CC 2014-07-08_08.m. Regional Water Resources Mgmt PlanMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
$
TERESA MCCLISH~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND DRAFT REGIONAL
RECYCLED WATER STUDY
DATE: JULY 8, 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive the update on the draft Integrated
Regional Water Resources Managem_ent Plan (IRWMP) and draft Regional Recycled
Water Study (RRWS).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No Fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP)
The IRWM Plan presents a comprehensive water resources management approach to
managing the region's water resources focused on strategies to better the sustainability
of the current and future· needs of San Luis Obispo County. This plan was written to
meet the latest IRWM requirements while balancing the needs of the participating
agencies with the State's need to have a full, well though-out plan to base
implementation of future water resources projects/programs. The County of San Luis
Obispo (County) is the lead agency in the development of the updated IRWMP for the
Region. The City is a signatory to the San Luis Obispo County Region Memorandum of
Understanding for the IRWMP program.
Water Systems Consulting, the consultant for the Northern Cities Management Area
(NCMA) prepared the attached technical memorandum to provide a brief introduction of
the Public Draft SLO County IRWMP and provide prioritized sections, as attachments,
of the IRWMP (Attachment 1 ). The NCMA is comprised of the Oceana Community
Services District and the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach. The
NCMA Technical Group prepared comments for the July 7, 2014 deadline comment
deadline (not available at time of agenda preparation). The deadline for submitting the
IRWMP to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is July 21, 2014. The
Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) and The Water Resources Advisory
Committee (WRAC) will vote to adopt the document at the August 6, 2014 meetings.
Item 8.m. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
JULY 8, 2014
DRAFT INTEGRATED. REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND DRAFT
RECYCLED WATER STUDIES
PAGE2
The IRWMP is scheduled on the County Board of Supervisor's agenda on August 12,
2014. Individual agencies will be asked to adopt the IRWMP in September. The link to
the IRWMP document is:
http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Frequent%20Downloads/lntegrated%20Regional%2
0Water%20Management%20Plan/IRWM%20Plan%20Update%202014/
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP)
The 2007 SLO IRWMP (County, 2007) identified recycled water as one of the key
strategies from providing long-term water supply reliability for the region in addition to
diversifying water supply portfolios, reducing reliance on surface water imports,
eliminating the discharge of treated wastewater to the ocean, and reducing conflicts
associated with limited regional water sources. The Regional Recycled Water Strategic
Plan (RRWSP) is one component of an update to the SLO IRWMP and is funded by a
Round 2 IRWM Regional Planning Grant from the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR).
The RRWSP covers region wide recycled water opportunities and has focused
evaluations within four study areas:
1. Morro Bay
2. Nipomo (Nipomo Community Services District (CSD))
3. Northern Cities (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano CSD, and
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD))
4. Templeton {Templeton CSD)
The study identifies opportunities and constraints and recommends next steps for each
of the study areas. The Executive Summary is attached and the co-mplete report can be
accessed at:
http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Frequent%20Downloads/lntegrated%20Regional%2
0Water%20Management%20Plan/Recycled%20Water/.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP)
The objective of the 2014 IRWM Plan Update is directed at building upon the changes
that have occurred since 2007, summarized as follows:
• Build on the successful collaboration and planning presented in the 2007
IRWM Plan
• Incorporate and consider the four Proposition 50 planning studies
• Address the enhanced IRWM planning standards
Item 8.m. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
JULY 8, 2014
DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAFT
RECYCLED WATER STUDIES
PAGE3
• Consider changed regional conditions (i.e., groundwater/surface water
availability
• and increased agricultural and urban water demands) and enhanced planning
approaches, including a revised governance approach
• Address the highest priority data gaps and planning needs as determined
through a public solicitation and review process
Resolution of conflicts is identified as a 9ritical task in the implementation of the IRWM
Plan. The plan identifies that conflicts and issues within the SLO Region have
historical, geographic, technical, and institutional components, and center around three
main areas: 1) groundwater management; 2) environmental stewardship while fostering
planned urban growth; and 3) needs within low income and disadvantaged
communities. Groundwater and its sustainability amongst a multitude of active
groundwater basins is noted as the center of much conflict resulting in various forms of
groundwater management and governance bodies. The intent stated in the plan is to
continue to address conflict and foster local control of groundwater where resolution
policies and programs are based on the use of high quality data for groundwater
elevations, quality and sustainability. Conflicts involving fisheries and habitat are also
addressed through programs that involve education and coordinated implementation for
both uses throughout the SLO Region. Finally, the cost of water and decreased
availability is addressed with respect to disadvantaged communities. The plan includes
measures and criteria to address these issues iri project selection.
According to the plan, a list of specific implementable projects and programs was
selected through a series of Sub-Region workshops, electronic notifications, and
Regional Water Management Group meetings. Each project and program was
prioritized within the context of this IRWM Plan, with the intent that all projects meet the
Goals and Objectives described fully in Section E-IRWM Goals and Objectives. All
eligible projects and programs are incorporated in the IRWM Plan (see Section G -
Project Solicitation, Selection and Prioritization) and described briefly in Table G-1.
Projects specific to the NCMA area that were identified in the Long Form (initial list)
include:
• Oceana Drainage Improvement Project -Hwy 1 & 13th Street -South County
Flood Management $1 M-$5M
• Lopez Water Treatment Plant Membrane Rack Addition -South County Water
Management $500K-$1 M
• Lopez Lake Spillway Raise Project -South County Water Supply >$5M
• NCMA_NMMA Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) -South County
Water Supply $250K-$500K
• Pismo Beach Recycled Water Project -South County Water Management >$5M
Item 8.m. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
JULYS, 2014
DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAFT
RECYCLED WATER STUDIES
PAGE4
To reduce the list and ensure the highest priority projects, the Long Form projects were
filtered by criteria including readiness-to-proceed, level of satisfying IRWM Goals and
Objectives, gauged level of meeting State RMS based on applicable Objectives, and a
rough equivalence of Sub-Region representation. The Lopez Spillway and the NCMA
Salt and Nutrient Management Plan were excluded from the Final IRWM Project Short
List due to a low readiness to proceed ranking, but are still included in the full project list
and included in the IRWMP. The Oceano Drainage Improvement, Lopez Water
Treatment Plant Membrane Rack Addition and Pismo Beach Recycled Water Projects
were selected as the highest priority projects for inclusion in the updated IRWM Plan
and likely future IRWM Grant applications.
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP)
The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) currently discharges approximately 2.6 mgd of disinfected
secondary effluent through a jointly owned ocean outfall (shared with Pismo Beach).
Approximately 1.1 mgd of disinfected secondary effluent from Pismo Beach WWTP is
discharged through the same ocean outfall. SSLOCSD has the largest volume of
effluent considered in the RRWSP and one of the largest opportunities for large-scale
reuse; however, landscape irrigation projects are expensive ($3,000+/af) and the more
cost effective reuse opportunities -agricultural irrigation, industrial reuse, groundwater
recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water augmentation -will require
institutional, legal, outreach, and financial planning to be feasible. Next steps
recommended include:
• Complete planned treatment plant improvements and re-evaluate facilities
needed to implement tertiary treatment upgrade.
• Track regulatory drivers and their impacts on reuse opportunities from SSLOCSD
WWTP.
• Address institutional issues and potential funding mechanisms for regional
projects.
• Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and
recycled water planning.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Receive and file the update on the IRWMP and provide comments for staff to
forward to San Luis Obispo County on the RRWSP;
2. Receive and file both the IRWMP and the RRWSP;
3. Provide direction to staff.
Item 8.m. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
JULY 8, 2014
DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAFT
RECYCLED WATER STUDIES
PAGES
ADVANTAGES:
Receiving the update on the IRWMP provides information on the status and purpose of
a regional document that will have implications on how future water related projects and
plans will be evaluated for possible grant funding and provide a preview of the plan that
will be placed on a future agenda for Council consideration. Receiving and update for
the RRWSP provides information on the potential for future recycled water projects for
Council consideration and allows the Council to provide comment if desired.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
None required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall and on the City's website on Thursday, July
3, 2014. No public comments were received.
Item 8.m. - Page 5
Technical
Memorandum
Review and Comment TM_Updated SLO County IRWM Plan_Public Draft.docx
Date: 6/20/2014
To: NCMA Agencies
Prepared by: Daniel Heimel, P.E.
Project: FY 2013-14 NCMA Staff Extension Services
SUBJECT: SLO COUNTY IRWMP – PUBLIC DRAFT
This Technical Memorandum is intended to provide a brief introduction of the Public Draft SLO County
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) and provide prioritized sections, as attachments, of the
IRWMP for the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) agencies, comprised of the Oceano Community
Services District and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for review and comment.
Background
The purpose of the IRWMP is to present a comprehensive water resources management approach to managing
the region’s water resources focused on strategies to better the sustainability of the current and future needs of
San Luis Obispo County (Region). The County of San Luis Obispo (County) is the lead agency in the development
of the updated IRWMP for the Region.
The IRWMP is an important regional document that includes the following elements:
Describes the Region and its water management strategies
Reviews the Region’s water issues (e.g., supply, quality, storage, conveyance, etc.)
Puts forward strategies to address solutions for those issues
Suggests actions, programs, and capital projects that carry out those strategies
Prioritizes and integrates those actions, programs, and capital projects
Establishes metrics to measure and manages collected data to show the potential improvements,
benefits, and impacts of the plan
Provides a methodology to carry out those actions, programs and capital projects
Monitors the plan’s progress and makes adjustments when needed
Developing an updated IRWMP provides the Region and its participants with the following benefits:
Provides an in-depth listing of regional water resource problems
Helps focus resources on water resource priority goals
Provides opportunities for diverse and integrated solutions to water resource problems
Makes a concerted and documented effort to include the entire community in water planning, including
disadvantaged communities (DACs)
Provides opportunities to formulate integrated programs and projects that provide multiple benefits for
the Region
Allows the Region to apply for and accept State funding to solve water issues
Item 8.m. - Page 6
FY 2013-14 NCMA Staff Extension Services
SLO County IRWMP – Public Draft
6/20/2014 Page 2
Review and Comment TM_Updated SLO County IRWM Plan_Public Draft.docx
Makes the Region participants eligible for planning and implementation grants
Provides a consolidated and inclusive planning process
Aligns participants to support projects that benefit the region as a whole
Presents a more economic approach to tackle regional problems by combining administrative and
planning costs of several agencies for some regional issues
Creates the foundation for “good” regional planning
Plan Review
To ensure that the IRWMP accurately represents the water resources for the NCMA and characterizes the
priorities of the NCMA agencies, it is important the NCMA Stakeholders review the Public Draft and provide
comments. However, given that the IRWMP is over 700 pages long, a comprehensive review by many of the
stakeholders is not feasible. To assist reviewers in prioritizing which sections to review, the SLO County Staff
have provided a Recommended IRWM Plan Review Priorities list (attached). Included as attachments, are the
sections of the IRWMP designated as highest priority on the IRWM Plan Review Priorities list (listed below).
These sections have been further edited to be limited to those areas most relevant to the NCMA agencies. A
complete copy of the IRWMP can be found at http://www.slocountywater.org.
Appendix 1. Recommended IRWM Plan Review Priorities List
Appendix 2. IRWMP Section A. Introduction
Appendix 3. IRWMP Section C. Region Description
Appendix 4. IRWMP Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Budget
Comments
Comments on the IRWMP can be provided as comments in PDF. Alternatively, Microsoft Word versions of the
report sections can be provided, if desired. Comments from the NCMA agencies will be compiled and provided
to the County for review.
Item 8.m. - Page 7
Recommended IRWM Plan Review Priorities List
Item 8.m. - Page 8
Item 8.m. - Page 9
IRWMP Section A. Introduction
Item 8.m. - Page 10
Section A. Introduction
Item 8.m. - Page 11
Item 8.m. - Page 12
Section A. Introduction
Table of Contents
Section A. Introduction A-1
A.1 Purpose of the IRWM Plan ............................................................................................................................................. A-1
A.1.1 Regions Included in the IRWM Plan.................................................................................................................................. A-1
A.1.2 IRWM Plan Financial Sponsorship ....................................................................................................................................... A-3
A.1.3 Point of Contact ................................................................................................................................................................ A-3
A.1.4 IRWM Plan Adoption ........................................................................................................................................................ A-3
A.2 An IRWM Plan for San Luis Obispo County ..................................................................................................................... A-4
A.3 IRWM Plan Benefits and Need for Updates .................................................................................................................... A-5
A.3.1 Update to the IRWM Plan................................................................................................................................................. A-6
A.4 IRWM Plan Development Process ................................................................................................................................... A-8
A.5 Prioritized Changes ........................................................................................................................................................ A-9
A.6 Meeting the 2012 IRWM Plan Guideline Requirements .................................................................................................. A-9
Figures
Figure A-1. IRWM Plan Region, Sub-Regions, and Water Planning Areas ...................................................................................... A-2
Figure A-2. Introducing New Material to the IRWM Plan .............................................................................................................. A-7
Figure A-3. Simplified 8-Step Approach to Updating the IRWM Plan ............................................................................................ A-8
Figure A-4. Tiered Improvements to IRWM Sections ..................................................................................................................... A-9
Tables
List of Participating Member Agencies ......................................................................................................................... A-4 Table A-1.
IRWM Plan Update Standards Reference ................................................................................................................... A-10 Table A-2.
Item 8.m. - Page 13
(This page Intentionally left blank)
Item 8.m. - Page 14
Section A. Introduction
This section describes the purpose of the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan (IRWM Plan) and the regulatory guidelines and requirements driving much of
the content and material included in the plan. In addition, this section serves as a roadmap for
the IRWM Plan and includes brief descriptions and references to those portions of the plan
where topic-related information is located. This section states how the plan meets the overall
2012 California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Guidelines (State Guidelines), and
requirements for DWR approval specified in Appendix H of the State Guidelines, The Final Plan
Review Process.
A.1 PURPOSE OF THE IRWM PLAN
The IRWM Plan presents a comprehensive water resources management approach to managing
the region’s water resources focused on strategies to better the sustainability of the current and
future needs of San Luis Obispo County. It is built on the existing foundation of the region’s
longstanding inter-agency cooperation and stakeholder collaboration.
This plan was written to meet the latest IRWM requirements while balancing the needs of the
participating agencies with the State’s need to have a full, well though-out plan to base
implementation of future water resources projects/programs to provide the maximum benefit
where and when needed.
A.1.1 Regions Included in the IRWM Plan
The larger region covered by the IRWM Plan is made up of the boundaries of the San Luis
Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and is the same as the
County of San Luis Obispo (see Figure A-1). The County’s 3,304 square miles is broken down
further into three sub-regions: the North Coast Sub-Region, the North County Sub-Region, and
the South County Sub-Region. Within the sub-regions, there are 16 Water Planning Areas
(WPAs) and 26 watersheds. Both sub-regions and WPAs are useful to differentiate local issues
and allow for meaningful, focused stakeholder involvement. A detailed description of the
IRWM region, WPAs, and watersheds are included in Section C – Region Description.
Item 8.m. - Page 15
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
R
W
M
R
e
g
i
o
n
A
-
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
r
a
f
t
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
4
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
A
.
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Figure A-1. IRWM Plan Region, Sub-Regions, and Water Planning Areas
It
e
m
8.
m
.
-
Pa
g
e
16
A.1.2 IRWM Plan Financial Sponsorship
The San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan is being produced and sponsored by the District, funded
in part through a Proposition 84 IRWM Plan Planning Grant from the California DWR. Additional
information is available at the following Internet website:
<http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Frequent%20Downloads/Integrated%20Regional%20Wa
ter%20Management%20Plan/>
A.1.3 Point of Contact
Questions and comments on this IRWM Plan can be directed:
Ms. Carolyn Berg, P.E.
County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works
Utilities Division Staff Engineer
(805) 781- 5536
cberg@co.slo.ca.us
A.1.4 IRWM Plan Adoption
The District Board of Supervisors adopted this IRWM Plan by resolution ___ on ____. A copy of
the resolution can be found in Appendix A – Resolution of Adoption. Each individual
participating member agency (see Table A-1) of the Regional Water Management Group
(RWMG) is required by the State Guidelines to also adopt the DWR approved plan to be eligible
to receive future state grant funding. Plan adoption by a member agency also ensures regional
support for locally sponsored water resources projects funded through all state, federal, and
local grant and loan programs. The IRWM Plan is considered to be a living guidance document
for all member agencies to support, and re-adopt, with each IRWM Plan update (approximately
every 5 years).
The 2013/14 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan was published as a draft document for public
review on June 4, 2014. It was duly noticed in accordance with §6066 of the Government Code
in the local media. The public was provided the opportunity to comment both in writing and
during a public meeting and regular RWMG meeting. RWMG members were responsible for
taking the document back to their respective stakeholder groups for review and comment,
consolidating comments and bringing the information back to the RWMG. Public comments
were reviewed and reconciled by the RWMG and a final IRWM Plan was produced for adoption
by resolution. Once the RWMG adopted the IRWM Plan, the final document was taken to the
Item 8.m. - Page 17
Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) for approval and recommendation for adoption
by the County’s Board of Supervisors.
List of Participating Member Agencies Table A-1.
Regional Water Management Group
San Luis Obispo County Heritage Ranch CSD
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Land Conservancy
California Men’s Colony Los Osos CSD
Cambria Community Services District (CSD) Morro Bay National Estuary Program
City of Arroyo Grande Nacimiento Regional Water Management
Advisory Committee
City of Grover Beach Nipomo CSD
City of Morro Bay Oceano CSD
City of Paso Robles Templeton CSD
City of Pismo Beach San Miguel CSD
City of San Luis Obispo San Simeon CSD
Central Coast Salmon Enhancement S&T Mutual Water Company
Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District Upper Salinas - Las Tablas Resource Conservation
District
Note: Currently, there are 24 members to the RWMG; most are participating as project sponsors and intend to adopt this plan
after adoption by the County Board of Supervisors.
A.2 AN IRWM PLAN FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
IRWM is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM
crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involves multiple agencies,
stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempts to address the issues and differing
perspectives of all entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. An IRWM Plan is a
si gnificant document that:
• Describes the Region and its water management strategies
• Reviews the Region’s water issues (e.g., supply, quality, storage, conveyance, etc.)
• Puts forward strategies to address solutions for those issues
• Suggests actions, programs, and capital projects that carry out those strategies
• Prioritizes and integrates those actions, programs, and capital projects
• Establishes metrics to measure and manages collected data to show the potential
improvements, benefits, and impacts of the plan
• Provides a methodology to carry out those actions, programs and capital projects
• Monitors the plan’s progress and makes adjustments when needed
Item 8.m. - Page 18
It is a plan for near-term future water management in a region that includes a stakeholder-
driven short list of the best integrated water projects for the region as identified within this
current update of the plan. The use of the phrase “near-term” is indicative of the fact that the
plan is updated on a fairly regular cycle (typically five year intervals), and thus the plan of the
future will evolve to address water management issues beyond the current planning horizon.
The current general process, procedures, and requirements of an IRWM Plan are spelled out in
the California DWR IRWM Grant Program Guidelines (2012 IRWM Plan Guidelines or 2012
Guidelines). The 2012 Guidelines document establishes what DWR will use to implement the
IRWM Implementation Grant Program authorized under Proposition 84 (the Safe Drinking
Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006)
and the related Storm Water Flood Management (SWFM) Grant Program funded under
Proposition 1E (The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Act of 2006). The 2012
Guidelines specify the standards that a plan should attain and includes a specific list of
requirements that must be within the plan prior to the State’s acceptance and approval of the
plan.
While IRWM Plans were governed by earlier Proposition 50 statutes for general items, a plan
developed under the more recent Proposition 84 requirements has to address the following
additional special items:
• Climate change
• Flood and storm water management
• Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)
• Integration with Land Use planning
A.3 IRWM PLAN BENEFITS AND NEED FOR UPDATES
An IRWM Plan provides a number of benefits for the Region and its participants. An IRWM Plan:
• Provides an in-depth listing of regional water resource problems
• Helps focus resources on water resource priority goals
• Provides opportunities for diverse and integrated solutions to water resource
problems
• Makes a concerted and documented effort to include the entire community in water
planning, including disadvantaged communities (DACs)
• Provides opportunities to formulate integrated programs and projects that provide
multiple benefits for the Region
• Allows the Region to apply for and accept State funding to solve water issues
• Makes the Region participants eligible for planning and implementation grants
Item 8.m. - Page 19
• Provides a consolidated and inclusive planning process
• Aligns participants to support projects that benefit the region as a whole
• Presents a more economic approach to tackle regional problems by combining
administrative and planning costs of several agencies for some regional issues
• Creates the foundation for “good” regional planning
A.3.1 Update to the IRWM Plan
The San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan was originally adopted in December 2005 and amended
in July 2007. The 2007 IRWM Plan was the first to provide a cornerstone document for future
integrated efforts that lead to more collaboration among water resources agencies and
efficiencies in water resources problem solving.
The 2005 IRWM Plan identified planning efforts to fill data gaps in four areas to support the
overall plan goals, objectives, and strategies, and improve the IRWM Plan itself. These projects
included the following:
• Data Enhancement Plan
• Flood Management Plan
• Groundwater Banking Plan
• Regional Permitting Plan
These planning efforts were included in the Proposition 50 Chapter 8 IRWM Planning Grant
application that was awarded $500,000 to complete the focused studies. These resulting plans
were completed in 2008 and thus were not incorporated into the 2007 IRWM Plan update. The
2007 IRWM Plan updated regional and project information to better represent the existing
conditions and priorities for the region.
In 2011, the IRWM Region was awarded an implementation grant to construct three projects,
including:
1. Los Osos Community Wastewater Project,
2. Flood Control Zone 1/1A Waterway Management Program, 1st Year Vegetation and
Sediment Management Project, and
3. Nipomo Waterline Intertie Project.
A condition of the implementation grant was to update the IRWM to meet ongoing updates to
the 2012 IRWM Plan Guidelines eventually published by the State in November 2012. Given
the seven-year period since the last update, the IRWM planners are capitalizing on the
requirement to update the IRWM Plan by addressing the changed conditions and needs in the
region as depicted in Figure A-2.
Item 8.m. - Page 20
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
r
a
f
t
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
4
A
-
7
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
R
W
M
R
e
g
i
o
n
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
A
.
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure A-2. Introducing New Material to the IRWM Plan
It
e
m
8.
m
.
-
Pa
g
e
21
The objective of the 2014 IRWM Plan Update is directed at meeting the changes which have
occurred since 2007, summarized as follows:
• Build on the successful collaboration and planning presented in the 2007 IRWM Plan
• Incorporate and consider the four Proposition 50 planning studies
• Address the enhanced IRWM planning standards
• Consider changed regional conditions (i.e., groundwater/surface water availability
and increased agricultural and urban water demands) and enhanced planning
approaches, including a revised governance approach
• Address the highest priority data gaps and planning needs as determined through a
public solicitation and review process
A.4 IRWM PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The Region’s stakeholders have followed a systematic 8-Step process for developing project-
level elements for inclusion in the plan as shown in Figure A-3.
