staff and governing bodies of the
Parties.
SECTION B - Local Plant
4. Local Plant Beneficiaries
The Parties agree that the Local Plant will be developed by Palo Alto and operated for
the benefit of Recycled Water customers of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and potentially
other RWQCP Partners. However, Palo Alto and Mountain View shall ensure that
funding from Valley Water shall only be used to benefit users in Santa Clara County.
5. Local Plant Ownership, Operation and Maintenance, and Location
The Parties agree that Palo Alto shall own the Local Plant and be responsible for its
design, construction, operation, maintenance, ultimate decommissioning, and site
restoration. The Local Plant shall be located within the RWQCP site.
The Parties to this Agreement anticipate that Palo Alto will be the Lead Agency and
Valley Water and Mountain View will be Responsible Agencies under CEQA/NEPA for a
Local Plant. Any legally mandated environmental review shall be completed prior to
approval and development of the Local Plant. The Parties shall work together to
facilitate compliance under CEQA (and NEPA if applicable) for the development of the
Local Plant. As part of this process, the Parties agree to provide timely notice, review,
and responses.
6. Local Plant Capital Costs
a. Valley Water’s Contribution: The Local Plant capital cost is estimated to be $20
Million. Valley Water’s contribution shall be $16 Million (2019 dollars), escalated
annually based on Valley Water’s Yield-to-Maturity Rate as published in Valley
Water’s Quarterly Performance Reports to the Board of Directors for the fourth
quarter of each fiscal year, hereinafter referred to as “$16 Million”. Valley
Water’s $16 Million contribution towards the Local Plant and, if applicable, other
projects described in sub-Article 6(f), in conjunction with the Annual Option
DRAFT September 9, 2019
5
Payments set forth in Article 7, shall constitute full and final consideration for its
right to secure the Minimum Flow Delivery.
b. Subject to Article 6.d, Palo Alto’s and Mountain View’s combined capital
contribution shall be the difference between the actual cost of the Local Plant and
Valley Water’s contribution.
c. Any federal grant funding sought by Palo Alto or Mountain View, or both, for the
Local Plant shall not include the San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse
Program under the Title XVI Program. The benefits of any grant funding for the
Local Plant shall be split by Palo Alto and Mountain View as determined by a
separate agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View.
d. Should the construction low bid, or any other circumstance, drive the Local Plant
total project cost above the $20 Million estimate, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View
may elect to cover the increase (above Valley Water’s $16 Million contribution)
themselves, without an additional contribution from Valley Water. If Palo Alto
and/or Mountain View are unable to identify a funding source or secure low
interest rate loans to sufficiently cover costs above the $20 Million total project
cost estimate, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may request to meet and confer
with Valley Water to potentially modify this Agreement. However, absent such a
modification to the Agreement, Valley Water’s contribution shall be limited to $16
Million.
e. If Palo Alto and Mountain View elect not to proceed with and/or complete
construction of the Local Plant within 13 years of execution of this Agreement,
they shall provide written notice to Valley Water and they shall still receive the
$16 Million contribution from Valley Water so long as such funds are allocated
and utilized consistent with the provisions of sub-Articles 6(f) and 6(g).
f. In the unlikely event the Local Plant is not constructed, any portion of the Valley
Water contribution of $16 Million not utilized for the capital of the Local Plant,
defined as Remaining Funds, will be available for other projects, specified below.
Palo Alto and Mountain View will consult with all RWQCP Partners in developing
a plan for expending the Remaining Funds and notify Valley Water prior to
expenditure of Remaining Funds. Remaining Funds will be allocated by Palo
Alto for projects specified below that benefit all RWQCP Partners that have
committed their Effluent to Valley Water for the term of this Agreement.
However, the projects specified below must be located within Santa Clara County
(for compliance with the District Act). Eligible projects for receipt of the
Remaining Funds shall be, in order of preference:
i. Recycled Water facilities at the RWQCP and/or owned and operated
by a RWQCP Partner.