Figure A-3. Simplified 8-Step Approach to Updating the IRWM Plan
1
•Form the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) and Governancee Structure and
Define the region’s water problems/goals/objectives
2 •Suggest strategies that will help address those problems
3 •Brainstorm projects that will implement those strategies
4
•Filter the projects to make sure they are feasible; meet multiple objectives, have regional
benifits, and are ready to proceed
5 •Prioritize filtered projects for the IRWM Plan's Implementation
6 •Develop a procedure to implement well-integrated projects collectively
7
•Determine methods and tools to monitor implementation of the projects within the IRWM
Plan as well as the overall plan
8
•Complete a written 2014 IRWM Plan meeting DWR approval requirements, and is adopted by
the Board of Supervisors and participating agencies
Item 8.m. - Page 22
A.5 PRIORITIZED CHANGES
The IRWM Plan section deficiencies were categorized into three levels and listed in Figure A-4:
• Tier 1 – Sections that require significant modification to address new standards that
were not included in the previous guidelines (e.g., climate change) and the sections
that need to reflect the revised governance approach for improved IRWM Planning
• Tier 2 – Sections that require a moderate amount of modification to more fully
address the plan standards and reflect current conditions
• Tier 3 – Sections that require limited modification and the updates consist of
additional information/modification to reflect current conditions in the IRWM
planning area
Figure A-4. Tiered Improvements to IRWM Sections
All sections in Tiers 1 through 3 require updating; however, the most critical needs are in Tier 1
and include climate change, governance, and the standards most affected by the changes in
governance.
A.6 MEETING THE 2012 IRWM PLAN GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS
As the IRWM Plan was developed, the RWMG maintained the list of requirements developed
using the November 2012 IRWM Plan Guidelines to ensure acceptance and approval by the
State after completion of the IRWM Plan Update. Table A-2 summarizes how the IRWM Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 23
satisfies Appendix H of the 2012 Guidelines. Detailed tables addressing specific requirements
of the 2012 Guidelines are compiled and incorporated as Appendix Q – State Guideline
Requirement Tables. Appendix Q also provides a short narrative on how each requirement is
met along with the various sub-sections where information can be found in the IRWM Plan.
IRWM Plan Update Standards Reference Table A-2.
IRWM Plan Standard Section
Governance B
Region Description C, D
Goals & Objectives E
State Resource Management Strategy F
Integration H
Project Review Process G
Impacts and Benefits I
Plan Performance and Monitoring J
Data Management K
Finance L
Technical Analysis M
Relation to Local Water Planning N
Relation to Local Land Use Planning N
Stakeholder Involvement B, E, F, G, K, Q
Coordination O
Climate Change P
Item 8.m. - Page 24
IRWMP Section C. Region Description
Item 8.m. - Page 25
Section C. Region Description
Item 8.m. - Page 26
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐i San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Section C. Region Description
Table of Contents
Section C. Region Description C‐1
C.1 Purpose and Organization of Section .............................................................................................................................. C‐1
C.2 San Luis Obispo County Relevance as an IRWM Planning Area ........................................................................................ C‐2
C.3 Importance of Sub‐Region Separation ............................................................................................................................ C‐3
C.3.1 North Coast Sub‐Region.................................................................................................................................................... C‐6
C.3.2 North County Sub‐Region ................................................................................................................................................. C‐6
C.3.3 South County Sub‐Region ................................................................................................................................................. C‐6
C.3.4 Internal Boundaries within Each of the Sub‐Regions ...................................................................................................... C‐10
C.4 Groundwater Basins ...................................................................................................................................................... C‐12
C.5 Description of Water Planning Areas (WPAs) and Local Governments and Communities ............................................... C‐22
C.5.1 Reference Information and Level of Detail ..................................................................................................................... C‐22
C.5.2 North Coast WPAs .......................................................................................................................................................... C‐23
WPA 1 – San Simeon ................................................................................................................................................ C‐23 C.5.2.1
WPA 2 – Cambria ..................................................................................................................................................... C‐24 C.5.2.2
WPA 3 – Cayucos ..................................................................................................................................................... C‐27 C.5.2.3
WPA 4 – Morro Bay .................................................................................................................................................. C‐27 C.5.2.4
WPA 5 – Los Osos ..................................................................................................................................................... C‐29 C.5.2.5
C.5.3 South County WPAs ........................................................................................................................................................ C‐33
WPA 6 – San Luis Obispo/Avila ................................................................................................................................ C‐33 C.5.3.1
WPA 7 – South Coast ............................................................................................................................................... C‐34 C.5.3.2
WPA 8 – Huasna ....................................................................................................................................................... C‐36 C.5.3.3
WPA 9 – Cuyama Valley ........................................................................................................................................... C‐36 C.5.3.4
C.5.4 North County WPAs ........................................................................................................................................................ C‐41
WPA 10 – Carrizo Plain ............................................................................................................................................. C‐41 C.5.4.1
WPA 11 – Rafael/Big Spring ..................................................................................................................................... C‐41 C.5.4.2
WPA 12 – Santa Margarita ....................................................................................................................................... C‐41 C.5.4.3
WPA 13 – Atascadero/Templeton ........................................................................................................................... C‐42 C.5.4.4
WPA 14 – Salinas/Estrella ........................................................................................................................................ C‐43 C.5.4.5
WPA 15 – Cholame .................................................................................................................................................. C‐44 C.5.4.6
WPA 16 – Nacimiento .............................................................................................................................................. C‐44 C.5.4.7
C.4 Wastewater Service Areas ............................................................................................................................................. C‐53
C.5 Flood Control Districts ................................................................................................................................................... C‐53
C.5.1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ....................................................................... C‐53
C.6 Land Use Agencies ......................................................................................................................................................... C‐55
C.7 Watersheds ................................................................................................................................................................... C‐56
C.7.1 North Coast Watersheds ................................................................................................................................................ C‐63
Big Creek ‐ San Carpoforo Creek Area Watershed ................................................................................................... C‐63 C.7.1.1
San Simeon ‐ Arroyo de la Cruz Watershed ............................................................................................................. C‐67 C.7.1.2
Santa Rosa Creek Area Watershed .......................................................................................................................... C‐73 C.7.1.3
Cayucos Creek ‐ Whale Rock Area Watershed ......................................................................................................... C‐79 C.7.1.4
Morro Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................................................. C‐84 C.7.1.5
C.7.2 South County Watersheds .............................................................................................................................................. C‐89
Coastal Irish Hills Watershed ................................................................................................................................... C‐89 C.7.2.1
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................................... C‐93 C.7.2.2
Pismo Creek Watershed ......................................................................................................................................... C‐100 C.7.2.3
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................................... C‐105 C.7.2.4
Santa Maria River Watershed ................................................................................................................................ C‐110 C.7.2.5
Nipomo – Suey Creeks Watershed ......................................................................................................................... C‐115 C.7.2.6
Huasna River Watershed ....................................................................................................................................... C‐119 C.7.2.7
Alamo Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................................................ C‐123 C.7.2.8
Cuyama River Watershed ...................................................................................................................................... C‐127 C.7.2.9
C.7.3 North County Watersheds ............................................................................................................................................ C‐131
Item 8.m. - Page 27
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐ii Public Draft June 2014
Black Sulphur Spring Watershed ............................................................................................................................ C‐131 C.7.3.1
Soda Lake Watershed ............................................................................................................................................ C‐135 C.7.3.2
Upper San Juan Creek Watershed ......................................................................................................................... C‐140 C.7.3.3
Lower San Juan Creek Watershed .......................................................................................................................... C‐144 C.7.3.4
Upper Salinas River ‐ Santa Margarita Area Watershed ........................................................................................ C‐148 C.7.3.5
Mid Salinas ‐ Atascadero Creek Area Watersheds ................................................................................................. C‐154 C.7.3.6
Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Area Watershed ................................................................................................ C‐160 C.7.3.7
Huer Huero Creek Watershed ................................................................................................................................ C‐167 C.7.3.8
Estrella River Watershed ........................................................................................................................................ C‐172 C.7.3.9
Cholame Creek Watershed .................................................................................................................................. C‐176 C.7.3.10
Nacimiento River Watershed ............................................................................................................................... C‐181 C.7.3.11
Indian Valley Watershed [Needs Description] ..................................................................................................... C‐187 C.7.3.12
C.8 Major Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................... C‐188
C.8.1 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................................................................................................................ C‐188
C.8.2 Whale Rock Reservoir ................................................................................................................................................... C‐189
Operating Agreements ........................................................................................................................................... C‐191 C.8.2.1
C.8.3 Lopez Lake/Reservoir .................................................................................................................................................... C‐193
C.8.4 Santa Margarita Lake/Salinas Reservoir ....................................................................................................................... C‐193
C.8.5 Chorro Reservoir ........................................................................................................................................................... C‐194
C.8.6 State Water Project Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ C‐195
Improving the Delta ............................................................................................................................................... C‐195 C.8.6.1
C.8.7 Morro Bay Desalination Plant ....................................................................................................................................... C‐196
C.8.8 Other Desalination Projects .......................................................................................................................................... C‐196
C.9 Current Water Quality Conditions ................................................................................................................................ C‐197
C.9.1 North Coast ................................................................................................................................................................... C‐198
Watershed Health .................................................................................................................................................. C‐198 C.9.1.1
Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................................................. C‐199 C.9.1.2
Basin Plans (By Watershed) ................................................................................................................................... C‐200 C.9.1.3
C.9.2 North County ................................................................................................................................................................ C‐200
Watershed Health .................................................................................................................................................. C‐200 C.9.2.1
Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................................................. C‐201 C.9.2.2
Basin Plans (By Watershed) ................................................................................................................................... C‐201 C.9.2.3
C.9.3 South County ................................................................................................................................................................ C‐202
Watershed Health .................................................................................................................................................. C‐202 C.9.3.1
Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................................................. C‐203 C.9.3.2
Basin Plans (By Watershed) ................................................................................................................................... C‐204 C.9.3.3
C.9.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement Needs [to be populated if data provided] .............................................. C‐204
C.9.5 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan by Subregion [to be populated if data provided] ............................................... C‐205
C.10 Environmental Resources .......................................................................................................................................... C‐205
C.10.1 Habitats of Special Concern ........................................................................................................................................ C‐205
C.10.2 Species of Special Concern ......................................................................................................................................... C‐205
C.10.3 Marine Protected Areas .............................................................................................................................................. C‐205
C.10.4 Fisheries (By Watershed) ............................................................................................................................................ C‐206
C.10.5 Other Environmental Resources ................................................................................................................................. C‐207
C.11 Management Issues ................................................................................................................................................... C‐214
C.11.1 North Coast ................................................................................................................................................................. C‐214
C.11.2 North County .............................................................................................................................................................. C‐216
C.11.3 South County .............................................................................................................................................................. C‐217
C.12 Climate Change .......................................................................................................................................................... C‐219
C.13 IRWM Plan Regional Issues and Conflicts ................................................................................................................... C‐220
C.14 Economic Conditions and Trends ............................................................................................................................... C‐221
C.14.1 State Designated Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) .............................................................................................. C‐222
C.14.2 Projected Growth ....................................................................................................................................................... C‐224
C.15 A Brief History of San Luis Obispo County and the Influence of Tribal Culture ........................................................... C‐226
C.15.2 Tribal History .............................................................................................................................................................. C‐230
Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo .................................................................................................. C‐231 C.15.2.1
Northern Chumash Tribe of San Luis Obispo ....................................................................................................... C‐231 C.15.2.2
C.16 Cultural and Social Profile of San Luis Obispo County ................................................................................................. C‐231
Item 8.m. - Page 28
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐iii San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
C.16.1 The Arts in San Luis Obispo County ............................................................................................................................ C‐232
C.17 Relationship to Other IRWM Plan Efforts ................................................................................................................... C‐238
C.17.1 Central Coast Funding Region ..................................................................................................................................... C‐238
Figures
Figure C‐1. Regional Setting and Neighboring IRWM Plans ........................................................................................................... C‐4
Figure C‐2. Sub‐Regions and County Overview .............................................................................................................................. C‐5
Figure C‐3. North Coast Sub‐Region............................................................................................................................................... C‐7
Figure C‐4. North County Sub‐Region ............................................................................................................................................ C‐8
Figure C‐5. South County Sub‐Region ............................................................................................................................................ C‐9
Figure C‐6. Groundwater Basins .................................................................................................................................................. C‐13
Figure C‐7. North Coast Groundwater Basins .............................................................................................................................. C‐14
Figure C‐8. South County Groundwater Basins ............................................................................................................................ C‐15
Figure C‐9. North County Groundwater Basins ............................................................................................................................ C‐16
Figure C‐10. Water Planning Area No. 1 ‐ San Simeon ................................................................................................................. C‐25
Figure C‐11. Water Planning Area No. 2 ‐ Cambria ...................................................................................................................... C‐26
Figure C‐12. Water Planning Area No. 3 ‐ Cayucos ...................................................................................................................... C‐30
Figure C‐13. Water Planning Area No.4 ‐ Morro Bay .................................................................................................................. C‐31
Figure C‐14. Water Planning Area No. 5 ‐ Los Osos ..................................................................................................................... C‐32
Figure C‐15. Water Planning Area No. 6 ‐ San Luis Obispo/Avila ................................................................................................. C‐37
Figure C‐16. Water Planning Area No. 7 ‐ South Coast ................................................................................................................ C‐38
Figure C‐17. Water Planning Area No. 8 ‐ Huasna Valley ............................................................................................................. C‐39
Figure C‐18. Water Planning Area No. 9 ‐ Cuyama Valley ............................................................................................................ C‐40
Figure C‐19. Water Planning Area No. 10 ‐ Carrizo Plain ............................................................................................................. C‐46
Figure C‐20. Water Planning Area No. 11 ‐ Rafael/Big Spring ...................................................................................................... C‐47
Figure C‐21. Water Planning Area No 12 ‐ Santa Margarita ........................................................................................................ C‐48
Figure C‐22. Water Planning Area No. 13 ‐ Atascadero/Templeton ............................................................................................ C‐49
Figure C‐23. Water Planning Area No. 14 ‐ Salinas/Estrella ......................................................................................................... C‐50
Figure C‐24. Water Planning Area No 15 ‐ Cholame .................................................................................................................... C‐51
Figure C‐25. Water Planning Area No. 16 ‐ Nacimiento ............................................................................................................... C‐52
Figure C‐26. Land Use Agencies ................................................................................................................................................... C‐56
Figure C‐27. Watersheds .............................................................................................................................................................. C‐59
Figure C‐28. North Coast Watersheds ......................................................................................................................................... C‐60
Figure C‐29. South County Watersheds ....................................................................................................................................... C‐61
Figure C‐30. North County Watersheds ....................................................................................................................................... C‐62
Figure C‐31. Big Creek ‐ San Carpoforo Creek Area Watershed ................................................................................................... C‐64
Figure C‐32. Map of San Simeon ‐ Arroyo de la Cruz Watershed ................................................................................................. C‐68
Figure C‐33. Map of Santa Rosa Creek Area Watershed .............................................................................................................. C‐74
Figure C‐34. Map of Cayucos Creek ‐ Whale Rock Area Watershed ............................................................................................ C‐80
Figure C‐35. Map of Morro Bay Watershed ................................................................................................................................. C‐85
Figure C‐36. Map of Coastal Irish Hills Watershed ....................................................................................................................... C‐90
Figure C‐37. Map of San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................... C‐94
Figure C‐38. Map of Pismo Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................................ C‐101
Figure C‐39. Map of Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed .............................................................................................................. C‐106
Figure C‐40. Map of Santa Maria River Watershed ................................................................................................................... C‐111
Figure C‐41. Map of Nipomo – Suey Creeks Watershed ............................................................................................................ C‐116
Figure C‐42. Map of Huasna River Watershed ........................................................................................................................... C‐120
Figure C‐43. Map of Alamo Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................................... C‐124
Figure C‐44. Map of Cuyama River Watershed .......................................................................................................................... C‐128
Figure C‐45. Map of Black Sulphur Spring Watershed ............................................................................................................... C‐132
Figure C‐46. Map of Soda Lake Watershed ................................................................................................................................ C‐136
Figure C‐47. Map of Upper San Juan Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................. C‐141
Figure C‐48. Map of Lower San Juan Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................. C‐145
Figure C‐49. Map of Upper Salinas River ‐ Santa Margarita Area Watershed ............................................................................ C‐149
Item 8.m. - Page 29
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐iv Public Draft June 2014
Figure C‐50. Map of Mid Salinas ‐ Atascadero Creek Area Watersheds .................................................................................... C‐155
Figure C‐51. Map of Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Area Watershed ................................................................................... C‐161
Figure C‐52. Map of Huer Huero Creek Watershed ................................................................................................................... C‐168
Figure C‐53. Map of Estrella River Watershed ........................................................................................................................... C‐173
Figure C‐54. Map of Cholame Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................................ C‐177
Figure C‐55. Map of Nacimiento River Watershed .................................................................................................................... C‐182
Figure C‐56. Map of Indian Valley Watershed ........................................................................................................................... C‐187
Figure C‐57. Major Water Conveyance and Storage .................................................................................................................. C‐190
Figure C‐58. Disadvantaged Communities by Census Tract and Census Designated Place........................................................ C‐223
Figure C‐59. Tribal Lands Located Within and Near San Luis Obispo County............................................................................. C‐230
Figure C‐60. Population by Census Block ................................................................................................................................... C‐232
Figure C‐61. Exhibit on the Arts in San Luis Obispo County .......................................................................................................... 233
Tables
Internal Boundaries within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region .................................................................................. C‐10 Table C‐1.
Groundwater Basins within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region .................................................................................. C‐17 Table C‐2.
Wastewater Service Areas .......................................................................................................................................... C‐53 Table C‐3.
Land Use Agencies ...................................................................................................................................................... C‐55 Table C‐4.
Area Watershed Alignment with Sub‐Regions and Water Planning Areas ................................................................. C‐58 Table C‐5.
Big Creek ‐ San Carpoforo Creek Area Watershed (1) ................................................................................................. C‐64 Table C‐6.
San Simeon ‐ Arroyo de la Cruz Watershed (2) ........................................................................................................... C‐68 Table C‐7.
Santa Rosa Creek Area Watershed (3) ........................................................................................................................ C‐75 Table C‐8.
Cayucos Creek ‐ Whale Rock Area Watershed (4) ....................................................................................................... C‐81 Table C‐9.
Morro Bay Watershed (5) ......................................................................................................................................... C‐86 Table C‐10.
Coastal Irish Hills Watershed (6) ............................................................................................................................... C‐91 Table C‐11.
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed (7) ....................................................................................................................... C‐94 Table C‐12.
Pismo Creek Watershed (8) .................................................................................................................................... C‐101 Table C‐13.
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) ...................................................................................................................... C‐106 Table C‐14.
Santa Maria River Watershed (10) .......................................................................................................................... C‐112 Table C‐15.
Nipomo – Suey Creeks Watershed (11) .................................................................................................................. C‐116 Table C‐16.
Huasna River Watershed (12) ................................................................................................................................. C‐120 Table C‐17.
Alamo Creek Watershed (13) .................................................................................................................................. C‐124 Table C‐18.
Cuyama River Watershed (14) ................................................................................................................................ C‐128 Table C‐19.
Black Sulphur Spring Watershed (15) ..................................................................................................................... C‐132 Table C‐20.
Soda Lake Watershed (16) ...................................................................................................................................... C‐136 Table C‐21.
Upper San Juan Creek Watershed (17) ................................................................................................................... C‐141 Table C‐22.
Lower San Juan Creek Watershed (18) ................................................................................................................... C‐145 Table C‐23.
Upper Salinas River ‐ Santa Margarita Area Watershed (19) .................................................................................. C‐149 Table C‐24.
Mid Salinas ‐ Atascadero Creek Area Watersheds (20) ........................................................................................... C‐155 Table C‐25.
Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Area Watershed (21) ......................................................................................... C‐161 Table C‐26.
Huer Huero Creek Watershed (22) ......................................................................................................................... C‐168 Table C‐27.
Estrella River Watershed (23) ................................................................................................................................. C‐173 Table C‐28.
Cholame Creek Watershed (24) .............................................................................................................................. C‐177 Table C‐29.
Nacimiento River Watershed (25) ........................................................................................................................... C‐182 Table C‐30.
Indian Valley Watershed (26) [NEED to Populate Table] ........................................................................................ C‐187 Table C‐31.
Nacimiento Project Allocations ............................................................................................................................... C‐188 Table C‐32.
Whale Rock Reservoir Allocations ........................................................................................................................... C‐191 Table C‐33.
Whale Rock Downstream Entitlements .................................................................................................................. C‐192 Table C‐34.
Lopez Lake Allocations ............................................................................................................................................ C‐193 Table C‐35.
North Coast Groundwater Quality .......................................................................................................................... C‐199 Table C‐36.
North Coast Basin Plans .......................................................................................................................................... C‐200 Table C‐37.
North County Groundwater Quality ....................................................................................................................... C‐201 Table C‐38.
North County Basin Plans ........................................................................................................................................ C‐201 Table C‐39.
South County Groundwater Quality........................................................................................................................ C‐203 Table C‐40.
South County Basin Plans ........................................................................................................................................ C‐204 Table C‐41.
Marine Protected Areas in the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region ....................................................................... C‐206 Table C‐42.
Fisheries and Fish Habitat in the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region .................................................................... C‐206 Table C‐43.
Item 8.m. - Page 30
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐v San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Environmental Resources within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region ............................................................. C‐207 Table C‐44.
Management Issues for the North Coast Sub‐Region ............................................................................................. C‐215 Table C‐45.
Management Issues for the North County Sub‐Region .......................................................................................... C‐216 Table C‐46.
Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region .......................................................................................... C‐217 Table C‐47.
San Luis Obispo County Population Data and Projections ...................................................................................... C‐221 Table C‐48.
Economic Characteristics for Selected Places within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region ............................... C‐222 Table C‐49.
San Luis Obispo County Historic and Projected Population .................................................................................... C‐225 Table C‐50.
Community Characteristics for Community Profiling .............................................................................................. C‐225 Table C‐51.
San Luis Obispo County Historical Timeline and Images from the Past .................................................................. C‐227 Table C‐52.
Profile of Social Characteristics: San Luis Obispo County, 2000 Census ................................................................. C‐234 Table C‐53.
Examples of Influential Social Groups in San Luis Obispo County ........................................................................... C‐236 Table C‐54.
County and District Mission and Community Results Vision Statement ................................................................. C‐237 Table C‐55.
Item 8.m. - Page 31
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐vi Public Draft June 2014
(This page Intentionally left blank)
Item 8.m. - Page 32
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐1 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Section C. Region Description
PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF SECTION C.1
The November 2012 State Guidelines for this section include the following elements:
IRWM Plan Standard from November 2012 IRWM Guidelines:
An IRWM Plan must include a description of the region being managed by the RWMG. This description should include a comprehensive
inclusion of the following:
A description of the watersheds and the water systems, natural and anthropogenic (i.e. “man‐made”), including major water
related infrastructure, flood management infrastructure, and major land‐use divisions. Also include a description of the
quality and quantity of water resources within the region (i.e. surface waters, groundwater, reclaimed water, imported water,
and desalinated water). As relevant, describe areas and species of special biological significance and other sensitive habitats,
such as marine protected areas and impaired water bodies within the region.
A description of internal boundaries within the region including the boundaries of municipalities, service areas of individual
water, wastewater, flood control districts, and land use agencies. The description should also include those not involved in the
Plan (i.e. groundwater basin boundaries, watershed boundaries, county, State, and international boundaries).
A description of water supplies and demands for a minimum 20‐year planning horizon. Include a discussion of important
ecological processes and environmental resources within the regional boundaries and the associated water demands to
support environmental needs. This includes a description of the potential effects of climate change on the region.
A descriptive comparison of current and future (or proposed) water quality conditions in the region. Describe any water quality
protection and improvement needs or requirements within the area of the Plan.
A description of the social and cultural makeup of the regional community. Identify important cultural or social values. Identify
DACs in the management area. Describe economic conditions and important economic trends within the region. Describe
efforts to effectively involve and collaborate with Tribal government representatives to better sustain Tribal and regional
water and natural resources (if applicable).
A description of major water related objectives and conflicts in the defined management region, including clear identification
of problems within the region that lead to the development of the objectives, implementation strategies, and implementation
projects intended to provide resolution.
An explanation of how the IRWM regional boundary was determined and why the region is an appropriate area for IRWM
planning.
Identification of neighboring and/or overlapping IRWM efforts (if any) and an explanation of the planned/working
relationship that promotes cooperation and coordination between regions
For IRWM regions that receive water supplied from the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, an explanation of how plan will help
reduce dependence on the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta for water supply (SB 855 (Committee on Budgets), Section 31.(c)(1)).
In an effort to fully address each of the State Guideline requirements and maintain a concise
amount of section content, thereby minimizing the number of pages, the section relies heavily
on providing data in a tabular format; in most cases, a table is used to summarize more detailed
information located in the IRWM Plan’s Appendices. The following appendices support this
section:
Appendix L – Detailed Description of Groundwater Basins
Appendix M – Detailed Description of Water Planning Areas and Local Water
Districts
Item 8.m. - Page 33
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐2 Public Draft June 2014
Appendix N – San Luis Obispo County Watershed Management Planning Project
Report
Section C is organized to assist in the understanding for splitting the IRWM Region up into three
Sub‐Regions, 16 Water Planning Areas (WPAs), and 26 watersheds. With the completion of the
2014 Watershed Management Planning Project Study (Watershed Snapshot Study), the
resolution of understanding and describing the region now occurs at the watershed level. The
WPAs are still the primary boundaries for purposes of water supply planning and summarizing
water supplies and demands; whereas, the watersheds provide the descriptive information
needed in the Region Description Section of the IRWM Plan.
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY RELEVANCE AS AN IRWM PLANNING AREA C.2
The region covered by this San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan is made up of the boundaries of the San
Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and is the same as
the County of San Luis Obispo (see Figure C‐1). The County’s 3,304 square miles is broken down
further into the North Coast Sub‐Region, the North County Sub‐Region, and the South County
Sub‐Region. The 2012 Guideline includes the following regarding the definition of a region:
CWC §10541(f) states the guidelines shall include a standard for identifying a
region for the purpose of developing and modifying an IRWM Plan, and DWR
shall develop a process to approve the composition of a region for the purposes
of sections 75026 – 75028 of the PRC. DWR developed the Region Acceptance
Process (RAP) to approve region composition for the purpose of developing or
modifying an IRWM Plan…Through the RAP, IRWM planning regions are
accepted into the IRWM Grant program. IRWM planning regions can then apply
for IRWM Grants subject to conditions on the acceptance through the RAP and
the criteria and review process set up for each funding cycle.
The County’s boundary encompasses the appropriate geographic region and composition for
integrated regional water management planning. As a result, all aspects of water management
generally lie within the same physical, political, environmental, social, and economic
boundaries. The County’s boundary ensures active stakeholder involvement at the local and
sub‐region level based on the Region’s shared experience and community values. By linking
water resources management to local land use planning, local communities can better balance
economic well‐being, social equity, and environmental protection needs within their respective
sub‐regions. The larger region defined as the County is the most effective size to integrate
these planning efforts within the context of local community shared values and sense of place.
Item 8.m. - Page 34
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐3 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
There are no regional water agencies within or overlapping the County. All of the water
resources interested entities within the region participate, or are invited to participate, on the
Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) or on flood control advisory committees, as
described in Section B – Governance, Stakeholder Involvement, and Outreach. The
relationship between the County and bordering IRWM Regions is described in Section O –
Coordination.
Defining the IRWM region as the County has enabled the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (District) and stakeholders to use existing infrastructure,
management systems, funding mechanisms, partnerships, and planning documents as a
scaffold upon which to build the IRWM Plan. This approach has resulted in an effective,
synergistic, and efficient approach to regional water resources management that provides an
overarching framework for sound and sustainable Water Management Strategies (WMSs).
IMPORTANCE OF SUB‐REGION SEPARATION C.3
The County, split into its three Sub‐Regions (see Figure C‐2), is an appropriately governed
region because its boundaries exactly match those of the District. Understanding that regional
water planning is a collaborative process of many cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds of
urban, rural and agricultural uses, developed and undeveloped lands, the District has found
that setting the emphasis of the planning unit boundaries to match three unique and separate
Sub‐Regions rightfully places the responsibility for leadership at the sub‐regional level.
Ownership of the IRWM Plan implementation process at the level of each Sub‐Region, where
IRWM projects are conceived, will ensure that the project sponsors shape their projects to
address the Sub‐Regional Priorities selected by the Sub‐Region stakeholders for each of the
objectives covered in Section E – IRWM Goals and Objectives.
The County’s three sub‐regions are also appropriately sized for the inclusion of environmental
values in integrated water resource management because they are neither too small to
effectively manage complete ecological systems, nor too large to deal with sometimes complex
biological relationships taking place at the local level (e.g., fish passage or non‐native plant
species on local streams).
The information in this chapter is based primarily on the San Luis Obispo County 2012 Master
Water Report. Other sources used include the 2007 San Luis Obispo Region Integrated Regional
Water Management Plan, other County documents and plans, and area Urban Water
Management Plans, as noted.
Item 8.m. - Page 35
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐4 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐1.
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Se
t
t
i
n
g
an
d
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
IR
W
M
Pl
a
n
s
Item 8.m. - Page 36
Public Draft June 2014 C‐5 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐2.
S
u
b
‐Re
g
i
o
n
s
an
d
Co
u
n
t
y
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Item 8.m. - Page 37
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐6 Public Draft June 2014
C.3.1 North Coast Sub‐Region
The North Coast Sub‐Region spans from the County line (San Luis Obispo/Monterey) southward
to the community of Los Osos, bounded to the west by the Pacific Ocean and to the east by the
Santa Lucia Range (see Figure C‐3). This Sub‐Region includes WPAs 1 through 5. This region
includes the urban areas of San Simeon, Cambria, Cayucos, Morro Bay and Los Osos, and are
numbered sequentially in this order.
C.3.2 North County Sub‐Region
The North County Sub‐Region essentially includes the WPAs that do not drain directly to the
ocean through the County’s coastal regions, and includes WPAs 10 through 16 (see Figure C‐4).
The North County Sub‐Region extends inland from the San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara County
line north to the San Luis Obispo/Monterey County line, bounded to the east by Kern and
Fresno Counties, and to the west in part by the Santa Lucia range.
C.3.3 South County Sub‐Region
The South County Sub‐Region spans from the City of San Luis Obispo south to the County (San
Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara) line, east to the Cuyama Valley, and west to the community of Avila
Beach, and includes WPA 6 through 9 (see Figure C‐5). This WPA includes the urban areas of
San Luis Obispo, Avila Beach/Port San Luis, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach,
Oceano, and Nipomo.
Item 8.m. - Page 38
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐7 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Figure C‐3.North Coast Sub‐Region
Item 8.m. - Page 39
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐8 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐4.
N
o
r
t
h
Co
u
n
t
y
Su
b
‐Re
g
i
o
n
Item 8.m. - Page 40
Public Draft June 2014 C‐9 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐5.
S
o
u
t
h
Co
u
n
t
y
Su
b
‐Re
g
i
o
n
Item 8.m. - Page 41
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐10 Public Draft June 2014
C.3.4 Internal Boundaries within Each of the Sub‐Regions
Table C‐1 below summarizes the relationship between the Sub‐Regions, the Water Planning
Areas and other notable boundaries that assist in defining the IRWM region. Watershed and
Water Supplier descriptions follow the brief description of the WPAs.
Internal Boundaries within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region Table C‐1.
Sub‐
Region WPA Local Governments, Communities,
Places of Interest Watersheds Water Suppliers
North
Coast
San Simeon Community of San Simeon
Hearst Ranch
2. San Simeon‐Arroyo de la Cruz
1. Big Creek – San Carpoforo
San Simeon CSD
Cambria Town of Cambria 1. Big Creek – San Carpoforo
3. Santa Rosa Creek
Cambria CSD
Cayucos
Community of Cayucos
4. Cayucos Creek‐ Whale Rock Area
Morro Rock MWC
Paso Robles Beach
Water Association
CSA 10A
Cayucos Cemetery
District
Morro Bay
California Men’s Colony
Cuesta College
Camp San Luis Obispo
(National Guard)
County Office of Education
County Operational Center
City of Morro Bay
5. Moro Bay
4. Cayucos Creek‐ Whale Rock Area
California Men’s
Colony
Cuesta College
Camp San Luis Obispo
(National Guard)
County Office of
Education
County Operational
Center
City of Morro Bay
Los Osos
Community of Los Osos
4. Cayucos Creek‐Whale Rock Area
5. Morro Bay
7. San Luis Obispo Creek
Los Osos CSD
S&T MWC
Golden State Water
Company
South
County
San Luis
Obispo/
Avila
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Community of Avila Beach
Port San Luis
City of San Luis Obispo
6. Irish Hills Coastal Watershed
5. Morro Bay
7. San Luis Obispo Creek
Cal Poly San Luis
Obispo
Avila Beach CSD
Avila Valley MWC
San Miguelito MWC
CSA 12
Port San Luis
City of San Luis Obispo
Item 8.m. - Page 42
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐11 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Sub‐
Region WPA Local Governments, Communities,
Places of Interest Watersheds Water Suppliers
South Coast
Community of Nipomo
Community of Oceano
Palo Mesa Village
City of Pismo Beach
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Grover Beach
9. Arroyo Grande Creek
11. Nipomo Suey Creeks
8. Pismo Creek
7. San Luis Obispo Creek
10. Santa Maria River
14. Cuyama River
Oceano CSD
City of Pismo Beach
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Grover Beach
Golden State Water
Company
Nipomo CSD
Rural Water Company
Woodlands Mutual
Water Company
Conoco Phillips
Huasna Valley
13. Alamo Creek
14. Cuyama River
12. Huasna River
Cuyama
Valley
15. Black Sulphur Spring
14. Cuyama River
16. Soda Lake
North
County
Carrizo Plain Community of California Valley 15. Black Sulphur Spring
16. Soda Lake
Rafael/ Big
Spring
16. Soda Lake
17. Upper San Juan Creek
13. Alamo Creek
Santa
Margarita
Village of Pozo
Community of Santa Margarita
Santa Margarita Ranch
20. Mid Salinas‐Atascadero Area
19. Upper Salinas‐Santa Margarita Area
13. Alamo Creek
CSA 23
Santa Margarita Ranch
Atascadero/
Templeton
Community of Templeton
Community of Garden Farms
City of Atascadero
20. Mid Salinas‐ Atascadero Area
21. Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek
Area
Garden Farms CWD
Templeton CSD
Atascadero MWC
City of Paso Robles
Salinas/
Estrella
Community of San Miguel
Community of Shandon
Village of Whitley Gardens
Village of Creston
Camp Roberts
City of Paso Robles
20. Mid Salinas‐Atascadero Area
24. Cholame Creek
23. Estrella River
22. Huer Huero Creek
Indian Valley
18. Lower San Juan Creek
25. Nacimiento River
21. Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek
Area
16. Soda Lake
17. Upper San Juan Creek
San Miguel CSD
Camp Roberts
CSA 16 (Shandon)
City of Paso Robles
Cholame Community of Cholame 24. Cholame Creek
Nacimiento
Heritage Ranch
Community of Oak Shores
25. Nacimiento River
21. Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek
Area
Nacimiento Water
Company
Heritage Ranch CSD
Item 8.m. - Page 43
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐12 Public Draft June 2014
GROUNDWATER BASINS C.4
There are 24 groundwater basins and 10 sub‐basins and Management Areas in the San Luis
Obispo IRWM Region. See Figure C‐6 for a comprehensive view of both DWR listed
groundwater basins and smaller unlisted groundwater basins essential to the region’s water
supply. This section condenses the highly detailed descriptions of the groundwater resources
based on the 2012 Master Water Report and 2014 Watershed Management Planning Project
Study (Watershed Snapshot Study).
With groundwater being an essential water supply to the region’s water supply portfolio,
attention is given to the following:
groundwater basins’ current sustainable yield (if available)
known active storage
known water quality
supply quantity challenges
on‐going management efforts
For additional groundwater basin detail, please see Appendix L – Groundwater Basin
Descriptions. Additional information of the region’s geology can be found in Section C.7
Watersheds.
Table C‐2 provides a very brief description of the various groundwater basins and sub‐basins
within the IRWM region, and is organized based on Sub‐Region, WPA, and then by
Groundwater Basin (or Sub‐Basin) listed in the order of each of the WPAs. See larger size
groundwater basin delineations in each of the WPA figures in the following section.
Any basin in Table C‐2 followed by an asterisk means that the County of San Luis Obispo
Planning Department has determined that the basin is currently at a Level III severity rating
(resource capacity has been met or exceeded) due to either, water quality, historical
groundwater level declines and resulting groundwater storage losses. Consequently, water
conservation measures, basin management activities, and new growth restrictions are taking
place in those basins. The term “Not Available” is used where information is not available and
studies should be done to develop a baseline of information (e.g., current water quality
characteristics for each basin). Any listed Sub‐Basin’s are italicized and indented, and share
information with the primary groundwater basin unless a significant separation exists and data
is available. A thorough water budget accounting of groundwater, including other water
supplies, is provided in Section D – Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget.
Item 8.m. - Page 44
Public Draft June 2014 C‐13 San Luis Obispo County
IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐6.
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
s
Item 8.m. - Page 45
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐14 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐7.
N
o
r
t
h
Co
a
s
t
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
s
Item 8.m. - Page 46
Public Draft June 2014 C‐15 San Luis Obispo County
IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐8.
S
o
u
t
h
Co
u
n
t
y
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
s
Item 8.m. - Page 47
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐16 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐9.
N
o
r
t
h
Co
u
n
t
y
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
s
Item 8.m. - Page 48
Public Draft June 2014 C‐17 San Luis Obispo County
IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
IR
W
M
Re
g
i
o
n
Ta
b
l
e
C‐2.
Su
b
‐
Re
g
i
o
n
WP
A
Figure Page Number
Groundwater Basins
DWR Basin ID
Size
(Ac)
Long Term Average Sustainable
Yield
(AFY)
Storage Rating or Value
(AFY) and Aquifer Thickness
(##ft)
Water Quality
(mg/l)
Ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
On‐Going Management Efforts
Low Storage
Low Recharge
Pesticides/MTBE/PCE
Salinity/Nitrates
Meeting Demands/ Water
Rights
Basin Levels
Water Conservation Growth Restrictions Treatment Discharges/Environ GMP BMO Implement/Adjudication Recycled Water Reservoir Releases/ Weirs
No
r
t
h
Co
a
s
t
1 – Sa
n
Si
m
e
o
n
1.
Sa
n
Ca
r
p
o
f
o
r
o
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐33
20
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
1,
8
0
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
X
X
2.
Ar
r
o
y
o
De
La
Cr
u
z
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐34
75
0
1,
2
4
4
6,
6
0
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
X
3.
Pi
c
o
Cr
e
e
k
Va
l
l
e
y
*
NA
62
.
5
12
0
40
(1
9
)
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
X
X
X X X
2 – Ca
m
b
r
i
a
4.
Sa
n
Si
m
e
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
*
3‐35
62
0
1,
0
4
0
4
4,
0
0
0
(1
2
0
f
t
)
TD
S
2 – 46
to
22
1
0
X
X
X
X
X X X
5.
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
Va
l
l
e
y
*
3‐36
4,
4
8
0
2,
2
6
0
1
24
,
7
0
0
Cl
3–8
0
to
93
3
X
X
X X X
6.
Vi
l
l
a
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐37
98
0
1,
0
0
0
4
Lo
w
(5
0
f
t
)
TD
S
–
50
0
X
X
X
X
X
X X
3 – Ca
y
u
c
o
s
7.
Ca
y
u
c
o
s
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐38
58
0
60
0
Lo
w
(6
8
f
t
)
TD
S
–
50
0
X
X
X
X
X X
8.
Ol
d
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐39
75
0
50
5
Lo
w
(7
2
f
t
)
TD
S
–
44
0
X
X
X
X X X
9.
To
r
o
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐40
51
0
53
2
Lo
w
(5
0
‐
80
f
t
)
Cl
–
1
2
9
TD
S
–
4
0
0
to
70
0
X
X
X5
X
X
X
X X
4 – Mo
r
r
o
Ba
y
10
.
Mo
r
r
o
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐41
1,
2
0
0
1,
5
0
0
6
Lo
w
(8
0
f
t
)
TD
S
–
4
0
0
to
80
0
N6–2
2
0
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X
11
.
Ch
o
r
r
o
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐42
1,
9
0
0
to
3,
2
0
0
2,
2
1
0
7
Lo
w
(5
0
‐
70
f
t
)
TD
S
–
5
0
0
to
70
0
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
5 – Lo
s
Os
o
s
12
.
Lo
s
Os
o
s
Va
l
l
e
y
*
3‐8
6,
4
0
0
3,
2
0
0
Hi
g
h
wi
t
h
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
Aq
u
i
f
e
r
La
y
e
r
s
TD
S
–
2
0
0
to
40
0
N6–4
5
X
X
X
X
X
X X
So
u
t
h
Co
u
n
t
y
6 – Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
/
A
v
i
l
a
13
.
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Va
l
l
e
y
8
3‐9
13
,
8
0
0
6,
0
0
0
9
Lo
w
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
X
X
X Item 8.m. - Page 49
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐18 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Su
b
‐
Re
g
i
o
n
WP
A
Figure Page Number
Groundwater Basins
DWR Basin ID
Size
(Ac)
Long Term Average Sustainable
Yield
(AFY)
Storage Rating or Value
(AFY) and Aquifer Thickness
(##ft)
Water Quality
(mg/l)
Ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
On‐Going Management Efforts
Low Storage
Low Recharge
Pesticides/MTBE/PCE
Salinity/Nitrates
Meeting Demands/ Water
Rights
Basin Levels
Water Conservation Growth Restrictions Treatment Discharges/Environ GMP BMO Implement/Adjudication Recycled Water Reservoir Releases/ Weirs
14
.
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐
Ba
s
i
n
8,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0
‐
2,
5
0
0
Lo
w
(6
0
f
t
)
TD
S
–
3
2
0
to
63
0
X
X
X
X
15
.
Av
i
l
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐
Ba
s
i
n
1,
1
0
0
10
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
(6
0
f
t
)
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
X
X X
7 – So
u
t
h
Co
a
s
t
16
.
Ed
n
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐
Ba
s
i
n
4,
7
0
0
4,
0
0
0
‐
4,
5
0
0
Lo
w
TD
S
–
6
3
0
to
78
0
X
X
X
X
17
.
Sa
n
t
a
Ma
r
i
a
Ri
v
e
r
Va
l
l
e
y
11
3‐12
18
4
,
0
0
0
Se
e
No
t
e
11
Hi
g
h
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
X
X X X X X
18
.
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐Ba
s
i
n
3,
8
6
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
(1
0
0
f
t
)
TD
S
–
>
1
,
5
0
0
12
X
X
X
X X X
19
.
Ni
p
o
m
o
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐Ba
s
i
n
6,
2
3
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
TD
S
–
7
5
0
to
1,
3
0
0
Cl
–
6
4
to
13
0
N–
3
.
4
X
X
X
X X
20
.
Pi
s
m
o
Cr
e
e
k
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐Ba
s
i
n
13
1,
2
2
0
>2
0
0
(n
o
ma
x
is
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
)
Lo
w
(6
0
to
70
f
t
)
TD
S
–
6
2
0
X
X
X X
8 – Hu
a
s
n
a
Va
l
l
e
y
21
.
Hu
a
s
n
a
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐45
4,
7
0
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
9 – Cu
y
a
m
a
Va
l
l
e
y
22
.
Cu
y
a
m
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Ba
s
i
n
*
3‐13
14
7
,
2
0
0
9,
0
0
0
‐
13
,
0
0
0
(8
,
0
0
0
ne
t
co
n
s
u
m
p
ti
v
e
us
e
)
Hi
g
h
(1
5
0
to
25
0
)
TD
S
–
7
5
5
to
1,
0
0
0
N–
4
0
0
(s
h
a
l
l
o
w
we
l
l
s
)
X
X
X
X X Item 8.m. - Page 50
Public Draft June 2014 C‐19 San Luis Obispo County
IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Su
b
‐
Re
g
i
o
n
WP
A
Figure Page Number
Groundwater Basins
DWR Basin ID
Size
(Ac)
Long Term Average Sustainable
Yield
(AFY)
Storage Rating or Value
(AFY) and Aquifer Thickness
(##ft)
Water Quality
(mg/l)
Ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
On‐Going Management Efforts
Low Storage
Low Recharge
Pesticides/MTBE/PCE
Salinity/Nitrates
Meeting Demands/ Water
Rights
Basin Levels
Water Conservation Growth Restrictions Treatment Discharges/Environ GMP BMO Implement/Adjudication Recycled Water Reservoir Releases/ Weirs
No
r
t
h
Co
u
n
t
y
10
– Ca
r
r
i
z
o
Pl
a
i
n
23
.