DRAFT September 9, 2019
6
ii. Other water supply projects, including but not limited to water
conservation capital projects, owned and operated by a RWQCP
Partner.
g. The valid time frame for any expenditure of funds for reimbursement pursuant to
this Article 6 shall extend from the date of execution of this Agreement to
eighteen (18) years from the date of execution. Within this time frame, Palo Alto
must present to Valley Water all invoices for expenditure of funds by itself and
other RWQCP Partners pursuant to this Article. Valley Water shall not reimburse
any invoices presented beyond 18 years from the date of execution of this
Agreement.
h. Monthly, Palo Alto shall invoice Valley Water for project costs expended pursuant
to this Article 6, including documentation of work performed by itself and any
other RWQCP Partner. Invoices shall not include RWQCP Partners’ staff costs
and administrative overhead. Valley Water shall pay such valid Palo Alto
invoices within thirty days of receiving them.
7. Annual Option Payments Prior to Startup of Regional Plant
a. Amount of Payment. Valley Water agrees to pay to Palo Alto $200,000 per year
(2019 dollars) (“Annual Option Payment”) from the date of execution of this
Agreement by the Parties, to culminate (a) June 1, 2033, or (b) at Startup,
whichever occurs first. The amount of the Annual Option Payment shall be
increased annually based on the annual average (previous twelve months) of the
CPI-All Items for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published
by the United States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics
(https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu), beginning on the first anniversary of the
execution of this Agreement.
b. Timing of Payment. Valley Water shall provide the Annual Option Payment to
Palo Alto by June 1 of each year beginning June 1, 2020.
c. Allocation of Payment.
i. Fifty percent (50%) of the Annual Option Payment will be allocated to
Palo Alto and Mountain View.
ii. Palo Alto will distribute the remaining 50% of the Annual Option Payment
to the RWQCP Partners (other than Palo Alto and Mountain View) that
have committed their Effluent for the term of this Agreement by January
31 of the year that the Annual Option Payment is made. If no other
RWQCP Partners commit their Effluent by January 31 of that year, this
50% of the Annual Option Payment will be allocated to Palo Alto and
Mountain View.
iii. Palo Alto shall ensure that the Annual Option Payments are utilized for
water supply or water reuse related projects in the RWQCP Service Area.
DRAFT September 9, 2019
7
8. Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Produced by the Local Plant
Palo Alto is responsible for securing any necessary changes in its National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to accommodate reverse osmosis
concentrate discharge from the Local Plant to receiving waters under the jurisdiction of
federal and state agencies.
9. Local Plant Naming and Tours
a. Valley Water reserves the right to name the Local Plant, including signage on
site. Signage may be subject to approval by the appropriate Palo Alto decision
maker or body, of which will not be unreasonably withheld.
b. With 48-hour advance notice to the RWQCP plant manager or his/her designee,
designated Valley Water personnel may lead tours of the Local Plant by Valley
Water employees or members of the public. Valley Water-led tours shall be
subject to prior and ongoing review by the RWQCP plant manager or his/her
designee to ensure that the tours are conducted safely and with minimal
disruption to other RWQCP activities, and that parking of private vehicles by tour
attendees is consistent with RWQCP requirements. Valley Water will submit a
plan or program for tours of the Local Plant for the RWQCP plant manager’s
review and approval, and shall conduct tours consistently with the approved plan
or program.
10. On-site Research at the Local Plant
Valley Water may desire to conduct research work on treatment processes at the Local
Plant, including installation of pilot test equipment. Valley Water-managed research
teams may include personnel from RWQCP Partners, universities, private companies
engaged in research, or other research laboratories. Palo Alto agrees that it will make
its best effort to enable research at the Local Plant and to not unreasonably deny or
constrain Valley Water proposals to conduct such research. Valley Water agrees to
share results of such research with Parties, upon request. Such research work will not
significantly disrupt operation of the Local Plant or the RWQCP, nor result in
significantly decreased flows, RWQCP upsets, or permit violations.
11. Term of Local Plant Operation
Palo Alto agrees to operate the Local Plant for a continual period of at least 30 years,
unless the Parties agree to cease operations sooner.
SECTION C - Effluent Delivery to Valley Water
12. Effluent Transfer Option
a. Valley Water shall have the right to exercise an exclusive Effluent Transfer
Option to secure from Palo Alto and Mountain View (or from the RWQCP
DRAFT September 9, 2019
8
Partners in aggregate) a Minimum Flow Delivery of an annual average of 9
million gallons per day (MGD)(10,000 AFY), as described in Appendix 1, of
Effluent. Valley Water’s exercise of this Effluent Transfer Option shall be subject
to CEQA review. Valley Water may elect to develop a Regional Plant to receive
and treat such Effluent or may instead receive the Effluent for development of
other beneficial use in Santa Clara County as part of its Regional Program.
b. This Agreement shall not bind or commit Valley Water to any definite course of
action with respect to the Effluent Transfer Option and shall not restrict Valley
Water from considering any alternatives, including a no-action alternative, or
requiring any feasible mitigation measures when considering whether to receive
Effluent delivery.