Ca
r
r
i
z
o
Pl
a
i
n
3‐19
17
3
,
0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
‐
11
,
0
0
0
Hi
g
h
(3
,
0
0
0
f
t
)
TD
S
–
1
6
1
to
94
,
7
5
0
X
X
11
– Ra
f
a
e
l
/
Bi
g
Sp
r
i
n
g
24
.
Ra
f
a
e
l
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐46
2,
9
9
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
25
.
Bi
g
Sp
r
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
3‐47
7,
3
2
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
12
– Sa
n
t
a
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
26
.
Po
z
o
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐44
6,
8
4
0
1,
0
0
0
Lo
w
(3
0
f
t
)
TD
S
–
2
8
7
to
67
6
X
X
X
X
27
.
Ri
n
c
o
n
a
d
a
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐43
2,
5
8
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
X
X
28
.
Sa
n
t
a
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
NA
NA
40
0
‐60
0
Hi
g
h
(m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
aq
u
i
f
e
r
la
y
e
r
s
)
TD
S
–
4
0
0
to
49
0
X
X
13
–
At
a
s
c
a
d
e
r
o
/
Te
m
p
l
e
t
o
n
29
.
Pa
s
o
Ro
b
l
e
s
*
3‐4.
0
6
50
5
,
0
0
0
97
,
7
0
0
Lo
w
to
Me
d
i
u
m
(3
0
to
13
0
ft
Up
p
e
r
Un
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
)
20
0
8
WQ
Re
p
o
r
t
Sh
o
w
e
d
Be
l
o
w
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Lo
w
to
Me
d
i
u
m
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
an
d
Ba
r
i
u
m
ar
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
.
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
30
.
At
a
s
c
a
d
e
r
o
Su
b
‐
Ba
s
i
n
*
*
Me
d
i
u
m
(1
0
0
f
t
)
X
X
X
X
X
X X Item 8.m. - Page 51
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐20 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Su
b
‐
Re
g
i
o
n
WP
A
Figure Page Number
Groundwater Basins
DWR Basin ID
Size
(Ac)
Long Term Average Sustainable
Yield
(AFY)
Storage Rating or Value
(AFY) and Aquifer Thickness
(##ft)
Water Quality
(mg/l)
Ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
On‐Going Management Efforts
Low Storage
Low Recharge
Pesticides/MTBE/PCE
Salinity/Nitrates
Meeting Demands/ Water
Rights
Basin Levels
Water Conservation Growth Restrictions Treatment Discharges/Environ GMP BMO Implement/Adjudication Recycled Water Reservoir Releases/ Weirs
14
– Sa
l
i
n
a
s
/
Es
t
r
e
l
l
a
Se
e
Pa
s
o
Ro
b
l
e
s
Ab
o
v
e
.
15
– Ch
o
l
a
m
e
31
.
Ch
o
l
a
m
e
Va
l
l
e
y
3‐5
39
,
8
0
0
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
to
Hi
g
h
(1
0
0
to
66
5
f
t
)
No
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
16
‐
Na
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
No
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
s
*
Th
e
Co
u
n
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
ha
s
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
ba
s
i
n
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
at
a
Le
v
e
l
III severity rating
(r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
ha
s
be
e
n
me
t
or
ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
)
du
e
to
ei
t
h
e
r
,
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
le
v
e
l
declines and resulting
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
st
o
r
a
g
e
lo
s
s
e
s
.
**
Th
e
Co
u
n
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
ha
s
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
ba
s
i
n
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
at
a
Level I severity rating
(r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
ha
s
be
e
n
me
t
or
ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
)
du
e
to
ei
t
h
e
r
,
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
le
v
e
l
de
c
l
i
n
e
s
,
and/or resulting
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
st
o
r
a
g
e
lo
s
s
e
s
.
No
t
e
s
:
1.
Th
e
St
a
t
e
Bo
a
r
d
al
l
o
w
s
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
ex
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
of
51
8
AF
Y
in
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
an
d
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
dr
y
se
a
s
o
n
ex
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
of 260 AF (Cambria CSD
WM
P
,
20
0
8
)
.
Th
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Co
a
s
t
a
l
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Co
a
s
t
a
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
de
f
i
n
e
s
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
Cr
e
e
k
dr
y
pe
r
i
o
d
as
Ju
l
y
1 to
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
20.
2.
TD
S
is
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
in
th
e
ra
n
g
e
of
10
0
to
50
0
mg
/
l
wi
t
h
an
MC
L
of
50
0
mg
/
l
3.
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
(C
l
)
is
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
in
th
e
ra
n
g
e
of
30
to
27
0
mg
/
l
wi
t
h
an
MC
L
of
25
0
mg
/
l
4.
Th
e
St
a
t
e
Wa
t
e
r
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
(S
t
a
t
e
Bo
a
r
d
)
al
l
o
w
s
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
ex
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
of
1,
2
3
0
AF
Y
in
th
e
Sa
n
Si
m
e
o
n
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Basin and a maximum dry
se
a
s
o
n
ex
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n of
37
0
AF
(C
a
m
b
r
i
a
CS
D
Wa
t
e
r
Ma
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
(W
M
P
)
,
20
0
8
)
.
5.
Se
a
wa
t
e
r
in
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
an
d
pe
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
hy
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
ar
e
th
e
pr
i
m
a
r
y
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
.
6.
Ni
t
r
a
t
e
MC
L
is
10
mg
/
l
.
Item 8.m. - Page 52
Public Draft June 2014 C‐21 San Luis Obispo County
IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
7.
Sa
f
e
yi
e
l
d
un
d
e
r
dr
o
u
g
h
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
is
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
at
56
6
AF
Y
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
St
a
t
e
Bo
a
r
d
.
8.
Th
e
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
is
pa
r
t
of
WP
A
6 an
d
WP
A
7 an
d
en
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
e
s
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
13
,
8
0
0
ac
r
e
s
(a
p
p
r
o
x
.
21
.
6
sq
u
a
r
e
miles), including the San
Lu
i
s
Va
l
l
e
y
,
Ed
n
a
Va
l
l
e
y
,
an
d
th
e
ne
w
l
y
de
f
i
n
e
d
Av
i
l
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐Ba
s
i
n
s
.
9.
Th
e
sa
f
e
yi
e
l
d
of
th
e
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Va
l
l
e
y Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
is
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
at
6,
0
0
0
AF
Y
,
of
wh
i
c
h
2,
0
0
0
AF
Y
is
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
th
e
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Va
l
l
e
y
Sub‐basin, and 4,000
AF
Y
to
th
e
Ed
n
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Su
b
‐ba
s
i
n
(B
o
y
l
e
,
19
9
1
;
DW
R
19
9
7
)
10
.
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
ba
s
e
d
on
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
ar
e
a
.
11
.
Th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Ma
r
i
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
wa
s
adj
u
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
20
0
5
by
th
e
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
Co
u
r
t
of
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
ba
s
e
d
on
a Ju
d
g
m
e
n
t
fo
r
a ba
s
i
n
‐wi
d
e
groundwater litigation
ca
s
e
th
a
t
de
f
i
n
e
d
th
r
e
e
ba
s
i
n
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
ar
e
a
s
.
Th
e
s
e
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
ar
e
a
s
ar
e
th
e
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
Ci
t
i
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
(N
C
M
A
)
,
th
e
Ni
p
o
m
o
Mesa Management Area
(N
M
M
A
)
,
an
d
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Ma
r
i
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
nt
Ar
e
a
(S
M
V
M
A
)
.
Th
e
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
ba
s
i
n
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Co
u
n
t
y
in 1975 was estimated by
th
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Wa
t
e
r
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
to
co
n
t
a
i
n
ab
o
u
t
22
6
,
0
0
0
AF
.
12
.
Do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
on
l
y
.
Up
s
t
r
e
a
m
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
me
e
t
i
n
g
dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
wa
t
e
r
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
13
.
Pi
s
m
o
Cr
e
e
k
Su
b
‐Ba
s
i
n
do
e
s
no
t
li
e
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ad
j
u
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
ar
e
a
s
of
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Ma
r
i
a
Ri
v
e
r
Va
l
l
e
y Ba
s
i
n
.
Item 8.m. - Page 53
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐22 Public Draft June 2014
DESCRIPTION OF WATER PLANNING AREAS (WPAS) AND LOCAL C.5
GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES
The WPAs represent the geographical organization of the County. Water demand, agricultural
water needs, sources of supply, and other information are organized by WPA. The WPAs
discussed below were intended to recognize important hydrogeologic units or water
management areas throughout the County.
In general, the following types of information (hydrogeologic variations, natural and political
boundaries) were used to define the WPAs, but no single approach was followed to delineate
every WPA:
Groundwater basin boundaries
Watershed boundaries
Water supplies and management practices
Urban growth boundaries
Similar demands and climate
Similar water supply issues
C.5.1 Reference Information and Level of Detail
This section provides a very brief description of the WPAs along with a short statement of on‐
going issues and concerns (i.e., Appendix M – Water Planning Area Descriptions contains the
detailed information of each WPA). At this beginning point in the Region Description, the
purpose is to define the WPAs using visual mapping of each, agency locations, groundwater
basins, larger infrastructure, source of water supplies, source of water demands, and water
related issues.
Understanding that much can be said regarding each of the WPAs, the organization and content
of information included for each WPA has been modified from the published 2012 Master
Water Report. As stated in Section C.1 Purpose and Organization, the sections following the
WPA summaries capture the details at the watershed level (slightly higher resolution) to better
align with common hydrogeologic features within the WPAs.
Item 8.m. - Page 54
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐34 Public Draft June 2014
Port San Luis
The Port San Luis Harbor District (Harbor District or District) is the governing agency that
provides public services and improvements for the Port and regulates the various commercial
and recreational uses at the harbor. The Harbor District shares authority over land uses and
development under its ownership with two regulatory agencies: the County of San Luis
Obispo and the California Coastal Commission.
City of San Luis Obispo
The City of San Luis Obispo is located in a coastal valley approximately 10 miles inland from the
Pacific Ocean. Historically, the City of San Luis Obispo has been the sole water purveyor within
its limits. This allowed the city to maintain uniformity of water service and distribution
standards, and to be consistent in developing and implementing water policy. The City also
serves the County Regional Airport and Cal Poly. Since Cal Poly has its own allocation of water
from the Whale Rock Reservoir and has water resources that do not pass through the City’s
treatment plant, the University is discussed separately.
The City of San Luis Obispo has an existing (2010) population of 44,948 and a 1 percent
residential growth cap which assists in projecting future annual water needs. The current
General Plan estimates that the build‐out population for the City will be approximately
57,200 people.
WPA 7 – South Coast C.5.3.2
The South Coast WPA (see Figure C‐16) includes Edna Valley (Golden State Water Company);
the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA), which includes the Cities of Pismo Beach,
Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach, Oceano Community Services District, agricultural and rural
overlying users; the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA), which includes the Golden
State Water Company, Nipomo Community Services District (NCSD), Rural Water Company,
Woodlands Mutual Water Company (Woodlands MWC), ConocoPhillips, agricultural and rural
overlying users; the Santa Maria Valley Management Area (SMVMA), which includes the City of
Santa Maria, agricultural, and rural users; and agricultural and rural users outside of the three
management areas.
The primary groundwater supplies include the Edna, Pismo Creek, and Arroyo Grande Valley
Sub‐basins, the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, and the Pismo Formation. Other major
supply sources include the State Water Project, Lopez Lake Reservoir, and recycled water from
the City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. A potential water supply project is the
Nipomo Supplemental Water Project. The issues in this WPA include adjudicated groundwater
basins, limited groundwater supply, and to some extent groundwater quality.
Item 8.m. - Page 55
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐35 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Community of Nipomo
The town of Nipomo is an unincorporated area located in southern San Luis Obispo County.
Community of Oceano
The community of Oceano is located immediately south of Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande
and is about 1,150 acres. Oceano includes residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and
public facility land uses. Existing population (as of July 2009) is estimated at 8,137 and the
forecast population is estimated at 12,855.
The unincorporated community of Oceano qualifies under the State’s definition as a
disadvantaged community (DAC Block Group MHI = $37,774) (see Figure C‐58) and consists of
predominately Hispanic residents. However, these neighborhoods are contained within a larger
community that is clearly not economically disadvantaged. As result, the area has the
advantage of equal treatment because of their location within the larger community, but is
distinct enough to qualify for various forms of financial assistance to ensure that both basic
community infrastructure improvements and community amenities are provided.
Palo Mesa Village
The Palo Mesa village reserve line encompasses approximately 918 acres on the northwest
corner of the Nipomo Mesa around the intersection of Halcyon Road and Highway 1.6F
7
City of Pismo Beach
The City of Pismo Beach supplies its customers with domestic water service. The dominant
economic activity in Pismo Beach is tourism, and as a result, the population of Pismo Beach can
more than double during summer holidays. The 2010 population was 7,676 and the forecast
build‐out population is 11,854.
City of Arroyo Grande
The City of Arroyo Grande supplies its customers with domestic water service. Arroyo Grande is
located in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo County along the banks of the Arroyo
Grande Creek. Land use is primarily residential and agriculture with a small commercial sector.
There are no agricultural or industrial water service connections. In 2010, the service
population was 16,901 and the forecast build‐out population is 20,000.
City of Grover Beach
7 County of San Luis Obispo, South County Villages (Black Lake, Callender‐Garrett, Locs Berros, Palo Mesa and
Woodlands) [Public Review Draft], January 2013.
Item 8.m. - Page 56
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐36 Public Draft June 2014
The City of Grover Beach supplies its customers with domestic water service. Grover Beach is
primarily a residential community, with a small commercial/industrial sector. Approximately
80 percent of the water consumers are residents. No agricultural consumers are served by the
City water system, though landscape irrigation consumes approximately 90 AFY. In 2010, the
population was 13,156. The build‐out population is expected to reach 15,000.
WPA 8 – Huasna C.5.3.3
The Huasna Valley WPA (see Figure C‐17) includes agricultural and rural users only. There are
no large population centers with urban demands in this WPA. The primary groundwater supply
is the Huasna Valley Groundwater Basin. The issue in this WPA includes limited available data
on the groundwater supply’s safe yield.
WPA 9 – Cuyama Valley C.5.3.4
The Cuyama Valley WPA (see Figure C‐18) includes agricultural and rural users, and some oil
fields. There are no large population centers with urban demands in this WPA. The primary
groundwater supply is the Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin. Twenty‐two percent of the
groundwater basin is in San Luis Obispo County, and the remainder of the basin resides in the
counties of Santa Barbara, Kern, and Ventura. There is no separate yield estimate for the San
Luis Obispo County portion. The primary issues in this WPA include critical overdraft of the
groundwater basin and degrading water quality.
Item 8.m. - Page 57
Public Draft June 2014 C‐37 San Luis Obispo County
IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐15
.
W
a
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
No
.
6 ‐
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
/
A
v
i
l
a
Item 8.m. - Page 58
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐38 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐16
.
W
a
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
No
.
7 ‐
So
u
t
h
Co
a
s
t
Item 8.m. - Page 59
Public Draft June 2014 C‐39 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐17
.
W
a
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
No
.
8 ‐
Hu
a
s
n
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Item 8.m. - Page 60
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐40 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐18
.
W
a
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
No
.
9 ‐
Cu
y
a
m
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Item 8.m. - Page 61
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐100 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed (7) Table C‐12.
State climate change maps show sea level affecting portions of the town of Avila Beach with inundation
along the lower reach of San Luis Obispo Creek (USGS,Cal‐Adapt, viewed 2013).
See IRWM Plan, 2014 Section P. Climate Change
Critical Issues:
263BIssue:
Riparian Vegetation /
Buffer Quality (Lack of
riparian canopy)
264BPotential Causes:
Removal of riparian
vegetation by
landowners and
livestock,
265BReference:
Land Conservancy, 2002
Pismo Creek Watershed C.7.2.3
Water Planning Area: 7 California Hydrologic Unit: 10 Area (acres): 26,030
Watershed ID: 24
Outflow Body of Water: Pacific Ocean
Major Water Bodies: None
Existing Watershed Plans: Pismo Creek/ Edna Area Watershed Management Plan (CCSE, 2009)
Description:
The Pismo Creek Watershed is a coastal basin
located in southern San Luis Obispo County.
The drainage rises to a maximum elevation of
almost 2,865 feet above mean sea level.
Pismo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean and
has three major tributary basins with their
headwaters in the Santa Lucia Mountains:
West Corral de Piedra, East Corral de Piedra,
and Cañada Verde. A fourth significant
tributary, Cuevitas Creek, enters Pismo Creek
from the west in lower Price Canyon. The mouth of Pismo Creek is in the dune region known
locally as Pismo Beach.
The watershed is dominated by agricultural land uses in its upper reaches including vineyards,
ranches and row crops. The urban core of the City of Pismo Beach is adjacent to the Pismo
Creek Estuary. Other land uses include a regional landfill, oil exploration and a wastewater
treatment plant.
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 62
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐101 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Figure C‐38.Map of Pismo Creek Watershed
Pismo Creek Watershed (8) Table C‐13.
Physical Setting:
266BRainfall:
16 ‐29 inches (NRCS
precipitation shapefile, 2010)
267BAir Temperature:
Summer Range (August 1981‐2010): 54°‐ 73°F
Winter Range (December 1981‐2010): 39°‐ 63°F
At Santa Maria Public Airport, CA (NOAA National
Climatic Data Center, viewed 2013)
Hydrology:
268BStream Gage:
No; Hydrology can be compared
to Arroyo Grande Creek which
has a USGS and San Luis Obispo
County stream gage station
(Balance Hydrologics, 2008).
269BHydrology Models:
Yes; A HEC‐HMS watershed model for Pismo Creek
was developed for the Hydrology and Geology
Assessment and looked at peak flows (Balance
Hydrologics, 2008).
270BPeak Flow:
No source identified for
measured peak flows.
Peak flows (100‐year
recurrence) can be expected to
be on the order of 150 to 200
cfs per square mile and
271BBase Flow:
September low flows are estimated to have ranged
from 0 to 7.5 cfs since 1968. This is equal to
approximately 0 to 0.20 cfs per square mile (Balance
Hydrologics, 2008).
Item 8.m. - Page 63
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐102 Public Draft June 2014
Pismo Creek Watershed (8) Table C‐13.
intermediate (1.6‐year
recurrence) flows can be
expected to be on the order of
15 to 90 cfs per square mile,
based on the modeling
conducted, and calibrated to
measured flows in nearby
similar watersheds (Balance
Hydrologics, 2008).
272BFlood Reports:
No source identified.
Pismo Creek Mainstem channelized from Hwy 101 downstream to Pismo Beach; A levee, faced with soil
sediment, was constructed along the south over bank of Pismo Creek between river miles 0.8 and 0.5 to
protect the wastewater treatment plant. According to a 1997 Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) report, the levee does not confine 100‐year flood flows, and could be been washed out during an
event of that magnitude; While not designed as a flood control mechanism, the private dam on West
Corral de Piedra may function to hold storm water from upper West Corral de Piedra (CCSE, 2009).
Areas of Flood Risk include East Corral de Piedra upstream of intersection of Twin Creeks Way and Mira
Cielo Drive and intersection of Twin Creeks Way with Hwy 227; Lower Pismo Creek from Hwy 101
downstream to Pacific Ocean and south to State Parks Campground/Carpenter Creek (CCSE, 2009).
273BFlood Control Structures:
No source identified
274BAreas of Heightened Flood Risk:
No source identified
Water Supply:
275BWater Management Entities:
City of Pismo Beach. No source
identified.
276BGroundwater:
Yes; alluvial and San Luis Obispo Valley (SLO County,
2012)
277BSurface Water:
No public reservoirs. There is a
private dam on West Corral de
Piedra Creek (CCSE, 2009).
278BImported Water:
Yes; entitled to 896 AFY from Lake Lopez, 1,100 AFY
of State Water and 700 AFY of groundwater from the
Arroyo Grande aquifer (City of Pismo Beach, 2013).
279BRecycled/Desalinated Water:
None in the City of Pismo
Beach. No source identified.
280BInfiltration Zones:
The rolling hills of Canada Verde’s tributaries are
largely incised into the Paso Robles formation, with
limited volumes of recent alluvium. Soils are mapped
in this area largely as belonging to hydrologic soil
group A and B, indicating that these areas may be
especially suitable for ground‐water recharge during
storms, and also slow release of ground‐water to
streams during base flow periods (Balance
Hydrologics, 2008).
Flora And Fauna:
281BVegetation Cover:
Primarily non‐native grassland with some coast live oak, mixed chaparral with chamise and buckbrush, mixed
evergreen forest, black sage scrub. Some dune scrub, and urban land(SLO County, vegetation shapefile, 1990).
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 64
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐103 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Pismo Creek Watershed (8) Table C‐13.
Forest and woodland habitats are most common in the coastal hills and in northern inland hills within this
watershed. Riparian and wetland vegetation are present near Pismo Lake and along portions of Pismo Creek.
Wetland vegetation is also present in patches along the margins of Pismo Estuary (Althouse & Meade, Inc, 2013).
282BInvasive Species:
Arundo, Cape Ivy (CCSE, 2009)
283BSteelhead Streams:
Pismo Creek; East and West Corral de Piedra Creeks (NMFS,2005)
284BFish Passage Barriers:
Fish Ladder at Railroad Crossing of Pismo Creek: stream mile 5.3, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 700044.00000; Arizona
Crossing of Pismo Creek: stream mile 4.6, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736885.00000;
County bridge Crossing of West Corral de Piedra Creek at Righetti Road: stream mile 8.2, Temporary Barrier, PAD #
700080.00000;
(San Luis Obispo County Stream Crossing Inventory and Fish Passage Evaluation, 2005)
Other potential barriers identified by landowners:
Bridge Creek Road Crossing of West Corral de Piedra Creek, stream mile 9.1; Righetti Dam spillway on West Corral
de Piedra Creek, stream mile 9.8; West Corral de Piedra Creek at Hwy 227 and Old Edna where boulders may have
been placed, stream mile 5.7, PAD # 731304.00000; A concrete stream crossing with two culverts observed on East
Corral de Piedra Creek may also be a fish passage barrier. (CCSE, 2009) Bedrock Falls at West Corral de Piedra
Creek, Total Barrier, PAD # 700079.00000 (CDFW Passage Assessment Database, 2013)
285BHabitat Conservation Plans:
None.(USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, viewed 2013)
Land Use:
286BJurisdictions & Local Communities:
County of San Luis Obispo, City
of Pismo Beach, Town of Shell
Beach
287B% Urbanized:
13%
288B% Agricultural:
74%
289B% Other:
13%
290BPlanning Areas:
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Bay
Coastal, San Luis Bay Inland, Los
Padres
291BPotential growth areas:
Los Ranchos/Edna Village area (Specific Plan, 2001);
Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas (recent
development proposals).