13. Timing of Valley Water’s Effluent Transfer Option
a. Valley Water’s period to exercise the Effluent Transfer Option and to accomplish
Startup extends for thirteen years from the date of full execution of this
Agreement. Valley Water may exercise the Effluent Transfer Option by written
notification by its Designated Representative to the Designated Representatives
of Palo Alto and Mountain View. Before Startup, as needed, Valley Water and
Palo Alto will work together to determine and provide adequate Effluent for
testing and commissioning purposes.
b. Notwithstanding Article 13 (a), Valley Water may elect to defer acceptance of the
Effluent as part of its Regional Program until after Startup. However, at any time
after Startup, if Valley Water has not begun taking the Effluent, any Party may
request to meet and confer to determine an alternative use of the Effluent. After
10 years from Startup, if the Parties have not agreed to amend this Agreement
and Valley Water has not begun taking the Effluent, Section C of the Agreement
shall terminate.
14. Effluent to Valley Water if Valley Water Exercises its Effluent Transfer Option
a. The Minimum Flow Delivery is defined as 9 million gallons per day (MGD)
of annual average flow of Effluent that will be secured by Valley Water,
predicated upon Valley Water exercising its Effluent Transfer Option, from
Startup through the Term of this Agreement, consistent with the
parameters described in Appendix 1. During the planning and/or design
phases of the Regional Program, Valley Water may identify one or more
other Effluent flow parameters required for operation of the Regional
Program. In this case, these flow parameters shall be developed
consistent with RWQCP data provided by Palo Alto, and Appendix 1 will
be updated accordingly with approval by Palo Alto’s and Valley Water’s
Designated Representatives.
b. Palo Alto shall ensure that the Effluent meets all applicable federal and
state water quality standards. If operational changes are anticipated at
the RWQCP that could adversely affect the quality of Effluent, Palo Alto
DRAFT September 9, 2019
9
will provide notice to Valley Water and will work in good faith to minimize
potential impacts to Regional Program.
c. Palo Alto and Mountain View will take certain actions to increase the
volume of Effluent delivered to Valley Water during water supply
shortages such as droughts, described as follows:
i. Palo Alto will use best efforts to temporarily modify operations to
maximize the volume of Effluent delivered to Valley Water, while
complying with all legal and federal, state, and local regulatory
requirements and completing any legally mandated environmental
review. Such modifications may include temporary decreases to
environmental flows.
ii. Palo Alto and Mountain View will implement the appropriate stages of
their Water Shortage Contingency Plans and will use best efforts to
reduce non-critical use of non-potable Recycled Water.
d. Palo Alto will make good faith efforts to sign separate agreements with
other RWQCP Partners to commit their shares of Effluent for delivery to
Valley Water for a period consistent with the Term of this Agreement.
Good faith efforts include sending letters to the appropriate
representatives of the RWQCP Partners within 3 months of execution of
this Agreement. If one or more of the other RWQCP Partners does not
commit their Effluent, Palo Alto and Mountain View will ensure that the
Minimum Flow Delivery will be met.
e. Each year following Startup, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will notify
Valley Water by November 30 to determine what, if any, amount of
Effluent will be available to deliver to Valley Water in excess of the
Minimum Flow Delivery in the following fiscal year and to describe any
conditions that may apply to such delivery. On an annual basis, by
November 30, any commitments for delivery in excess of the Minimum
Flow Delivery for the upcoming fiscal year shall be made in writing by the
Designated Representatives of Mountain View and/or Palo Alto.
f. At any time, the Parties’ Designated Representatives may determine that
more Effluent is available beyond the Minimum Flow Delivery for a
definitive number of years in the future within the Term of this Agreement.