292BFacilities Present:
Private Dam on West Corral de
Piedra Creek; Cold Canyon
Landfill; Plains Exploration Oil
Field; Pismo Beach Wastewater
Treatment Plant with discharge
to Ocean.
293BCommercial Uses:
Plains Exploration and Production Company;
Recreation and tourism at Pismo Beach; Wineries in
Edna Valley; 3 Bar S Ranch Mine for decorative rock,
Patchett Pit Mine for sand and gravel, Tiber Canyon
Sand Pit Mine for sand and gravel (SLO County
extractive resources).
Demographics:
294BPopulation:
8,945 (U.S. Census Block, 2010)
7,655 in City of Pismo Beach (US
Census, 2010)
295BRace and Ethnicity:
86% Caucasian, 9% Latinos, 2% Asian, and 2% two or
more races. The remaining races each represent less
than 1%, including African American, American
Indian, Pacific Islander, and other (U.S. Census Block,
2010).
296BIncome:
MHI $79,170.8 in watershed.
297BDisadvantaged Communities:
No; 2% of individuals are below poverty level in
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 65
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐104 Public Draft June 2014
Pismo Creek Watershed (8) Table C‐13.
MHI $65,682 in City (US Census,
2010)
watershed.(US Census Tract, 2010)
4.9% of individuals are below poverty level in City
(US Census, 2010)
Other Unique Characteristics:
298BHistorical Resource:
The Price House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, viewed 2013). The Tognazzini General
Store is identified a historic site by the SLO County (Draft Los Ranchos Village Plan, 2013).
299BArcheological Resource:
There was a Chumash town called Pismu at the time of European settlement (SB Museum of Natural History,
viewed 2013).
300BOther Resource:
No source identified
Major Changes in the Watershed:
In 1772, Mission San Luis Obispo was established bringing ranching to the area.
The watershed covers portions of three Mexican land grants; the San Miguelito, the Pismo and the Corral de Piedra
(Effie McDermott Archives).
In 1865, Edgar Willis Steele and his brothers purchased 45,000 acres in the Edna Valley and introduced the modern
dairy industry to San Luis Obispo County. In 1866, Edgar Steele bought portions of Corral de Piedra, El Pismo, Bolsa
de Chamisal and Arroyo Grande ranchos. They operated five dairy farms, each with 150 head of dairy cattle.
Railroad
Prior to 1911, Pismo Creek’s lower drainage included Pismo Lake, and what today is called Meadow Creek. Lower
Pismo Creek joined with Arroyo Grande Creek in its lowest reaches and flowed into the ocean.
In 1953, the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant began operation.
In 1965, Cold Canyon Landfill began accepting non‐hazardous waste.
In the late 1970’s, Plains Exploration & Production started production of the oil field in Price Canyon.
Climate Change Considerations:
State climate change maps show sea level affecting portions of the City of Pismo Beach and town of
Oceano with inundation areas along lower Pismo Creek and Carpenter Creek particularly between Highway
101 and the ocean (USGS,Cal‐Adapt, viewed 2013).
See IRWM Plan, 2014 Section P. Climate Change
Critical Issues:
301BIssue:
Surface Water
Temperature
302BPotential Causes:
Lack of riparian canopy
303BReference:
CCSE, 2009
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 66
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐105 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed C.7.2.4
Water Planning Area: 7 California Hydrologic Unit: 10 Area (acres): 95,998
Watershed ID: 18
Outflow Body of Water: Pacific Ocean
Major Water Bodies: Lopez Lake, Pipline Lake
Existing Watershed Plans: Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan (CCSE, 2009)
Description:
The Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed is a
coastal basin located in southern San Luis
Obispo County. The drainage rises to a
maximum elevation of approximately 3,100
feet above sea level. The watershed includes
the tributaries of Tally Ho (Corbett), Tar
Springs and Los Berros Creeks. Meadow Creek
is a remnant marsh drainage system that
enters Arroyo Grande Creek, just upstream of
the confluence with the ocean. Arroyo Grande
Creek empties into an estuary adjacent to the Oceano lagoon.
The watershed is dominated by agricultural land uses including vineyards, ranches and row
crops. The urban core of the City of Arroyo Grande is at the confluence of Tally Ho Creek with
Arroyo Grande Creek. Other land uses include Lake Lopez Reservoir and a regional airport in
Oceano.
Item 8.m. - Page 67
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐106 Public Draft June 2014
Figure C‐39.Map of Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) Table C‐14.
Physical Setting:
304BRainfall:
15 – 28 inches (NRCS, 2010)
305BAir Temperature:
Summer Range (August 1981‐2010): 54° ‐ 73°F
Winter Range (December 1981‐2010): 39° ‐ 63°F
At Santa Maria Public Airport, CA. (NOAA National
Climatic Data Center, viewed 2013)
Hydrology:
306BStream Gage:
Yes; USGS 11141280 at Lopez
Creek near Arroyo Grande (1967
‐ present, active) and
USGS/County 11141500 Arroyo
Grande Creek at the City of
Arroyo Grande (1940 – 1986 by
USGS 1986 ‐ present by County,
active).
The County has total of 9 active
stream flow gages in the
watershed. There are 5 USGS
307BHydrology Models:
Yes; Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology used a
HEC‐RAS to study the flood control channel in 2005.
The County Public Works Department uses a model
to plan.
Item 8.m. - Page 68
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐107 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) Table C‐14.
stream gage stations
discontinued (Stetson
Engineering, 2004).
308BPeak Flow:
4,620 ‐ 5,400 cfs at USGS
11141500 (1940‐1986, change in
management to County) (USGS,
viewed 2013).
The 100‐year discharge
estimates are 19,500 cfs
(Swanson Hydrology &
Geomorphology, 2005).
309BBase Flow:
11 – 19 cfs at USGS 11141500 (1940 – 1986, change
in management to County) (USGS viewed 2013).
310BFlood Reports:
Yes; Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flood Alternatives Study (Swanson Hydrology &
Geomorphology, 2006); Arroyo Grande Creek Channel Waterway Management Plan (Waterways
Consulting, 2010).
The County manages Zone 1/1A Flood Control and Water Conservation District along the lower Arroyo
Grande Creek including the channel and associated levees and flap gates for flood protection
(SLOCountyWater.org, viewed 2013).
311BFlood Control Structures:
No source identified
312BAreas of Heightened Flood Risk:
No source identified
Water Supply:
313BWater Management Entities:
Zone 3 Flood Control and Water
Conservation District; City of
Arroyo Grande; City of Grover
Beach; Oceano Community
Services District;
Northern Cities Management
Area participants including City
of Pismo Beach, City of Arroyo
Grande, City of Grover Beach,
Oceano Community Services
District, small public water
systems, and residential and
agricultural overlying users.
314BGroundwater:
Yes; alluvial, Arroyo Grande Valley and Santa Maria
Valley Basins (SLO County, 2012)
315BSurface Water:
Yes; Lake Lopez is operated for
municipal water supply storing
49,400 acre‐feet and
downstream irrigation water
supply. Average annual
diversion in 1969 through 1996
was about 4,630 acre‐feet
(Stetson Engineering, 2004).
316BImported Water:
Yes; State Water enters the watershed and serves
the Oceano Community Services District which has
considered selling its surplus (in surplus years) to
surrounding cities.
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 69
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐108 Public Draft June 2014
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) Table C‐14.
317BRecycled/Desalinated Water:
No source identified. South San
Luis Obispo County Sanitation
District may look into the
feasibility of recycled wate.
318BInfiltration Zones:
Arroyo Grande Creek by releases from Lake Lopez.
Other areas undetermined.
Flora And Fauna:
319BVegetation Cover:
Primarily non‐native annual grassland, buckbrush and chamise chaparral, and coast live oak forest. Contains some
central coastal scrub, beach and coastal dune, agricultural land, and urban land (SLO County vegetation shapefile,
1990).
Dune scrub and foredune vegetation are present in coastal areas. Dune wetlands and willow woodlands are
present in back dune areas. Riparian vegetation is present along Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek,
primarily consisting of arroyo willow. (Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2013).
320BInvasive Species:
Largemouth bass, Black Crappie, Green Sunfish, English ivy, Cape ivy, Arundo donax, pampas grass, castor bean,
and bullfrog (CCSE, 2009 and Cindy Cleveland, personal communication, 2013).
Ice plant, veldt grass, and blue gum eucalyptus are present at the coast. English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, and
cotoneaster are problems in Arroyo Grande Creek near downtown Arroyo Grande (Althouse and Meade, 2013).
321BSteelhead Streams:
Yes; Arroyo Grande Creek. (NMFS, 2012) Los Berros (CEMAR, 2008).
There are rainbow trout populations above Lopez Dam (CEMAR, 2008).
322BFish Passage Barriers:
Modify County Stream Gage at stream mile 4.98; Replace Cecchetti Road Culvert at steam mile 8, Temporary
Barrier, PAD # 700030.00000; Modify Abandoned Dam at stream mile 9.5; Modify Concrete Dam at stream mile
5.82; Remove Debris at Huasna Road; Modify Los Berros Creek Gage at stream mile 5.6; Replace Los Berros Creek
Culvert; Modify Tar Springs Creek Road Crossing at stream mile 0.5; Replace Biddle Park Culvert at stream mile
10.9, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 707002.00000; Hwy 101 culvert at Meadow Creek, Unknown Status, PAD #
732175.00000; Little Falls Natural Falls, Total Barrier, PAD # 735375.00000; Big Falls Canyon, Total Barrier, PAD #
735376.00000; Big falls Canyhon upper falls, Total Barrier, PAD # 735377.00000; Beaver Dam at Arroyo Grande
Creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736888.00000; Rip‐Rap dam at Arroyo Grande Creek, Unknown Status, PAD #
736890.00000; Concrete dam at Arroyo Grande Creek, Partial Barrier, PAD # 736891.00000; Concrete Grade
Control weir at Arroyo Grande Creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736893.00000; Los Berros Creek rd. crossing/
gauging station at Los berros creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736894.00000; Low Flow Concrete Structure at
Branch Mil Rd. on Tar Springs Creek, Total barrier, PAD # 736895.00000; Culvert Replacement at Los Berros Creek,
Partial barrier, PAD # 736896.00000; Dam at Lopez drive on Arroyo Grande Creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD #
718830; Road Crossing at Valley Road and Los Berros Creek, Partial Barrier, PAD # 712029. (CDFW Passage
Assessment Database, viewed 2013 and CCSE, 2009)
323BHabitat Conservation Plans:
Yes; In development by County of San Luis Obispo for California red‐legged frog and Steelhead trout along
mainstem Arroyo Grande Creek.(USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, viewed 2013)
Land Use:
324BJurisdictions & Local Communities:
City of Arroyo Grande, City of
Grover Beach, City of Pismo
Beach, Town of Oceano, County
of San Luis Obispo
325B% Urbanized:
18%
326B% Agricultural:
46%
327B% Other:
37%
328BPlanning Areas:
San Luis Bay Coastal, San Luis
329BPotential growth areas:
City of Arroyo Grande, Oceano, Los Berros Village
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 70
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐109 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) Table C‐14.
Bay Inland, South County Inland,
Huasna‐Lopez, Los Padres, San
Luis Obispo
Area, Halcyon
330BFacilities Present:
Lopez Dam on Arroyo Grande
Creek; Terminal Reservoir and
Lopez Water Treatment Plant;
Oceano Wastewater Treatment
Plant with discharge to Ocean;
Arroyo Grande Flood Control
Channel
331BCommercial Uses:
Cropland in Cienega Valley; Recreation and tourism
at Lake Lopez, City of Arroyo Grande, State Park
Beaches and the Oceano Dunes; Grieb Ranch
Quarry for dimension stone, Oceano Sand Company
Pit for specialty sand (SLO County, Extractive
resources shapefile).
Demographics:
332BPopulation:
47,830 in watershed.
17,249, 36.1% in the City of
Arroyo Grande.
13,156, 27.5% in the City of
Grover Beach.
7,286, 15.2% in the Community
of Oceano (U.S. Census Block,
2010)
333BRace and Ethnicity:
Watershed: 70% Caucasian (33,490), 22.9% Latino
(10,949)
3.2% Asian (1,517), 2.5% 2 or more races/ethnicity
(1,213) and 1% Other (77). (U.S. Census Tract, 2010).
Arroyo Grande: Caucasian, representing 76.9%.
Latinos represent 15.7% of the total population in
the watershed. The remaining races each represent
less than 4%, including African American, American
Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian(U.S. Census,
2010).
Grover Beach: Caucasian, representing 62.3%.
Latinos represent 29.2% of the total population in
Grover Beach. The remaining races each represent
less than 4%, including African American, American
Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian(U.S. Census,
2010).
Oceano: Caucasian, representing 47.4%. Latinos
represent 47.8% of the total population in Oceano.
The remaining races each represent less than 3%,
including African American, American Indian, Pacific
Islander, and Asian (U.S. Census, 2010).
334BIncome:
MHI $63,535 in watershed (U.S.
Census Tracts, 2010)
MHI $64,900 in Arroyo
Grande(U.S. Census, 2010)
MHI $47,708 in Grover Beach
(U.S. Census, 2010)
MHI $37,219 in Oceano (U.S.
Census, 2010)
335BDisadvantaged Communities:
Yes, Oceano; 5% of individuals are below poverty
level in watershed (U.S. Census Tract, 2010).
7.2% of individuals are below poverty level in Arroyo
Grande.
14.3% of individuals are below poverty level in
Grover Beach.
14.1% of individuals are below poverty level in
Oceano (US Census, 2010).
Other Unique Characteristics:
336BHistorical Resource:
The City of Arroyo Grande has a building on the National Register of Historic Places.
Item 8.m. - Page 71
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐110 Public Draft June 2014
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) Table C‐14.
337BArcheological Resource:
There were Chumash towns called Chimoli, Chiliqin, and Stemeqtatimi at the time of European settlement (SB
Museum of Natural History, viewed 2013).
338BOther Resource:
The Los Padres National Forest, Santa Lucia District in the watershed includes one campground, portions of the
Santa Lucia Wilderness and general recreation.
Major Changes in the Watershed:
Chumash Indians are thought to have lived in the Lopez Valley as long ago as 2000 years. Four major villages were
within the Lopez Valley, including the Chmoli and Chojuale villages.
In 1772, Mission San Luis Obispo was established. Canada del Trigo, now Lopez Canyon, supplied wheat to Mission
San Luis Obispo. Soon after the mission's founding, the padres established a garden and plantation on the plain of
Arroyo Grande Creek where they raised corn, beans, potatoes and other vegetables.
In the early 1800’s, the first white settlers move to the valley and begin a dairy and prune orchard at the junction of
Arroyo Grande and Lopez Creeks.
Around 1899, over fourteen oil companies bored for oil in areas including Bore Porter Huasna Ranch, Phoenix
Canyon, Records Ranch, Rosa Porter Ranch, Mrs. Flora Harloe Huasna Ranch, the upper valleys and in the town of
Arroyo Grande.
Between 1862 ‐ 2000 there were approximately numerous flood years (Honeycutt, 2000)
In 1929, fire season burned thousands of acres of AG watershed in Lopez, Clapboard, Tar Springs, and Phoenix
canyons.
In 1930, Plowed Hillside Farms washed out with every heavy rain; Corralitas, Corbett, Carpenter, and Oak Park
Canyons. Oak Park Canyon pea farmers have to build brush and straw dykes at the head of the slopes. Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) build drainage ditches and terraces to control runoff near Noyes Road and east of Printz
Road. CCC stabilized hills in Carpenter Canyon‐Poorman Canyon. (Honeycutt, 2000)
In 1957, US Forest Service Intensifies fire prevention steps in Los Padres National Service. (Honeycutt)
Early 1960s, Oceano wastewater treatment plant is constructed.
In 1961, construction of the flood control channel was finished.
In 1968, Lopez Dam completed; Dam filled to capacity and spills April 1969.
In 2001, Flood Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee convenes following March 2001 levee breaches.
Climate Change Considerations:
State climate change maps show sea level affecting the City of Grover Beach and town of Oceano with
inundation areas along Meadow Creek and the historic Los Berros Creek (USGS, Cal‐Adapt, viewed 2013).
See IRWM Plan, 2014 Section P. Climate Change
Critical Issues:
339BIssue:
Surface Water
Temperature
340BPotential Causes:
Lack of riparian canopy
341BReference:
CCSE, 2009
Santa Maria River Watershed C.7.2.5
Water Planning Area: 7 California Hydrologic Unit: 10 Area (acres): 33,205
Watershed ID: 25
Outflow Body of Water: Pacific Ocean
Major Water Bodies: Big Pocket Lake, Black Lake, Celery Lake, Little Oso Flaco Lake, Oso Flaco Lake
Item 8.m. - Page 72
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐111 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Existing Watershed Plans: Nipomo Creek Watershed Management Plan (Land Conservancy of SLO and
CCSE, 2005)
Santa Maria River Estuary Enhancement and management Plan (Dunes Center, 2004)
Description:
The Santa Maria River Watershed is located in
southern San Luis Obispo County and northern
Santa Barbara County. The watershed includes
the major tributaries of the Cuyama and
Sisquoc Rivers as well as a number of smaller
tributaries. The Santa Maria River
(downstream of the confluence with Cuyama
and Sisquoc Rivers) rises to a maximum
elevation of approximately 390 feet and flows
to the Pacific Ocean. Drainage in the watershed
is linked to the soils and geology with a dune lake complex, Black Lake Canyon slough, Oso Flaco
Creek and portions of the Santa Maria River within the County of San Luis Obispo.
The watershed is dominated by residential and agricultural land uses including ranches, row
crops, greenhouses and orchards. Other land uses include recreation and oil refinery.
Figure C‐40.Map of Santa Maria River Watershed
Item 8.m. - Page 73
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐112 Public Draft June 2014
Santa Maria River Watershed (10) Table C‐15.
Physical Setting:
342BRainfall:
15 – 17 inches (NRCS Precipitation
1981‐2010)
343BAir Temperature:
Summer Range (August 1981‐2010): 54°‐ 73°F
Winter Range (December 1981‐2010): 39°‐ 63°F
At Santa Maria Public Airport, CA. (NOAA National
Climatic Data Center, viewed 2013)
Hydrology:
344BStream Gage:
No; USGS 11141600 Los Berros C
Nr Nipomo Ca (1968‐1978,
discontinued); USGS 11141000
Santa Maria R A Guadalupe (1941
‐ 1987, discontinued).
Limited water quality data with
instantaneous discharge was
collected at USGS
350146120352501,Little Oso
Flaco Lake Near Guadalupe CA
(years unknown, active); USGS
350121120351301 Unnamed Trib
To Oso Flaco Creek Near
Guadalupe Ca (2008‐08‐
06,active); USGS
350059120351501 Oso Flaco CA
Oso Flaco Lake Rd Near
Guadalupe Ca (2008‐08‐06,
active); USGS 345945120341301
Oso Flaco C A Hwy 1 Near
Guadalupe Ca (2008‐08‐
06,active); USGS
345955120330901, Oso Flaco C
1.0 Mi Us Of Hwy 1 Near
Guadalupe Ca (dates unknown,
active); USGS
350001120261101,Nipomo CA
Hwy 101 Bridge Ca (1975‐02‐
12,inactive)
345BHydrology Models:
Yes; for Santa Maria River Estuary (Dunes Center,
2004).
346BPeak Flow:
No source identified for Black
Lake Canyon.
Overall average annual discharge
[for Oso Flaco Creek] measured
over rain years 2009, 2010, 2011
is 2,062.25 million gallons for Site
OFC 20. The highest monthly
average flow was 17.46 cfs (A&M,
347BBase Flow:
No source identified for Black Lake Canyon.
Overall average annual discharge [for Oso Flaco
Creek] measured over rain years 2009, 2010, 2011
is 2,062.25 million gallons for Site OFC 20. The
lowest monthly average flow was 5.12 cfs for Site
OFC20. (A&M, 2012).
The Guadalupe gage (USGS 11141000) [on the
Item 8.m. - Page 74
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐113 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Santa Maria River Watershed (10) Table C‐15.
2012). Santa Maria River] record from 1941–1987
reported periods every year of continuous zero
discharge, some up to 3 years in duration
(Stillwater Sciences, 2012).
348BFlood Reports:
Yes; Nipomo Drainage and Flood Control Study (SLO County, 2004); No sources identified for Black Lake
Canyon, Oso Flaco or Santa Maria River areas.
The [Nipomo] Mesa’s undulating topography creates numerous depressions, including low spots having no
outflow drainage paths, which lead to a high incidence of localized ponding (SLO County FCWCD, 2009).
Large portions of the Oso Flaco Creek subwatershed are within the FEMA 100‐year flood zone; connecting
to the Santa Maria River in large events. Flood risk is localized in the Black Lake Canyon area (FEMA, Flood
Maps).
349BFlood Control Structures:
No source identified
350BAreas of Heightened Flood Risk:
No source identified
Water Supply:
351BWater Management Entities:
Nipomo Community Services
District; Rural Water Company;
Golden State Water Company;
Woodlands Water Company;
about 29 small purveyors are on
the Nipomo Mesa (LAFCO, 2010).
352BGroundwater:
Yes; alluvial and Santa Maria River Valley (SLO
County, 2012)
353BSurface Water:
No public reservoirs.
354BImported Water:
Planned; supplemental water from Santa Maria
which is blended state water and groundwater
(Douglas Wood & Ass., 2009).
355BRecycled/Desalinated Water:
Yes; Woodlands Wastewater
Treatment Plant for irrigation of
golf course; Desalinated water is
not currently used but is being
explored (LAFCO, 2010).
356BInfiltration Zones:
No source identified
Flora And Fauna:
357BVegetation Cover:
Primarily agricultural land and coastal beaches and dunes with some central coastal scrub (sagebrush and heather
goldenbush), coast live oak forest, coastal and valley freshwater marsh and urban land (SLO County, vegetation
shapefile, 1990).
Grassland, coastal dune scrub/chaparral, riparian/freshwater marsh, cypress/eucalyptus (Morro Group, 1996).
Dune wetlands and riparian vegetation are present in backdunes and along dune lakes in this watershed (Althouse
and Meade, 2013).
358BInvasive Species:
Eucalyptus, Giant reed, Cape ivy, Perennial pepperweed, Hoary cress, bull thistle, non‐native grasslands (Dunes
Center, 2004).
359BSteelhead Streams:
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 75
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐114 Public Draft June 2014
Santa Maria River Watershed (10) Table C‐15.