The Parties agree they will consider such increases at the request of any
Party, and this Agreement may be amended to implement such increases.
g. Subject to Article 14(a)-(c), Mountain View shall at all times receive
sufficient Effluent to receive a minimum supply of 2.5 MGD of Enhanced
Recycled Water and Palo Alto shall at all times receive a minimum supply
of 1.0 MGD of Enhance Recycled Water This supply shall supersede
Mountain View and Palo Alto’s obligation to meet Valley Water’s Minimum
Flow Delivery.
DRAFT September 9, 2019
10
15. Regional Plant Location
a. If Valley Water pursues a Regional Plant as part of its Regional Program, it is the
preference of the Parties to locate the Regional Plant in Palo Alto. As such,
Valley Water and Palo Alto shall evaluate the feasibility of all potential locations
in Palo Alto, including: within the fence line of the RWQCP; at the Measure E
site; or a yet to be determined location. If it is determined by Valley Water that it
is not feasible or economical to locate the Regional Plant in Palo Alto, the
Effluent may be conveyed for reuse by Valley Water to another location. The
point of delivery of the Effluent to Valley Water shall be at the RWQCP, or
another location mutually agreed between Valley Water and Palo Alto.
b. If Valley Water notifies Palo Alto that it intends to locate a Regional Plant in Palo
Alto, Palo Alto shall cooperate with Valley Water in identifying ways to
accommodate a Regional Plant to the maximum extent possible within the
boundary of the RWQCP or adjacent to the RWQCP boundary pending siting
evaluation results. Palo Alto will also cooperate with Valley Water as it explores
siting an appropriate sized water tank, to balance inbound fluctuating flows and
produce a steady flow for treatment. Valley Water shall negotiate with Palo Alto
to share costs between Palo Alto and Valley Water for use of the RWQCP site,
including modification of existing facilities.
c. In the event that Valley Water determines that the Measure E site adjacent to the
RWQCP facility is the best location for a Regional Plant, and no extenuating
circumstances (including, but not limited to, any environmental impacts identified
through CEQA review) have been identified by Palo Alto, Palo Alto’s staff will
recommend to Palo Alto Council that the Council place a measure on the ballot
to allow this use. If a Regional Plant is located, at least in part, on the Measure E
site, Valley Water may lease the land from Palo Alto at a rate based on the then-
current zoning, anticipated to be for “public facilities.” A separate lease
agreement may be required subject to approval by the Palo Alto City Council or
Designated Representative.
d. Palo Alto and Mountain View agree to process expeditiously, in accordance with
regular city processes, Valley Water’s complete non-discretionary permit
applications for a Regional Plant.
16. Regional Plant and/or Conveyance Facilities Ownership, Capital, Operation
and Maintenance Costs
Subject to Valley Water exercising the Effluent Transfer Option, Valley Water may own
and construct a Regional Plant and conveyance facilities to and from the Regional Plant
(preliminary cost of $300 Million based on a comparison of like projects), or conveyance
facilities to take the Effluent elsewhere. Valley Water will be responsible for all capital
and O&M costs for a Regional Plant and conveyance facilities.
DRAFT September 9, 2019
11
17. Other Development Commitments by the Parties
a. In the event that a Regional Plant is to be located in Palo Alto, Palo Alto shall
support Valley Water’s chosen development and operation & maintenance
(O&M) approach for the Regional Plant. Approaches under consideration by
Valley Water include, but are not limited to, a design-build method with Valley
Water responsibility for O&M; or a public-private partnership in which, for
example, Valley Water may partner with one or more private entities to provide
financing, design, construction, and O&M.
b. Additionally, in the event that Valley Water notifies Palo Alto and Mountain View
that it intends to develop a Regional Plant in Palo Alto, Palo Alto and Mountain
View shall provide, when requested by Valley Water, written support to State and
federal agencies to which Valley Water seeks grant funding or low-interest loans
for the Regional Plant, and city staff shall participate in meetings with State and
federal agencies for these purposes.
c. The Parties to this Agreement anticipate that Valley Water will be the Lead
Agency and Palo Alto and Mountain View will be Responsible Agencies under
CEQA/NEPA for a Regional Plant. Any legally mandated environmental review
shall be completed prior to approval and development of the Regional Plant. The
Parties shall work together to facilitate compliance under CEQA (and NEPA if
applicable) for the development of the Regional Plant. As part of this process,
the Parties agree to provide timely notice, review, and responses.