Santa Maria River (NMFS, 2005)
360BFish Passage Barriers:
Road Crossing Unnamed tributary to Santa Maria River, Unknown Status, PAD # 731125; Black Lake Canyon and
Hwy 1 Culvert, Unknown Status, PAD # 731671. (CDFW Passage Assessment Database, 2013)
361BHabitat Conservation Plans:
None. (USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, viewed 2013)
Land Use:
362BJurisdictions & Local Communities:
Nipomo Community Services
District
363B% Urbanized:
27%
364B% Agricultural:
37%
365B% Other:
36%
366BPlanning Areas:
South County Inland, South
County Coastal
367BPotential growth areas:
Nipomo Mesa
368BFacilities Present:
Private wells and septic systems;
small water companies include
Rural Water Company, Mesa
Dunes Mobile home Estates, La
Mesa Water Company and Las
Flores Water Company and
others.
369BCommercial Uses:
Proposed oil processing facilities, agriculture
including greenhouses, row crops, cattle grazing,
recreation
Demographics:
370BPopulation:
13,720 in watershed (U.S. Census
Block, 2010)
371BRace and Ethnicity:
63.9% Caucasian (8,775), 2.5% Asian (349), 30.1%
Latino (4,128), 3.5% Other (U.S. Census Block,
2010)
372BIncome:
MHI $56,538 (U.S. Census Tract,
2010)
373BDisadvantaged Communities:
No; 7% of individuals are below poverty in the
watershed
Other Unique Characteristics:
374BHistorical Resource:
No source identified
375BArcheological Resource:
There are a number of archaeological sites in the [Nipomo] area which are large but of a low density (Morro Group,
1996).
376BOther Resource:
No source identified
Major Changes in the Watershed:
Nipomo Creek, during the Pliocene Epoch, flowed to the north joining Los Berros Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek.
During the Quaternary period of the Holocene Epoch, rapid melting of glaciers caused changes in sea levels and
rapid migration of shoreline dunes inland blocking the flow of Nipomo Creek. The blockage created shallow lakes
which broke thought the dunes of the Nipomo Mesa creating Black Lake Canyon. Further encroachment of sand
eventually blocked this direct seaward exist of Nipomo. The subsequent build up of water in Nipomo valley found
its weakest point to exit through a southern route becoming a tributary of the Santa Maria watershed
(Ardoin/Bishop, 2004)
9,000 years. Most of the recorded cultural sites occur on the bluff of the mesa overlooking several creeks and in the
, Continued
Item 8.m. - Page 76
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐188 Public Draft June 2014
MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE C.8
This section describes the major infrastructure that provides water to the San Luis Obispo
IRWM Plan Region. Many of the projects covered in this section have been presented in their
respective WPA or watershed above. Provided herein is a short description of the larger
regional water‐related infrastructure, their purpose, and capacity.
Regional water‐related infrastructure refers to the infrastructure used to provide water
throughout the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region. This includes raw surface water transmission
lines and reservoirs. 0 shows the major conveyance and storage facilities.
C.8.1 Nacimiento Water Project
The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (now known as the
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA)) constructed the Nacimiento Dam in
1956. The dam and reservoir continue to be operated by MCWRA. The lake has a capacity of
377,900 acre‐feet (AF) and a surface area of 5,727 acres. Water is collected from a 365 square
mile watershed that is comprised of grazing lands and rugged wilderness.
In 1959, the District secured the rights to 17,500 AFY from Lake Nacimiento, with 1,750 AFY
reserved for lakeside users and the Heritage Ranch Community Services District (Heritage Ranch
CSD). After a long series of studies and negotiations, the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) was
initiated in 2004 with the District’s Board of Supervisors adopting the Final Environmental
Impact Report. The NWP is the single largest project that the District has ever undertaken. The
total project cost, including administration, design, construction, construction management,
environmental permitting, and right‐of‐way, was approximately $174 million (project budget
was $176 million). Water deliveries began in 2011. The project delivers raw lake water from
Lake Nacimiento to communities within San Luis Obispo County. The current participating
entities and their contracted water amounts are listed below in Table C‐32.
Nacimiento Project Allocations Table C‐32.
Nacimiento Water Project Participants Allocations (AFY)
City of Paso Robles 4,000
Templeton CSD 250
City of San Luis Obispo 3,380
Atascadero Mutual Water Company 2,000
CSA 10 A (via exchange)1 25
Total 9,655
Notes:
1. See Whale Rock Reservoir Operating Agreements.
Item 8.m. - Page 77
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐190 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐57
.
M
a
j
o
r
Wa
t
e
r
Co
n
v
e
y
a
n
c
e
an
d
St
o
r
a
g
e
Item 8.m. - Page 78
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐193 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
exchange for CSA 10A’s purchase of an equivalent amount of Nacimiento Water for
delivery to the City. The anticipated need for CSA 10A is 25 AFY at build‐out.
C.8.3 Lopez Lake/Reservoir
The District completed the Lopez Dam in 1968 to provide a reliable water supply for agricultural
and municipal needs as well as flood protection for coastal communities. Lopez Reservoir has a
capacity of 49,388 AF. The lake covers 950 acres and has 22 miles of oak covered shoreline.
Allocations for Lopez Lake water are based on a percentage of the safe yield of the reservoir,
which is 8,730 AFY. Of that amount, 4,530 AFY are for pipeline deliveries and 4,200 AFY are
reserved for downstream releases. The dam, terminal reservoir, treatment and conveyance
facilities are a part of Flood Control Zone 3 (Zone 3).
The agencies that contract for Lopez water in Zone 3 include the communities of Oceano,
Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and County Service Area (CSA) 12 (including the
Avila Beach area). Their allocations are shown in the table below.
Lopez Lake Allocations Table C‐35.
Water Users Allocation (AFY)
City of Pismo Beach 896
Oceano CSD 303
City of Grover Beach 800
City of Arroyo Grande 2,290
CSA 12 241
Total 4,530
Two issues could change the amount of water available to contractors and the safe yield. The
Arroyo Grande Habitat Conservation Plan, which is currently being developed, will likely require
additional downstream releases. Changes in operation of the dam are being considered for
reducing spills and optimizing future deliveries. Additionally, the City of Pismo Beach, on behalf
of the Zone 3 agencies, has taken the lead on conducting a study to consider the feasibility of
modifying the dam to augment capacity of the reservoir.
C.8.4 Santa Margarita Lake/Salinas Reservoir
The Salinas Dam was built in 1941 by the War Department to supply water to Camp San Luis
Obispo and, secondarily, to meet the water needs of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Salinas
Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) captures water from a 112 square mile watershed and can
currently store up to 23,843 acre‐feet (AF). In 1947, the Salinas Dam and delivery system was
transferred from the regular Army to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Shortly thereafter, the
District began operating this water supply for the City under a lease from the U.S. Army Corps
Item 8.m. - Page 79
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐195 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Camp San Luis Obispo has priority rights to water from Chorro Reservoir, with 140 AFY of
entitlement. CMC has right to any excess. The Mainini Ranch has an agreement with the Camp
for a delivery of up to 25 AFY, but has only used an average of 5 to 7 AFY over the past decade.
For further discussion on agreements related to the Chorro Reservoir, see the description of the
Chorro Valley Water System in the Water Planning Area Number 4 discussion below.
C.8.6 State Water Project Facilities
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) owns and operates the State Water
Project (SWP). In 1963 the District contracted with DWR for 25,000 AFY of State Water. The
SWP began delivering water to the Central Coast in 1997 upon completion of the Coastal
Branch conveyance and treatment facilities, serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
Counties.
The treatment facility for State Water delivered through the Coastal Branch, known as the
Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant (PPWTP), is owned, operated and maintained by the
Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) for users in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.
DWR owns the Coastal Branch transmission system, and they operate and maintain the raw
water portion of the system. CCWA operates and maintains the treated water portion of the
Coastal Branch. Agreements between CCWA, Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District and DWR are in place to establish these roles and relationships.
Improving the Delta C.8.6.1
The RWMG MOU (Exhibit 4) includes the need to update the Plan to comply with new State
guidelines. Since the new State guidelines include eligibility standards for including addressing
reduction in dependence on Delta water in the Plan, future updates to the Region’s Plan retain
applicable goals and objectives.
Additionally, San Luis Obispo County’s Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the
General Plan includes Water Resources Policy 1.3, which says use of reclaimed water,
interagency cooperative projects, desalination of contaminated groundwater supplies, and
groundwater recharge projects should be considered prior to using imported sources of water
or seawater desalination, or dams and on‐stream reservoirs. Per Provision 4 of the MOU, the
District is the lead agency for the RWMG, and the WRAC is both the main advisor to the RWMG
and made up of RWMG members. The WRAC reviewed and commented on the update to the
COSE on September 2, 2009, with no changes recommended. Therefore, updates of the
Region’s Plan will retain the goals for reducing dependence on imported water independent of
State guidelines and eligibility requirements.
Item 8.m. - Page 80
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐196 Public Draft June 2014
C.8.7 Morro Bay Desalination Plant
In the County, there is only one operating desalination facility, that being the City of Morro
Bay's desalination plant. In the past, the Morro Bay has used the salt water reverse osmosis
(SWRO) treatment plant to treat water from saltwater wells and to remove nitrates from fresh
water wells. Recently the Morro Bay completed the installation of two 450 gallons per minute
(gpm) brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO) treatment trains. The addition of these
treatment processes will enable the Morro Bay to treat both fresh water and salt water wells
simultaneously, and will also reduce the energy usage of the facility as well. The SWRO trains
are designed to produce approximately 645 AFY of potable water from sea water. The BWRO
system is capable of treating the entire 581 AF of Morro Basin groundwater that the Morro Bay
can extract by permit.
The original capital cost for the BWRO system in 2003 was about $3.1 million. The operating
costs for the facility vary widely depending on the amount the Morro Bay operates the plant.
Based on a nearly continuous operation, the costs are about $1,700 per acre foot, including
replacement of membranes and some appurtenances on a 5‐year cycle. With energy recovery
equipment installed at a capital outlay of about $1 million, the operational cost for water would
drop into the $1,100 ‐$1,300 per acre foot range.
C.8.8 Other Desalination Projects
The Cambria CSD has been striving to develop a seawater desalination plant to meet existing
and future water demands. This plant, if implemented, is expected to produce up to 602 AFY.
This plant will operate during the summer season to augment supply during the summer and
high demand period (from summer tourism). A recycled water system is also planned, with an
estimated 180 AFY made available for unrestricted irrigation use.
The City of Arroyo Grande, the City of Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services
District participated in the evaluation of a desalination project to supplement their existing
potable water sources. Currently, all three agencies receive water from various sources,
including the California State Water Project, Lopez Lake Reservoir, and groundwater from the
Arroyo Grande Plain Hydrologic Subarea that is part of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater
Basin. Recent projections of water supply shortfalls in the region motivated the agencies to
conduct a more detailed study of desalination as a supplemental water supply. The study
focused on utilizing the existing South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District’s (SSLOCSD)
wastewater treatment plant to take advantage of utilizing the existing ocean outfall, while
having the plant located near the ocean seawater source. The feasibility study, completed in
Item 8.m. - Page 81
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐197 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
2008, was based on a 2,300 AFY seawater desalination facility. Some of the major points of
interest and concern of this study include:
Some 20 or more beach wells may be needed to provide enough seawater to
produce the 2,300 AFY potable water.
Permitting and environmental issues could be complex, and implementation could
take 8 years or longer.
Initial capital cost could be in the range of $35 million, and customer rates could be impacted
by 18 percent to over 100 percent to fund the project, and would cost in the neighborhood of
$2,300 per AF or more, on a 20‐year life cycle basis.
CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS C.9
This section summarizes current water quality conditions for surface water and groundwater
bodies in the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region. Surface water quality is summarized by the
watershed name, timing of conditions, the pollutants that exceed the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) according to Section 303(d) of the California Clean Water Act, potential pollution
sources. Groundwater quality is summarized by groundwater basin name, estimated safe basin
yield, Federal drinking water standard exceedance, and Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board water quality objective exceedance. Finally, summaries of the available basin
management plans are provided.
The information presented in this section was gathered and aggregated from the Watershed
Snap Shots.
Item 8.m. - Page 82
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐200 Public Draft June 2014
Basin Plans (By Watershed) C.9.1.3
North Coast Basin Plans Table C‐37.
Watershed Name Plan Title Plan Author Plan
Year
Santa Rosa Creek Santa Rosa Creek Watershed Management Plan Greenspace Cambria 2010
Cambria Forest Management Plan Greenspace Cambria 2002
Arroyo Grande
Creek
Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management
Plan
CCSE 2009
Coastal Irish Hills Irish Hills Coastal Watershed Conservation Plan Coastal Conservancy 2011
Morro Bay Morro Bay Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan
MBNEP 2013
Pismo Creek Pismo Creek/ Edna Area Watershed Management
Plan
CCSE 2009
Santa Maria River Estuary Enhancement and
management Plan
Dunes Center 2004
San Luis Obispo
Creek
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Enhancement
Plan
The Land Conservancy of San Luis
Obispo County
2002
Prefumo Creek Watershed Management Plan City of San Luis Obispo 2014
C.9.2 North County
Watershed Health C.9.2.1
Watershed Ephemeral /
Perennial 303d Listed/ TMDLs
Black Sulfur Spring
Watershed Perennial None
Soda Lake Ephemeral
(wiki) Ammonia
Upper San Juan Creek Unknown None
Middle Salinas‐Atascadeo Perennial Chloride, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen,
and Sodium. TMDL estimated date of completion 2021.
Santa Margarita Lake –
South Salinas Unknown Sodium, Chloride
Paso Robles Creek – North
Salinas River
Intermittent
Perennial Sodium, Chloride
Cholame Creek Perennial Boron, Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Escherichia coli
(E. coli), Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Sodium
Estrella River Ephemeral Boron, Chloride, Fecal Coliform, Sodium, pH
Huer Huero Unknown None
Indian Valley Unknown Sodium, Chloride
Lower San Juan Creek Unknown None
Nacimiento River Perennial Mercury, Metals
Item 8.m. - Page 83
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐201 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Groundwater Quality C.9.2.2
North County Groundwater Quality Table C‐38.
Groundwater
Basin Estimated Safe Yield Drinking Water Standard Exceedance Water Quality Objective Exceedance
Carrizo Plain 8000‐11,000 AF
(Carollo, 2012)
Yes; see description below. Exceeds usable mineral quality for total
dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, boron,
sodium, and nitrogen (CCRWQB, 2011).
Paso Robles 97,700 AF (SLO County
RCS, 2011).
Yes; see description below. None (CCRWQCB, 2011
Big Spring Area None (Carollo, 2012) None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011
Rafael Valley None (Carollo, 2012) None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011
Atascadero None (Carollo, 2012) The 2008 Water Quality
Report for both Templeton CSD and
Atascadero MWC found that none of
the tested regulated and secondary
substances in water samples
exceeded their MCL values (Carollo,
2012)
None (CCRWQCB, 2011)
Rinconada None (Carollo, 2012) None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011)
Pozo Valley 1,000 AFY (DWR 1958;
Carollo, 2012)
None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011)
Santa
Margarita
Basin
400‐600AFY (SLO
County, 2008)
Cholame
Valley
No data available None None (CCRWQCB, 2011)
Basin Plans (By Watershed) C.9.2.3
North County Basin Plans Table C‐39.
Watershed Name Plan Title Plan Author Plan
Year
Indian Valley Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan US‐LTRCD 2004
Camp Roberts Integrated National Resources
Management Plan
Camp Roberts
JLUS
2013
Nacimiento River San Antonio and Nacimiento Rivers Watershed
Management Plan
MCWRA 2008
Camp Roberts Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan
Camp Roberts
JLUS
2013
North Salinas River, Middle Salinas River,
South Salinas River
Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan US‐LT RCD 2004
Item 8.m. - Page 84
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐202 Public Draft June 2014
C.9.3 South County
Watershed Health C.9.3.1
Watershed Ephemeral /
Perennial 303d Listed/ TMDLs
Coastal Irish Hills No source
identified. Not assessed. (SWRCB, 2010)
San Luis Obispo Creek Perennial,
Ephemeral
Chloride, Chlorpyrifos, Nitrate, Nutrients, Pathogens, Sodium, Fecal Coliform,
Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate, Turbidity,
Arroyo Grande Creek Perennial,
Ephemeral E coli., Fecal Coliform, Chloride, Nitrate, Sodium
Nipomo – Suey Creeks Perennial Fecal Coliform, Nitrate, Unknown Toxicity
Pismo Creek Perennial,
Ephemeral Chloride, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen, and Sodium
Santa Maria River Perennial,
Ephemeral
Ammonia, Chloride, Fecal Coliform, Nitrate, Sediment Toxicity, Sodium,
Unknown Toxicity, Chloride, Chlorpyrifos, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, E. coli,
Toxaphene, Turbidity
Alamo Creek Perennial Fecal Coliform
Huasna River No source
identified. Not assessed. (SWRCB, 2010)
Cuyama River Ephemeral for Boron, Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Fecal Coliform, pH, Sodium
Black Sulfur Spring
Watershed Perennial None
Soda Lake Ephemeral
(wiki) Ammonia
Cholame Creek Perennial Boron, Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Fecal Coliform,
Low Dissolved Oxygen, Sodium
Estrella River Ephemeral Boron, Chloride, Fecal Coliform, Sodium, pH
Huer Huero Unknown None
Salinas River Unknown Sodium, Chloride
Nacimiento River Perennial Mercury, Metals
North Salinas River Intermittent
Perennial Sodium, Chloride
Lower San Juan Creek Unknown None
Upper San Juan Creek Unknown None
Middle Salinas‐Atascadeo Perennial Chloride, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen, and Sodium. TMDL
estimated date of completion 2021.
South Salinas Unknown Sodium, Chloride
Item 8.m. - Page 85
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐203 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Groundwater Quality C.9.3.2
South County Groundwater Quality Table C‐40.
Groundwater
Basin Estimated Safe Yield Drinking Water Standard Exceedance
Water Quality
Objective
Exceedance
San Luis Obispo
Valley
6,000 AFY (SLO County, Master
Water Report, 2012)
See sub‐basins. (SLO County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
No.(RWQCB, Table
3‐8, 2011)
San Luis Obispo
Valley – Avila
Valley Subbasin
No basin yield numbers have
been published (SLO County,
Master Water Report, 2012)
No. (SLO County, Master Water Report, 2012)
No objective for
sub‐basin.
(RWQCB, Table 3‐
8, 2011)
San Luis Obispo
Valley – Edna
Valley Subbasin
4,000 AFY (DWR, 1997) (SLO
County, Master Water Report,
2012)
No. (SLO County, Master Water Report, 2012)
No objective for
sub‐basin.
(RWQCB, Table 3‐
8, 2011)
San Luis Obispo
Valley – Pismo
Creek Valley
Subbasin
200 AFY, although this is before
any consideration for
environmental habitat demand
(Fugro, 2009). (SLO County,
Master Water Report, 2012)
Yes; see description below. (SLO County, Master
Water Report, 2012)
No for basin. No
objective for
subbasin.
(RWQCB, 2011)
San Luis Obispo
Valley – San Luis
Valley Subbasin
2,000 AFY (DWR, 1997) (SLO
County, Master Water Report,
2012)
Yes; see description below. (SLO County, Master
Water Report, 2012)
No objective for
sub‐basin.
(RWQCB, Table 3‐
8, 2011)
Arroyo Grande
Valley Subbasin
No estimated safe yield value
reported. (San Luis Obispo
County, Master Water Report,
2012)
Yes; see description below. (San Luis Obispo
County, Master Water Report, 2012)
No. No objective
for subbasin.
(RWQCB, Basin
Plan, Table 3‐8,
2011)
Santa Maria
Valley – Nipomo
Valley Subbasin
No existing yield. (San Luis
Obispo County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
No. (San Luis Obispo County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
No objective for
subbasin.
(RWQCB, Table 3‐
8, 2011)
Northern Cities
Management
Area of Santa
Maria Valley
Basin
4,000 AFY (DWR, 1997) Yes; see description below. (San Luis Obispo
County, Master Water Report, 2012)
No. No objective
for subbasin.
(RWQCB, Basin
Plan, Table 3‐8,
2011)
Santa Maria
Valley‐ Nipomo
Mesa
Management
Area
4,800‐6,000 AFY(San Luis
Obispo County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
No. (San Luis Obispo County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
Yes. (RWQCB,
Table 3‐8, 2011)
Santa Maria
Valley ‐ Orcutt
Sub‐basin
Unknown. (San Luis Obispo
County, Master Water Report,
2012)
Unknown. (San Luis Obispo County, Master
Water Report, 2012)
*Santa Maria
Valley ‐ Orcutt
Sub‐basin
Santa Maria
Valley – Santa
Maria
Management
Area (portion)
124,000 AFY Safe Yield in the
San Luis Obispo County portion
of the Santa Maria Valley,
reported as dependable yield,
was estimated between 11,100
AFY and 13,000 AFY prior to the
formal establishment of the
SMVMA (DWR 2002).
124,000 AFY Safe Yield in the San Luis Obispo
County portion of the Santa Maria Valley,
reported as dependable yield, was estimated
between 11,100 AFY and 13,000 AFY prior to the
formal establishment of the SMVMA (DWR
2002).
*Santa Maria
Valley – Santa
Maria
Management Area
(portion)
Item 8.m. - Page 86
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐204 Public Draft June 2014
South County Groundwater Quality Table C‐40.
Groundwater
Basin Estimated Safe Yield Drinking Water Standard Exceedance
Water Quality
Objective
Exceedance
Santa Maria
Valley Basin
Adjudicated. (San Luis Obispo
County, Master Water Report,
2012)
Yes. (RWQCB,
Table 3‐8, 2011)
Huasna Valley
Basin
No existing data. (San Luis
Obispo County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
No historical water quality data. (San Luis Obispo
County, Master Water Report, 2012)
No objective for
the basin.
(RWQCB,
Table 3‐8, 2011)
Cuyama Valley ‐
Cuyama Valley
Basin (portion)
10,667 AFY (San Luis Obispo
County, Master Water Report,
2012)
10,667 AFY (San Luis Obispo County, Master
Water Report, 2012)
Cuyama Valley ‐
Cuyama Valley
Basin (portion)
Cuyama Valley
Basin
9,000 ‐ 13,000 AFY (San Luis
Obispo County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
Yes; (San Luis Obispo County, Master Water
Report, 2012)
No. (RWQCB,
Table 3‐8, 2011)
Santa Rosa Valley
2,260 AFY (Cambria County
Water District, 1976; Carollo,
2012)
Chloride content increased more than ten times
from 80 ppm in 1955 to 933 ppm in 1975.
Background chloride concentrations typically
ranged from 30 to 270 ppm. One well had a
concentration of 1,925 ppm in November 1961.
The Santa Rosa Creek management plan also
reports corrosivity effects by water supplies and
natural or industrial influenced balance of
hydrogen, carbon and oxygen in the water which
is affected by temperature and other factors.