18. Annual Payments for Effluent
a. Upon Startup, Valley Water will pay Palo Alto $1,000,000 per year for the
Minimum Flow Delivery, consistent with Articles 13 through 15 and Appendix 1,
during the Term of this Agreement. Valley Water shall make payments on a fiscal
year basis (July – June). Following Startup, Valley Water’s first payment shall be
prorated based on Effluent received or, if Effluent deliveries have not started,
shall be based on the Minimum Flow Delivery. Valley Water’s payments will be
made by August 31 for the preceding fiscal year. Palo Alto will allocate these
funds to RWQCP Partners that have committed their Effluent to Valley Water by
January 31 proportionally based on the RWQCP Partner’s share of the total
Effluent committed through the Term of this Agreement. The $1,000,000 annual
amount referred to in this Section shall be in 2019 dollars, adjusted July 1 of
each year by the annual average (previous 12 months) of the CPI-All Items for
the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published by the United
States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics
(https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu).
b. Valley Water’s payments for Effluent pursuant to this Article shall continue
through the Term of this Agreement unless (Section C of) the Agreement is
DRAFT September 9, 2019
12
terminated earlier subject to Article 2. If (Section C of) the Agreement is
terminated, Valley Water’s payment for Effluent in the year it is terminated shall
be prorated based on the termination date and the proportion of days lapsed in
the fiscal year.
c. If implementation of the Regional Program is deferred pursuant to Article 14 (b)
and, during that period of deferral, Palo Alto incurs incremental wastewater
treatment costs to meet new NPDES requirements, Valley Water shall pay Palo
Alto a proportion of the annual operation and maintenance costs, not capital
costs, for such incremental wastewater treatment based on the percentage of
Minimum Flow Delivery relative to the total volume of wastewater effluent
produced over that period. However, Valley Water’s obligation to pay for annual
operation and maintenance costs under this Sub-Article shall not begin until the
five-year anniversary of Startup and shall cover the period after that date. Palo
Alto shall invoice Valley Water, detailing the basis of the costs for the preceding
year, after the end of the sixth year after Startup and each year thereafter until
Valley Water begins to take delivery of Effluent or until (Section C of) the
Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article 2. Valley Water’s obligation to pay
such costs shall be capped at $150,000 per year (in 2019 dollars, adjusted July 1
of each year by the annual average (previous 12 months) of the CPI-All Items for
the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published by the United
States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics
(https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu)).
d. To the extent that Effluent is delivered in excess of the Minimum Flow Delivery,
consistent with Appendix 1, Valley Water’s payment to Palo Alto shall increase
by a prorated amount. If the quantity of Effluent made available to Valley Water
falls below the Minimum Flow Delivery in a year, the payment for that year shall
be prorated accordingly.
e. If the amount of Effluent Valley Water requests, up to the Minimum Flow
Delivery, is not met, the Parties shall meet and confer for the purpose of
identifying and implementing feasible solutions to any supply shortfall, including
the potential to extend the Term of the Agreement to make up for lost Effluent
delivery.
19. Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Produced by a Regional Plant in Palo Alto
In the event that a Regional Plant is located in Palo Alto, Palo Alto shall evaluate
operating strategies and make best efforts to accomplish any necessary changes in its
NPDES permit to accommodate reverse osmosis concentrate discharge from the
Regional Plant to receiving waters under the jurisdiction of federal and state regulators.
Palo Alto staff shall include Valley Water staff in its planning and negotiations with the
regulators. To the extent that discharge of the reverse osmosis concentrate to receiving
waters via Palo Alto’s wastewater outfall is not feasible and acceptable to the
regulators, Valley Water shall evaluate and implement alternative reverse osmosis
concentrate management measures acceptable to Palo Alto, if within the Palo Alto’s
DRAFT September 9, 2019
13
jurisdiction. Valley Water shall pay the costs of treating the reverse osmosis concentrate
to meet applicable state and federal requirements of and any alternative reverse
osmosis concentrate management measures. The Parties acknowledge that a separate
agreement may be needed to address management of reverse osmosis concentrate.
20. Water Supply Option for Palo Alto and Mountain View
a. Beginning one year from execution of this Agreement, at their discretion, Palo
Alto or Mountain View or both shall each have an opportunity to provide Valley
Water a notification of the need for additional water to meet demands in their
respective service areas. The written notification shall include the amount of
potable and/or non-potable water requested, up to the following maximum
amounts: Palo Alto may request an annual average of up to 3.0 MGD and
Mountain View may request an annual average of up to 1.3 MGD. The
notification may also include an indication of a maximum cost for the water in the
first year. Valley Water will make its best effort to develop a proposal that
includes at least one supply within that maximum cost for the first year.
b. Within three (3) months of receiving the written notification from Palo Alto and/or
Mountain View, Valley Water will provide an estimate of the incremental costs to
Valley Water to prepare a proposal for the requested water. Palo Alto and/or
Mountain View will respond to Valley Water’s cost estimate within four (4)
months. After receiving written approval from Palo Alto and/or Mountain View
accepting the estimated cost for Valley Water to do so, Valley Water will have up
to four (4) years from receipt of the original request to prepare a water supply
proposal to Palo Alto and/or Mountain View. Parties will meet periodically as
requested by any Party during this four (4) year period to discuss the request and
the proposal being developed. Valley Water’s proposal will include a description
of the water supply, including the cost, payment schedule, and any conditions
related to the supply to the requester (Palo Alto and/or Mountain View). Valley
Water will submit quarterly cost invoices for its work in preparing the proposal
and Palo Alto/Mountain View will reimburse Valley Water within 30 days.
c. Valley Water’s cost estimate in its proposal shall be limited to Valley Water’s
costs, including all costs associated with the water supply, such as but not limited
to: facility costs, commodity costs, and any wheeling fees. Valley Water shall not
be required to subsidize the cost of the water in order to meet this maximum
cost. The proposal shall include or allow for subsequent increases in cost after
the first year based upon Valley Water’s costs.
d. The requester (Palo Alto and/or Mountain View) will have up to twelve (12)
months from receiving Valley Water’s proposal to provide written notification that
they accept or decline this proposal, unless a shorter time period is one of the
conditions required by Valley Water. For example, a shorter time frame may be
required if Valley Water’s proposal involves a fleeting opportunity with third
parties in which a commitment is needed in less than 12 months. In the event
DRAFT September 9, 2019
14
that Valley Water prepares a proposal with a time period for acceptance of less
than 12 months, it shall also, with Palo Alto’s and/or Mountain View’s
concurrence, proceed to develop a proposal for which the acceptance time
period is up to twelve (12) months.
e. If Palo Alto and/or Mountain View does not accept Valley Water’s proposal,
starting 5 (five) years from declining the previous opportunity, Palo Alto and/or
Mountain View may reinitiate the process as described in Article 20(a)-(d). This
sequence of proposals and potential denials, including the five (5) year period
between the denial and the next request, can be repeated throughout the Term
of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the minimum five-year interval between a
proposal declined by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View and a subsequent
opportunity to request a proposal, Valley Water shall not unreasonably deny a
request by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View to develop a proposal for them after a
period of less than five years since they declined a prior Valley Water proposal.
f. If Palo Alto and/or Mountain View accepts Valley Water’s proposal, Valley Water
will have up to ten (10) years from the acceptance date to begin delivery of the
water to the requester (Palo Alto and/or Mountain View) at cost. All water
provided by Valley Water may only be utilized by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View
within their service areas and Valley Water’s obligation to provide the water to
Palo Alto and/or Mountain View expires at the end of the Term of this Agreement
or an agreed upon date. The Parties shall develop detailed terms and conditions
for Valley Water’s water supply delivery to them in a separate agreement, and
shall provide environmental documentation to support CEQA findings, for
approval by Parties’ governing bodies prior to commencement of delivery of
water to them under this Article. Such separate agreement may have a term
that extends beyond the Term of this Agreement and may include additional
conditions dependent upon the Effluent transfer.
g. If Valley Water determines Startup of the Regional Program will not occur within
thirteen (13) years of execution of this Agreement and Parties have not agreed to
further extend this timeline, Palo Alto and Mountain View shall no longer have the
ability to request a potable and/or non-potable water supply from Valley Water.
21. Mutual Benefits of this Agreement
Through execution of this Agreement, Parties agree to commit funding and resources to
advance a locally controlled, drought resilient supply that improves water supply
reliability and assists in maintaining local groundwater basins, to the benefit of all
Parties. Additionally, the Parties seek to develop reliable water supply sources to
minimize supplies of water that would otherwise have to be imported via the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and its tributaries, including the Tuolumne River
and other mountain streams.