Groundwater is found in alluvial deposits with an
average specific yield of 17%. Groundwater is
unconfined and generally flows westward. (Ca.
Dept of Water Resources, 2003)
Holocene‐aged alluvial deposits consist of
unconsolidated sand, clay, silt, and gravel of
primarily fluvial origin. Commonly, the deposits
are about 100 feet thick beneath the center of
the valley and more than 120 feet thick at the
coast (Ca. Dept. of Water Resources, 2003)
None, CCRWQB,
2011
Toro Valley 532 AF (Carollo, 2012) None. No (CCRWQCB,
2011)
Villa Valley 1,000 AFY (DWR 1958; Carollo,
2012)) None. (Carollo, 2012) None, CCRWQB,
2011
Basin Plans (By Watershed) C.9.3.3
South County Basin Plans Table C‐41.
Watershed Name Plan Title Plan Author Plan Year
Suey Creeks Nipomo Creek Watershed Management Plan Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo and CCSE 2005
Santa Maria River Nipomo Creek Watershed Management Plan Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo and CCSE 2005
C.9.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement Needs [to be populated if data
provided]
Item 8.m. - Page 87
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐217 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Management Issues for the North County Sub‐Region Table C‐46.
Watershed Issue Potential Causes
Limited groundwater quality
information – Cholame Valley
basin
No yield information and
limited hydrogeologic
information for Cholame Basin
Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron
Estrella River Significant water level declines
Range of groundwater uses in close proximity, including
agricultural irrigation, municipal supply wells, golf course
irrigation, and a relatively dense aggregation of rural
“ranchette”) users
Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron
Huer Huero Creek Significant water level declines
Range of groundwater uses in close proximity, including
agricultural irrigation, municipal supply wells, golf course
irrigation, and a relatively dense aggregation of rural
“ranchette”) users
Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron
Indian Valley Significant water level declines
Range of groundwater uses in close proximity, including
agricultural irrigation, municipal supply wells, golf course
irrigation, and a relatively dense aggregation of rural
“ranchette”) users
Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron
Lower San Juan Creek Significant water level declines
Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron
Nacimiento Significant water level declines
Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron
C.11.3 South County
Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region Table C‐47.
Watershed Issue Potential Causes
Coastal Irish Hills
Residential development; loss of
habitat Construction of growth inducing infrastructure
Agricultural development; loss of
habitat
Sedimentation and loss of riparian
cover Overgrazing
Proliferation of non‐native species Recreational uses
Habitat degradation Recreational uses
San Luis Obispo Creek
Riparian Vegetation / Buffer
Quality (Lack of riparian canopy) Removal of riparian vegetation by landowners and livestock
Surface Water Nutrients and
Dissolved Oxygen Agriculture, municipal, lack of riparian canopy
Surface Water Temperature Lack of riparian canopy
Surface Water Pathogens Described in TMDL for Pathogens (RWQCB, 2004)
Surface Water Treated Effluent City of San Luis Obispo’s Wastewater Facility discharged
Surface Water Priority Organics Unknown
Surface Water Quantity Natural, diversions (permitted and unpermitted), evaporation,
and exotic plants
Instream Fish Habitat Lack of riparian canopy and instream shelter, sedimentation of
stream cobble
Fish Passage Barriers Roads, culverts, other instream structures
Item 8.m. - Page 88
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐218 Public Draft June 2014
Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region Table C‐47.
Watershed Issue Potential Causes
Streambank Stability (Erosion) Development encroachment, channel incision, vegetation
removal, overgrazing, agriculture, roads and utility construction
Upland Erosion and
Sedimentation
Vegetation removal, intensified grazing, unpaved roads, and
disturbance associated with construction
Exotic Plant Species None identified.
Non‐Native Fish – Carp and
Chinook Salmon None identified.
Debris Accumulation garbage, residential, commercial and agricultural products
Flooding Natural, increased impervious areas, encroachment on
floodplain
Arroyo Grande Creek
Surface Water Temperature Lack of riparian canopy
Surface Water Nutrients and
Dissolved Oxygen Increase in urban land use
Surface flow Quantity Natural, groundwater diversions, impoundment
Groundwater Quantity (Not IDed in WMP but can be inferred)
Fish Passage Barriers Road crossings, culverts, dams and other structures
Erosion and Sedimentation
Natural, “hungry water” from dam release, lowering base flow
level of mainstem, increased impervious areas, unvegetated
roads and fields
Flood Management Loss of floodplain and encroachment of development
Nipomo ‐ Suey Creeks
Flooding Development in 100 year flood hazard zone, improperly sized
culverts, lack of maintenance of existing drainage structures
Habitat Fragmentation Development
Surface Water Quality Erosion, Sedimentation, bacteria from wildlife, domestic
animals/livestock and urban areas, nutrients from
Invasive species
Pismo Creek
Surface Water Temperature Lack of riparian canopy
Surface Water Nutrients and
Dissolved Oxygen Agriculture, increased runoff due to development
Ocean Water Quality – Fecal
coliform
Birds, domestic animal waste, faulty septic systems, homeless
encampments
Surface flow Quantity Natural, groundwater diversions, impoundment
Groundwater Quantity Physical limitations, production
Fish Passage Barriers Multiple sites inaccessible to fish traffic
Erosion and Sedimentation Drought/storm years weaken banks, agricultural practices
Flood Management Development in floodplains
Santa Maria River
Effects of Cattle grazing Unknown Limited Study
Impaired surface water quality Grazing, crop land
Occurrence of endangered or
threatened species on private
land and potential for incidental
take.
None
Lack of data on plant and wildlife
species. Limited study
Vegetation in the channel
concentrates and diverts flows,
and causes erosion and flooding
of low‐lying areas.
Vegetation in the channel
Land use practices on [Santa
Maria River] study reach and dune
parcels may be incompatible with
plan goals
Limited land available for enhancement
Presence of levees that restrict or
otherwise modify flows, flow
channels, and sediment transport
Levees along Santa Maria River
Item 8.m. - Page 89
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐219 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region Table C‐47.
Watershed Issue Potential Causes
corridors
Invasive riparian plant species that
establish in the [Santa Maria
River] study reach may impede
flood flows, interfere with
agricultural operations, cause
ecological degradation, and
spread into adjacent habitats
Invasive riparian plants
Sediment accretion in the [Santa
Maria River] study reach and
erosion along the shoreline
Twitchell dam changes to sediment transport
Run‐off from urban areas
contributes nitrates and other
pollutants into the [Santa Maria
River] study reach
Urban
Oso Flaco Lake – DDT and dieldrinUndetermined, sediment
Alamo Creek
Erosion – Upland Not identified.
Sedimentation of Twitchell
Reservoir Natural and upland erosion primarily from Cuyama River
Huasna River Sedimentation of Twitchell Dam Natural and upland erosion primarily from Cuyama River.
Cuyama River
Sedimentation of Twitchell
Reservoir Natural and upland erosion
Groundwater Supplies Natural, water extraction
CLIMATE CHANGE C.12
The following information is based on analysis conducted for the Watershed Snap Shots. Based
on a set of climate scenarios prepared for the California Energy Commission, Cayan et al. (2009)
project that, under medium to medium‐high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, mean sea
level along the California coast will rise from 3 to 5 feet (1–1.4 m) by the year 2100. In the Santa
Rosa Creek watershed, such a rise in sea‐level would put new areas at risk of flooding, increase
the likelihood and intensity of floods in areas that are already at risk, and accelerate shoreline
recession due to erosion (Heberger et al. 2009). Many Coastal residents are elderly and depend
on transportation (and evacuation) routes that are at risk from erosion, flooding, wildfires, and
landslides. Coastal habitats may experience increased sedimentation in marshes, estuaries and
streams, a decline in number of coastal birds, sea water intrusion into estuaries, creeks and
wells, decline of rare habitats, marine and nearshore marine species threatened by acidification
of ocean waters and changes in ocean currents, changes in fog patterns could lead to loss of
coastal oak (elfin) forests. Freshwater and riparian systems will be affected by increased
groundwater pumping and dam building (ClimateWise, 2010).
Additional information related to the potential climate change impacts related to the IRWM
Plan can be found in Chapter P ‐ Mitigating or Adapting to Climate Change.
Item 8.m. - Page 90
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐220 Public Draft June 2014
IRWM PLAN REGIONAL ISSUES AND CONFLICTS C.13
DWR IRWM Guidelines require a description of the major water management issues and
conflicts within the region, including clear identification of problems within the region that
focus the objectives, implementation strategies, and implementation projects that ultimately
provide resolution. The IRWM Plan seeks to resolve and/or reduce conflicts among water users
in the SLO Region, and to anticipate and avoid future conflicts. Conflicts cannot be resolved
without a recognition and clear understanding of the problems that drive them. Conflicts and
issues within the SLO Region have historical, geographic, technical, and institutional
components, and center around three main areas: 1) groundwater management; 2)
environmental stewardship while fostering planned urban growth; and 3) low income and DAC
needs. These changes have resulted in a planning environment that is realizing how to operate
under a new paradigm.
Regional water management conflicts within the San Luis Obispo Region can arise where
inconsistencies between proposed water management strategies and watershed objectives
exist. Recognizing these inconsistencies is a step toward cooperative planning that will aid in
the prioritization of integrated water management strategies for the region and will allow the
regional water managers to minimize and resolve potential conflicts.
Identifying these conflicts early in the process and working together to develop solutions to
minimize or eliminate the conflict could result in a mutually acceptable or enhanced solution
that furthers the goals and objectives of the originally conflicted parties. Through the IRWM
Plan collaborative efforts, it is envisioned that the stakeholder process will bring together
conflicting parties, foster conflict understanding and discussion, provide a forum for conflict
resolution, build consensus, and identify mutually beneficial strategies. Ultimately, the hope is
to mitigate conflict to the extent practicable while optimizing the potential for integrated
strategies with multiple benefits.
Resolution of conflicts will be a critical task in the implementation of the IRWM Plan.
Groundwater and its sustainability amongst the 36 active groundwater basins has been the
center of much conflict resulting in various forms of groundwater management and governance
bodies. It is the intent of this plan to continue to address conflict and foster local control of
groundwater where resolution policies and programs are based on the use of high quality data
for groundwater elevations, quality and sustainability. Another major conflict exists to improve
fisheries and fisheries habitat. Generally, the fisheries projects are intended to maintain surface
water resources for fisheries benefits that can conflict with the beneficial use of those supplies
for municipal uses. Efforts will continue to be made to minimize the conflicts through education
and coordinated implementation for both uses throughout the SLO Region.
Item 8.m. - Page 91
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐221 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
With the ever increasing cost of water and the decreased availability, low income and DACs are
finding it difficult to stabilize water rates, maintain older water systems, meet new regulatory
standards, and find alternative supplies of water in drought conditions. The need to capture
and quantify these issues within this IRWM Plan is paramount to selecting the best projects (or
suite of projects) that will address these issues. Again, education is a big part of assisting DACs
in formulating what they want and prioritizing submitted projects.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS C.14
Historically, SLO County has moved in tandem with the state in regards to a few key economic
indicators. The historic unemployment rate has consistently been approximately two (2)
percent below the state unemployment rate over the last 20 years. While SLO County has
grown faster than the state since 1990, it has experienced similar trends in terms of job gains
and losses over the analyzed time‐period.10F
11 Table C‐48. outlines the recent population growth
from 2005 through 2012 and the anticipated growth through 2040.
San Luis Obispo County Population Data and Projections Table C‐48.
2005 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Cities 143,096 148,307 149,437 151,132 156,145 160,863 166,755 172,712
Unincorporated 98,775 104,324 105,575 107,452 113,789 118,982 125,467 132,023
Countywide 258,159 269,637 272,018 275,590 286,940 296,851 309,228 321,742
Source: AECOM for SLOCOG, July 2011
Note: Population projections include group quarters (estimated at 17,006 for 2010‐2040).
The regional, state, and national economic conditions influence migration flows significantly.
Furthermore, the perception of the place, housing market, available jobs, etc. will influence
people throughout the region, state, and nation to relocate in SLO County. As a result, the
economy in SLO County and the state are expected to grow slowly.11F
12
Since 1990, SLO County has averaged approximately 1,450 new dwelling units per year. The
medium estimate is below the 20‐year average, yielding an average of 1,340 and 1,160 units,
respectively.12F
13
Table C‐49 summarizes the economic conditions for places within the San Luis Obispo IRWM
Plan Region.
11 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared
for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011.
12 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared
for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011.
13 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared
for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011.
Item 8.m. - Page 92
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐222 Public Draft June 2014
Economic Characteristics for Selected Places within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region Table C‐49.
Census Designated Place Median Household
Income
Unemployment
Rate %
% Below Poverty
Level
Morro Bay city $53,585 3.7 11.6
Cambria CDP $72066 5.3 5.2
Los Osos CDP $56918 5.2 8.7
Arroyo Grande city $58725 7.2 5.9
Grover Beach city $49010 6 13.1
Pismo Beach city $63802 5.6 5.5
San Luis Obispo city $40812 8.5 31.3
Nipomo CDP $61495 8.7 9.4
Oceano CDP $39843 7.3 13.2
Atascadero city $65479 7.6 8.8
El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city $57459 7.6 10
San Miguel CDP (San Luis Obispo County) $42176 13.9 26.6
Santa Margarita CDP $60737 13.2 12.7
Shandon CDP $63920 11.5 21.9
Templeton CDP $69,426 4.8 4.8
San Luis Obispo County $56,967 5.1 13.1
Source: United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, “2008‐2010 American Community Survey 3‐Year
Estimates”. Accessed 06 December 2013.
C.14.1 State Designated Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)
For the Purposes of this IRWM Plan, a DAC is “a community with a median household income
less than 80% of the Statewide average”, which was $61,632 in 2010 according to the US
Census. San Miguel is a State designated DAC with a median household income (MHI) of
$42,176. Likewise, San Simeon is a State designated DAC with a median household income
(MHI) is $43,092. Figure C‐58 shows the DACs within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region.
Item 8.m. - Page 93
Public Draft June 2014 C‐223 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Fi
g
u
r
e
C‐58
.
D
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
by
Ce
n
s
u
s
Tr
a
c
t
an
d
Ce
n
s
u
s
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
Pl
a
c
e
Item 8.m. - Page 94
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐224 Public Draft June 2014
C.14.2 Projected Growth
Examining Census data since 1990, growth in SLO County has occurred mostly in Paso Robles
and Unincorporated areas of SLO County. These two areas have attracted approximately
75 percent of net new population growth over the last 20 years. It is anticipated this trend to
continue in the future, with the City of San Luis Obispo to attract more residents than its
historic norms. Other jurisdictions such as Grover Beach, Morro Bay, and Pismo Beach will
continue historic trends of low population growth. Forecast information is based on the work
conducted by AECOM, who analyzed California Department of Finance (DOF) data, the UCLA
Anderson Forecast, and the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE)
California County Projections (2009/10 Edition).13F
14
Based on the projections shown in the following table, buildout population would be reached
sometime after 2035.14F
15
The distribution of building permits in the unincorporated areas of the county has averaged
62% urban and 38% rural over the last 12 years as shown in the following table. The County
General Plan calls for directing development toward existing and strategically planned
communities. In addition, a key element of the San Luis Obispo Council of Government’s
Regional Transportation Plan – Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP‐PSCS) is to
encourage development in existing urbanized areas with access to existing businesses and
services.15F
16
A key consideration in integrated regional water resource management planning is
understanding the social and cultural makeup of the community. In U.S. EPA’s Office of
Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities guide, “Community Culture and the Environment: A
Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place”, EPA recommends profiling the community to
understand the community’s sense of place and shared community values. By understanding
the social and cultural makeup of the community, social equity can be achieved through
effective public participation and involvement in IRWM planning and implementation.
14 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared
for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011.
15 County of San Luis Obispo, 2010‐2012 Resource Summary Report San Luis Obispo County General Plan, 12 March
2013.
16 County of San Luis Obispo, 2010‐2012 Resource Summary Report San Luis Obispo County General Plan, 12 March
2013.
Item 8.m. - Page 95
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
Public Draft June 2014 C‐225 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
San Luis Obispo County Historic and Projected Population Table C‐50.
2000 2005 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
North Coast Urban Area
Morro Bay 10,152 10,338 10,073 10,100 10,152 10,244 10,482 10,778 11,078
Cambria 6,230 6,125 6,020 6,051 6,096 6,175 6,251 6,328 6,408
Cayucos 2,926 2,730 2,541 2,548 2,553 2,597 2,680 2,946 3,222
Los Osos 14,277 14,100 13,908 13,930 13,988 14,071 14,158 14,240 14,325
San Simeon 639 550 450 451 452 458 461 466 468
North Coast Total 34,224 33,843 32,992 33,080 33,241 33,545 34,032 34,758 35,501
South County Urban Area
Arroyo Grande 15,641 16,360 17,078 17,256 17,524 18,407 18,933 19,591 20,256
Grover Beach 12,941 15,954 12,967 13,037 13,142 13,432 13,684 13,999 14,317
Pismo Beach 8,524 8,083 7,642 7,688 7,757 7,954 8,216 8,545 8,876
San Luis Obispo 42,312 43,125 43,937 44,229 44,668 45,969 46,704 47,622 48,550
Avila Beach/Valley 833 1,149 1,464 1,482 1,508 1,624 1,699 1,830 2,020
Nipomo 12,612 13,940 15,267 15,450 15,725 16,752 17,852 18,875 19,926
Oceano 7,244 7,176 7,108 7,194 7,322 7,799 8,153 8,670 9,001
South Coast Total 100,107 105,787 105,463 106,336 107,646 111,937 115,241 119,132 122,946
North County Urban Area
Atascadero 24,945 25,966 26,986 27,138 27,366 28,003 28,940 30,109 31,292
Paso Robles 23,370 26,497 29,624 29,983 30,522 32,137 33,905 36,112 38,343
San Miguel 1,420 1,879 2,337 2,383 2,451 2,640 2,792 3,045 3,338
Heritage Ranch and Oak Shores 2,166 2,276 2,386 2,424 2,482 2,634 2,723 2,863 2,995
Santa Margarita 1,279 1,269 1,259 1,268 1,281 1,325 1,395 1,410 1,451
Shandon 979 1,137 1,295 1,316 1,347 1,562 2,002 2,630 3,306
Templeton 4,607 5,792 6,976 7,059 7,184 7,739 8,094 8,720 9,128
North County Total 58,766 64,816 70,863 71,571 72,633 76,040 79,851 84,889 89,853
San Luis Obispo County Total 193,097 204,446 209,318 210,987 213,520 221,522 229,124 238,779 248,300
Source: AECOM for SLOCOG, July 2011
Following is a list of community characteristics EPA recommends for consideration. These
characteristics are described and considered throughout the IRWM Plan.
Community Characteristics for Community Profiling Table C‐51.
Community Boundaries
Community Capacity and Activism
Community Interaction and Information Flow
Demographic Information
Economic Conditions and Employment
Education
Environmental Awareness and Values
Governance
Infrastructure and Public Services
Local Identity
Local Leisure and Recreation
Natural Resources and Landscapes
Property Ownership, Management, and Planning
Public Health and Safety
Item 8.m. - Page 96
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Section C. Region Description
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐226 Public Draft June 2014
To understand the future of San Luis Obispo County, it is important to understand its past and
its present. A brief history of San Luis Obispo County is presented in Table B6.1 below. Current
census information provides a profile of the present.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND THE INFLUENCE OF C.15
TRIBAL CULTURE
For centuries (see Table C‐52), San Luis Obispo County was the heart of Chumash and Salinian
Native American country. The Chumash and Salinians had a rich culture and were excellent
craftspeople and artists. Exploration of the land by Europeans began in 1769 at the command
of Gaspar de Portola of Spain. With Portola came the Franciscan friars to begin founding the
California missions. Following the independence of Mexico and the secularization of the
missions, the Central Coast entered the period of the rancheros. Many names of towns and
places derive from these Spanish rancheros. San Luis Obispo was claimed for the United States
in 1846. In 1850, California was admitted to the United States, and San Luis Obispo became one
of the original counties.
A severe drought gripped the state in 1862 to 1864 resulting in the devastation of much of the
region’s cattle industry. Several wet seasons followed which prompted immigration to the
County and the emergence of the dairy industry. By the 1870’s, San Luis Obispo County began
to transform from a poor, remote, and sometimes violent outpost of rural California to a locale
prized for its diverse and spectacular topography, breathtaking scenery, and rich farms and
mines. The 1880s and 1890s brought the railroad that connected San Luis Obispo with San
Francisco and Los Angeles.
Throughout the 1900’s San Luis Obispo County remained largely an agricultural county. The
World Wars and the Korean War brought economic growth to San Luis Obispo County as local
suppliers supported the war effort. The second half of the century was punctuated with
infrastructure projects needed to support post‐war population increases.
Presently, over 260,000 residents enjoy San Luis Obispo County’s central coast location. With
the ocean and mountains, the Spanish and historical flavor, and the mild climate, San Luis
Obispo County provides an enviable quality of life for residents and tourists.