22. Notifications
DRAFT September 9, 2019
15
Palo Alto and Valley Water shall notify all RWQCP Partners of the execution of this
Agreement within 30 days of its execution.
SECTION D – SALE OF RWQCP OR THE REGIONAL PLANT DURING TERM
23. Sale of RWQCP During Term of Agreement
Palo Alto agrees that it shall not sell or attempt to sell the RWQCP to any third-party
unless Valley Water is first offered the right to purchase the RWQCP at fair market
value to be determined by an independent third-party consultant qualified in the
wastewater and/or water industry. Valley Water shall have six months after a fair
market value has been determined to consider this purchase, and Palo Alto may only
pursue the sale to third parties following the expiration of this six-month period or receipt
of Valley Water’s written notice that it does not intend to purchase the RWQCP. Upon
Valley Water’s expression of intent to purchase the RWQCP, Palo Alto shall provide
Valley Water with an additional twelve months to complete any financing necessary for
the purchase.
24. Assumption of Agreement Obligations upon Third-Party Sale of the RWQCP
The provisions of Section C herein (Effluent Delivery to Valley Water), shall survive any
sale of the RWQCP to a third-party during the Term, and Palo Alto shall include as an
express condition in the sale of the RWQCP to a third-party the requirement that the
third party assume the obligations of this Agreement for the remainder of the Term.
Valley Water shall constitute a third-party beneficiary to any agreement between Palo
Alto and a third-party for the sale of the RWQCP.
25. Sale of Regional Plant
Valley Water agrees that if a Regional Plant is located in Palo Alto and if Valley Water
decides to cease its operation of the Regional Plant, it shall not sell or attempt to sell the
Regional Plant to any third-party unless Palo Alto is first offered the right to purchase
the Regional Plant at fair market value to be determined by an independent third-party
consultant qualified in the wastewater and/or water industry. Palo Alto shall have six
months after a fair market value has been determined to consider this purchase, and
Valley Water may only pursue the sale to third parties following the expiration of this six-
month period or receipt of Palo Alto’s written notice that it does not intend to purchase
the Regional Plant. Upon Palo Alto’s expression of intent to purchase the Regional
Plant, Valley Water shall provide Palo Alto with an additional twelve months to complete
any financing necessary for the purchase.
SECTION E
26. Dispute Resolution Procedure
DRAFT September 9, 2019
16
The process by which the Parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising
out of or relating to this Agreement, which will be undertaken promptly and initially by
representatives of the Parties in the following manner:
a) If a dispute should arise, an authorized representative for each of the
Parties will meet or teleconference within fourteen (14) calendar days of
written notification of the dispute to resolve the dispute. Prior to such
meeting or teleconference, the Party bringing the dispute will draft and
submit to the other Parties a written description, including any factual
support, of the disputed matter. After receiving this written description, the
other Parties will provide a written response to such written description
within a reasonable period of time.
b) If no resolution of the dispute occurs at this meeting or teleconference,
the issue will be elevated to an executive-level manager of each Party (i.e.
executive level manager for Valley Water and Assistant City Manager or
higher-level executive for Palo Alto and Mountain View). Each Party’s
executive-level manager will meet or teleconference as soon as practical,
but, in no event, later than twenty one (21) calendar days after the matter
has been referred to them, with the initial meeting to occur at a location to
be selected by the Parties.
c) If the dispute remains unresolved after forty five (45) calendar days
from their receipt of the matter for resolution, and any necessary Party is
not willing to continue negotiations, the Parties agree to submit the dispute
to nonbinding mediation.
d) If the Parties are not able to agree on a mediator, any necessary Party
may request the American Arbitration Association or other acceptable
mediation service to nominate a mediator. The Parties will share the cost
of the mediator equally.
e) In the event mediation is unsuccessful, any Party may pursue other
remedies available at law including filing an action in Santa Clara County
Superior Court.
27. Audit.
Valley Water shall have the right to conduct audits of Palo Alto and Mountain View to
ensure that the funds paid by Valley Water under this Agreement are being used in
accordance with all restrictions set forth in this Agreement. Palo Alto and Mountain View
shall cooperate with any such audit and shall provide records requested by Valley
Water within a reasonable amount of time.