Item 8.m. - Page 97
IRWMP Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Budget
Item 8.m. - Page 98
Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
Item 8.m. - Page 99
Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
Table of Contents
Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget D-1
D.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... D-1
Intended Use of the Water Budget .................................................................................................................................. D-3 D.1.1
Use of IRWM Plan for Determining Adequacy of Water Supplies Under Senate Bill 610 and 221 ................................... D-3 D.1.2
D.2 Regional Water Supply Availability ................................................................................................................................. D-3
Surface Water ................................................................................................................................................................... D-3 D.2.1
Groundwater Supply ........................................................................................................................................................ D-4 D.2.2
California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Supply ......................................................................... D-8 D.2.3
Appropriated Water Rights ............................................................................................................................................ D-11 D.2.4
Other Sources of Water Supply ...................................................................................................................................... D-11 D.2.5
Twitchell Reservoir ..................................................................................................................................................D-11 D.2.5.1
Desalination .............................................................................................................................................................D-12 D.2.5.2
Water Recycling .......................................................................................................................................................D-13 D.2.5.3
Other Cooperative Supply Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... D-15 D.2.6
Current Water Supply Total ............................................................................................................................................ D-16 D.2.7
Current Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub-Region ........................................................................................D-17 D.2.7.1
Urban Water Supply Summary by Water Sector and WPA ......................................................................................D-18 D.2.7.2
D.3 Technical Resources for Current and Future Water Demands and Supplies .................................................................. D-19
Water Demand Data Sources ......................................................................................................................................... D-19 D.3.1
2010 Urban Water Management Plans ...................................................................................................................D-21 D.3.1.1
2012 San Luis Obispo Master Water Report ............................................................................................................D-21 D.3.1.2
Method for Developing Projected Water Demands ....................................................................................................... D-22 D.3.2
Urban Water Demand .............................................................................................................................................D-22 D.3.2.1
Rural Water Demand ...............................................................................................................................................D-23 D.3.2.2
Agricultural Water Demand .....................................................................................................................................D-24 D.3.2.3
Environmental Demand and Unimpaired Runoff ....................................................................................................D-25 D.3.2.4
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................D-26 D.3.2.5
D.4 Water Demand and Supplies by Sub-Region and WPA .................................................................................................. D-27
North Coast Sub-Region ................................................................................................................................................. D-29 D.4.1
WPA 1 – San Simeon ................................................................................................................................................D-29 D.4.1.1
WPA 2 – Cambria .....................................................................................................................................................D-33 D.4.1.2
WPA 3 – Cayucos .....................................................................................................................................................D-36 D.4.1.3
WPA 4 – Morro Bay .................................................................................................................................................D-39 D.4.1.4
WPA 5 – Los Osos ....................................................................................................................................................D-42 D.4.1.5
South County Sub-Region ............................................................................................................................................... D-45 D.4.2
WPA 6 – San Luis Obispo/Avila ................................................................................................................................D-45 D.4.2.1
WPA 7 – South Coast ...............................................................................................................................................D-50 D.4.2.2
WPA 8 – Huasana Valley ..........................................................................................................................................D-54 D.4.2.3
WPA 9 – Cuyama Valley ...........................................................................................................................................D-57 D.4.2.4
North County Sub-Region ............................................................................................................................................... D-60 D.4.3
WPA 10 – Carrizo Plain ............................................................................................................................................D-61 D.4.3.1
WPA 11 – Rafael/Big Spring .....................................................................................................................................D-64 D.4.3.2
WPA 12 – Santa Margarita ......................................................................................................................................D-67 D.4.3.3
WPA 13 – Atascadero/Templeton ...........................................................................................................................D-70 D.4.3.4
WPA 14 – Salinas/Estrella ........................................................................................................................................D-74 D.4.3.5
WPA 15 – Cholame Valley .......................................................................................................................................D-77 D.4.3.6
WPA 16 – Nacimiento ..............................................................................................................................................D-80 D.4.3.7
Need for Per Capita Water Demand ............................................................................................................................... D-83 D.4.4
D.5 Demand Review Summary Discussion .......................................................................................................................... D-84
Item 8.m. - Page 100
List of Figures
Figure D-1. San Luis Obispo County Reservoirs ..............................................................................................................................D-5
Figure D-2. San Luis Obispo County Groundwater Basins ..............................................................................................................D-6
Figure D-3. California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Facilities .................................................................D-9
Figure D-4. Water Recycling Process ...........................................................................................................................................D-14
Figure D-5. Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub-Region and for Total Region ......................................................................D-18
Figure D-6. Comparison in Urban Water Supply Portfolio 2010 and 2035 ..................................................................................D-20
Figure D-7. Map of Urban and Rural Areas ..................................................................................................................................D-23
Figure D-8. Agricultural Areas ......................................................................................................................................................D-24
Figure D-9. IRWM Plan Sub-Region Projected Demand Totals ....................................................................................................D-28
Figure D-10. North Coast WPA Water Demand Summary ...........................................................................................................D-29
Figure D-11. WPA-1 San Simeon Water Demands .......................................................................................................................D-30
Figure D-12. WPA 2. Cambria Water Demands............................................................................................................................D-33
Figure D-13. WPA 3. Cayucos Water Demands ............................................................................................................................D-36
Figure D-14. WPA 2. Morro Bay Water Demands ........................................................................................................................D-39
Figure D-15. WPA 5. Los Osos Water Demands ...........................................................................................................................D-42
Figure D-16. South County WPA Water Demand Summary.........................................................................................................D-45
Figure D-17. WPA-6 San Luis Obispo/Avila Water Demands .......................................................................................................D-46
Figure D-18. WPA-7 South Coast Water Demands ......................................................................................................................D-50
Figure D-19. WPA-8 Huasna Valley Water Demands ...................................................................................................................D-54
Figure D-20. WPA-9 – Cuyama Water Demands ..........................................................................................................................D-57
Figure D-21. North County WPA Water Demand Summary ........................................................................................................D-60
Figure D-22. WPA-10 Carrizo Plain Water Demands ....................................................................................................................D-61
Figure D-23. WPA-11 Rafael/Big Spring Water Demands ............................................................................................................D-64
Figure D-24. WPA-12 Santa Margarita Water Demands ..............................................................................................................D-67
Figure D-25. WPA-13 Atascadero/Templeton Water Demands...................................................................................................D-70
Figure D-26. WPA-14 Salinas/Estrella Water Demands ...............................................................................................................D-74
Figure D-27. WPA-15 Cholame Water Demands .........................................................................................................................D-77
Figure D-28. WPA-16 Nacimiento Water Demands .....................................................................................................................D-80
List of Tables
Table D-1. List of Communities and Water Districts with Active Water Demand Reporting .........................................................D-2
Table D-2. In-County Reservoir Contracted Amounts ....................................................................................................................D-4
Table D-3. Groundwater Basin Yields .............................................................................................................................................D-7
Table D-4. State Water Project Water Service Amount .................................................................................................................D-8
Table D-5. Existing and Projected Recycled Water Use ...............................................................................................................D-15
Table D-6. Other Developed Supply Sources ...............................................................................................................................D-16
Table D-7. Current (2010) Urban Water Supply for Entire IRWM Planning Region .....................................................................D-17
Table D-8. Water Supplies for 2010 Urban Uses ..........................................................................................................................D-19
Table D-9. Water Supplies for 2035 Urban Uses ..........................................................................................................................D-20
Table D-10. Crop Group Primary Commodities............................................................................................................................D-25
Table D-11. IRWM Plan Sub-Region Demand Totals ....................................................................................................................D-28
Table D-12. North Coast Subregion WPA Annual Average Water Demand Summary (AFY) ........................................................D-29
Table D-13. WPA No. 1 - San Simeon ...........................................................................................................................................D-31
Table D-14. WPA No. 1 – San Simeon Demand Supply Balance ...................................................................................................D-32
Table D-15. WPA No. 2 - Cambria ................................................................................................................................................D-34
Table D-16. WPA No. 2 – Cambria Demand Supply Balance ........................................................................................................D-35
Table D-17. WPA No. 3 - Cayucos ................................................................................................................................................D-37
Table D-18. WPA No. 3– Cayucos Demand Supply Balance .........................................................................................................D-38
Table D-19. WPA No. 4 - Morro Bay.............................................................................................................................................D-40
Table D-20. WPA No. 4 – Morro Bay Demand Supply Balance ....................................................................................................D-41
Table D-21. WPA No. 5 - Los Osos ................................................................................................................................................D-43
Table D-22. WPA No. 5 – Los Osos Demand Supply Balance .......................................................................................................D-44
Table D-23. South County WPA Annual Average Water Demand Summary (AFY) ......................................................................D-45
Item 8.m. - Page 101
Table D-24. WPA No. 6 - San Luis Obispo/Avila ...........................................................................................................................D-47
Table D-25. WPA No. 6 – San Luis Obispo/Avila Demand Supply Balance ...................................................................................D-48
Table D-26. WPA No. 7 - South Coast ..........................................................................................................................................D-51
Table D-27. WPA No. 7 – South Coast Demand Supply Balance ..................................................................................................D-52
Table D-28. WPA No. 8 - Huasna Valley .......................................................................................................................................D-55
Table D-29. WPA No. 8 - Huasna Valley Demand Supply Balance ...............................................................................................D-56
Table D-30. WPA No. 9 - Cuyama Valley ......................................................................................................................................D-58
Table D-31. WPA No. 9 – Cuyama Valley Demand Supply Balance ..............................................................................................D-59
Table D-32. North County Subregion WPA Water Demand Summary .........................................................................................D-60
Table D-33. WPA No. 10 – Carrizo Plain .......................................................................................................................................D-62
Table D-34. WPA No. 10 – Carrizo Plain Demand Supply Balance ...............................................................................................D-63
Table D-35. WPA No. 11 - Rafael/Big Spring ................................................................................................................................D-65
Table D-36. WPA No. 11 – Rafael/Big Spring Demand Supply Balance ........................................................................................D-66
Table D-37. WPA No. 12 - Santa Margarita ..................................................................................................................................D-68
Table D-38. WPA No. 12 – Santa Margarita Demand Supply Balance .........................................................................................D-69
Table D-39. WPA No. 13 - Atascadero/Templeton ......................................................................................................................D-71
Table D-40. WPA No. 13 - Atascadero/Templeton Demand Supply Balance ...............................................................................D-72
Table D-41. WPA No. 14 - Salinas/Estrella ...................................................................................................................................D-75
Table D-42. WPA No. 14 – Salinas/Estrella Demand Supply Balance ...........................................................................................D-76
Table D-43. WPA No. 15 - Cholame .............................................................................................................................................D-78
Table D-44. WPA No. 15 – Cholame Demand Supply Balance .....................................................................................................D-79
Table D-45. WPA No. 16 - Nacimiento .........................................................................................................................................D-81
Table D-46. WPA No. 16 - Nacimiento Demand Supply Balance .................................................................................................D-82
Table D-47. Per Capita 20X2020 Goals for Large Urban Water Suppliers ....................................................................................D-84
Item 8.m. - Page 102
(This page Intentionally left blank)
Item 8.m. - Page 103
Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water
Budget
San Luis Obispo’s IRWM planning region area is approximately 3,322 square miles, and
currently includes 36 actively reporting unincorporated and incorporated communities (see
Table D-1) situated within 26 watersheds including urban, rural, and agricultural water
demands. The need to separate the water demand and supply budgets and balance from
Section C – Region Description is prudent to the importance of keeping track of the region’s
water issues. The content of this section is instrumental in the identification of the region’s
trends, the stakeholders involved, and the potential solutions amongst grouped water users in
each of the Water Planning Areas (WPAs).
D.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan provides a discussion and analysis of the current
and projected water supply and demand for the San Luis Obispo IRWMP planning region. This
section is limited to descriptions of supply infrastructure and demand areas addressed in
Section C – Region Description. To address the requirements of the IRWM Plan, the Region
Description provides the broader descriptions of the San Luis Obispo watershed system and
maintains a relatively high level evaluation of critical water issues; whereas, this section delves
into the details of water demands and supplies for each water use sector of each WPA, using
data from individual water districts and watersheds.
The data contained within this section is taken from existing published documents describing
the water demands and supply of a water use sector, water district, or environmental demand.
Unlike the 2012 San Luis Obispo Master Water Report (MWR), the analysis window used in this
section specifies exact dates for the planning horizon. The years from 2010 through 2035, in
five-year increments, are used to match the IRWM Plan’s planning window as well as the
planning windows of many General Plans and Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). The
ramification of this change in definition is that water demand projections need to have a higher
level of scrutiny to ensure the correct comparison of water demands and supplies occur over
time. Schedules for water supply projects driven by increasing water demands can be phased
appropriately over time; thereby, increasing the level of confidence for IRWM project
implementation.
Item 8.m. - Page 104
Table D-1. List of Communities and Water Districts with Active Water Demand Reporting
WPA No. Joint Management Agencies Community/Water District Name
North Coast
1 San Simeon CSD
2 Cambria CSD
3 Cayucos Area Water Organization
Cayucos Cemetery District
CSA 10A
Morro Rock Mutual Water Co
Paso Robles Beach Water Assn
4 City of Morro Bay
4 Chorro Valley Water System
California Men’s Colony
Camp SLO - National Guard
County Operation Center of Education
Cuesta College
5 Community of Los Osos
Golden State Water Company – Los Osos
Los Osos CSD
S & T Mutual Water Company
South County
6 Avila Beach CSD
6 Avila Valley Mutual Water Co
6 Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
6 City of San Luis Obispo
6 CSA 12
6 Port San Luis
6 San Miguelito MWC
7 Golden State Water Company – Edna
7 Nipomo Mesa Management Area
Conoco Phillips Co
Golden State Water Company – Nipomo
Nipomo CSD
Rural Water Company/Cypress Ridge Sewer Co
Woodlands Mutual Water Company
7 Northern Cities Management Area
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Grover Beach
City of Pismo Beach
Oceano CSD
North County
12 CSA 23
12 Santa Margarita Ranch
13 Atascadero Mutual Water Co
13 Garden Farms C.W.D.
13 Paso Robles Municipal Well Pumping
13 Templeton CSD
14 Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Users
Camp Roberts
City of Paso Robles
San Miguel CSD
SLO CSA No. 16 – Shandon
16 Heritage Ranch CSD
16 Nacimiento Water Company
Item 8.m. - Page 105
Intended Use of the Water Budget D.1.1
What follows is a relatively linear accounting of water supply and demand for each of the
WPAs. The first subsections provide the setting for potential water supply and conservation
efforts in relation to the different WPAs, and used to identify areas where: 1) water demands
are known to be outpacing available water supplies, 2) opportunities for in-Region transfers
exist, or 3) alternative water supply options can be studied. The importance is in the
comparison between supply and demand and to Identify critical issues so that solutions can be
sought.
Use of IRWM Plan for Determining Adequacy of Water Supplies Under Senate D.1.2
Bill 610 and 221
This section does not make any conclusions on the adequacy of water supplies to meet water
demands, but does discuss likely deficiencies and probable actions. The rigor of analysis
required as part of the required study of sustainable water supplies under Senate Bills 610 and
221 for new developments should be done as a separate evaluation supported by the latest
local UWMPs and groundwater management plans.
D.2 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY
Water is drawn from a number of supply sources, both inside and outside of the County. In-
county reservoirs have a significant role in water supply, drainage and flood control, potential
hydro-power, and recreation for the region. Groundwater basins, while currently threatened
by contamination and over-pumping, are the largest source of in-county supply currently in use.
As groundwater basins are relied upon for their Perennial yield of drinking water, imported
surface water from the California State Water Project helps reduce the pressure on these basins
when used conjunctively, based on availability of state water and facility capacity, over
hydrologic wet and dry periods.
Below are brief summaries of the current supply sources either in use or being planned for near
term implementation. By establishing what is known of water supplies currently (2013), future
forecasting of supply needs can be placed in context with the constraints and costs associated
with each supply source.
Surface Water D.2.1
Water is drawn from a number of surface sources, both inside and outside of the County. This
section describes the reservoirs in and out of the County that are used as water supply sources
within the County. It also includes a brief description of the State Water Project. Allocations and
key user agreements are described for each water source.
Item 8.m. - Page 106
Local Surface Water
Many of the local reservoirs are multi-purpose by providing flood control, water supply,
groundwater recharge, environmental, hydropower, and recreation benefits. Dams and
reservoirs were constructed as the need for supplemental water supplies and flood control
became apparent with growing development in the region.
Table D-2. In-County Reservoir Contracted Amounts
Surface Water
Source
(Year Built)
Storage
Capacity
(AF)
Contracted
Amount/
Average
Annual Yield
in SLO IRWM
Region (AFY)
Primary Purpose(s) Owner/
Operator (if different)
Sub-Region(s)
Supplied
Nacimiento
Reservoir
(1957)
377,900 15,750(1) Water supply
Flood control
Groundwater
recharge
Monterey County Water
Resources Agency
North Coast,
South County,
North County
Whale Rock
Reservoir
(1961)
40,662 40,660(2) Water supply Whale Rock Commission /
City of San Luis Obispo
North Coast,
South County
Lopez Lake
(1968)
49,388 4,530 Water supply
Flood protection
San Luis Obispo County
Flood Control & Water
Conservation District
South County
San Margarita Lake/
Salinas Reservoir
(1941)
23,843 6,950 Water supply U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
/ San Luis Obispo County
Flood Control & Water
Conservation District
South County,
North County
Chorro Reservoir
(1941)
90 140 Water supply CA Dept of Corrections(3) North Coast
Twitchell
Reservoir(4)
224,300 0 Irrigation Santa Maria Valley Water
Conservation District
South County
Notes:
1. 17,500 AFY total, less 1,750 AFY for lakeside users 15,750 AFY available to SLO Co Nacimiento Water Project.
2. 40,660 AFY of Whale Rock Reservoir water is allocated to the joint right-holders in addition to downstream water rights,
which are accounted for separately.
3. Per CA Dam Safety website inventory.
4. Straddles SLO County with the Dam located in Santa Barbara County
Groundwater Supply D.2.2
The IRWM planning region contains 251 hydraulically separated groundwater basins (see Figure
D-2), each relatively independent of the others, with only a few exceptions. The availability of
fresh groundwater supplies remain the primary staple for most of this Region’s communities
and, especially, for the private well owners living in rural and agricultural areas. Groundwater
1 Based on 2012 Master Water Report (District, 2012) listed groundwater basins, not including sub-basins. See
Section C – Region Description for brief descriptions, and Appendix L – Groundwater Basin Descriptions
fordetailed descriptions of each ba
Item 8.m. - Page 107
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
r
a
f
t
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
4
D-
5
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
R
W
M
R
e
g
i
o
n
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
D.
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
,
D
e
m
a
n
d
,
a
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
B
u
d
g
e
t
Figure D-1.San Luis Obispo County Reservoirs
Item 8.m. - Page 108
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
R
W
M
R
e
g
i
o
n
D
-
6
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
r
a
f
t
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
4
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
D
.
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
,
D
e
m
a
n
d
,
a
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
B
u
d
g
e
t
Figure D-2.San Luis Obispo County Groundwater Basins
Item 8.m. - Page 109
studies conducted in the past provide some understanding of the perennial average safe yield
of the various groundwater basins, but many still are without some form of groundwater
management and setting of a perennial yield amount as shown in Table D-3. Identified sources
are based on the MWR identification of hydrogeologic studies and groundwater management
plans containing the latest perennial yield annual volumes.
Table D-3. Groundwater Basin Yields
Groundwater Basin
Name
Estimated
Perennial Yield
(AFY)
WPA Groundwater Basin
Name
Estimated
Perennial Yield
(AFY)
WPA
Arroyo de la Cruz Valley 1,244 1 Pismo Creek Valley Sub-
basin(2)
No estimates of
basin yield exist. 7
Pico Creek Valley 120 1 Nipomo Valley Sub-
basin(2)
No estimates of
basin yield exist. 7
San Carpoforo Valley No estimates of
basin yield exist. 1 Nipomo Mesa
Management Area 4,800 - 6,000 7
San Simeon Valley 1,040 2 Northern Cities
Management Area 5,600 - 6,800 7
Santa Rosa Valley 2,260 2 Santa Maria Valley
Management Area 124,000 7
Villa Valley 1,000 2 Huasna Valley No estimates of
basin yield exist.
8
Cayucos Valley 600 3 Cuyama Valley 10,000 9
Old Valley 505 3 Carrizo Plain 8,000 - 11,000 10
Toro Valley 532 3 Big Spring Area No estimates of
basin yield exist.
11
Chorro Valley 2,210 4 Rafael Valley No estimates of
basin yield exist.
11
Morro Valley 1,500 4 Pozo Valley 1,000 12
Los Osos Valley 3,200 5 Rinconada Valley No estimates of
basin yield exist.
12
Avila Valley Sub-basin(1) No estimates of
basin yield exist. 6 Santa Margarita Valley No estimates of
basin yield exist.(3)
12
Edna Valley Sub-basin(2) 4,000 6 Atascadero Sub-Basin 16,400 13
San Luis Valley Sub-
basin(1) 2,000 6 Paso Robles(4) 97,700 13, 14
Arroyo Grande Valley
Sub-basin(2)
No estimates of
basin yield exist. 7 Cholame Valley No estimates of
basin yield exist.
15
Salinas River Underflow(5) State Permitted
11,419
13, 14
Sources: 2012 Master Water Report (District, 2012), Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Modeling Report (Draft,
2014)
Notes:
1. Sub-basin of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
2. Sub-basin of the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin
3. The average annual yield of the basin in the vicinity of the proposed Santa Margarita Ranch development may be in
the range of 400 to 600 AFY.
4. Includes 16,400 AFY perennial yield from the Atascadero Groundwater Sub-basin.
5. The Salinas River Underflow is managed by the State Water Resources Control Board through issuance of water right
permits; although consider to be groundwater and a sub-basin of the Paso Robles groundwater basin.
Item 8.m. - Page 110
California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Supply D.2.3
The California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) owns and operates the State Water
Project (SWP). Shown in Figure D-3, it is the largest state-built water and power project in the
United States. The SWP first started delivering water to Californians in the 1960s. In 1963, the
District contracted with DWR for 25,000 AFY of State Water. However, the Central Coast was
not served State Water until 1997 when the Coastal Branch conveyance and treatment
facilities, serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, were completed.
Table D-4 below summarizes the regional SWP Water Service Amounts (WSAmt) for the San
Luis Obispo Region. Additional detail on the SWP infrastructure delivering to the San Luis
Obispo Region is discussed in Section C – Region Description and the MWR.
Table D-4. State Water Project Water Service Amount
Contractor WSAmt Drought
Buffer
Total
Reserved
6 percent
Allocation
Year
(1977)
66-69%
Allocation
Year
100%
Allocation
Year
WPA
Chorro Valley Turnout
Morro Bay, City of 1,313 2,290 3,603 216 1,313 1,313 4
California Men’s Colony 400 400 800 48 400 400 4
County Operations
Center 425 425 850 51 425 425 4
Cuesta College 200 200 400 24 200 200 4
Subtotal 2,338 3,315 5,653 339 2,338 2,338
Lopez Turnout
Pismo Beach, City of 1,240 1,240 2,480 149 1,240 1,240 7
Oceano CSD 750 0 750 45 495 750 7
San Miguelito MWC 275 275 550 33 275 275 6
Avila Beach CSD 100 0 100 6 66 100 6
Avila Valley MWC 20 60 80 5 20 20 6
San Luis Coastal USD 7 7 14 1 7 7 6
Subtotal 2,392 1,582 3,974 239 2,103 2,392
Shandon Turnout
Shandon 100 0 100 6 66 100 14
Subtotal 100 0 100 6 66 100
Total Reserved 4,830 4,897 9,727 584 4,507 4,830
Total District Allocation 25,000
“Excess Allocation” 15,273
Notes:
1. Minimum, average, and maximum allocations established in the State Water Project Delivery Reliability
Report 2007 (August 2008), page 51, Table 6.13. This study used 66 percent for the average allocation year.
Item 8.m. - Page 111
Figure D-3.California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Facilities
Item 8.m. - Page 112
Maintenance schedules and repair requirements can cause reduced deliveries or a complete
shutdown of the delivery system. Since delivery to the Central Coast began, the SWP has
provided between 50 and 100 percent of the contracted allocations, but recently, drought
conditions coupled with pumping restrictions in consideration of endangered species habitat
lowered that amount to 35 percent in 2008, 40 percent in 2009, and 0 percent at the start of
2014. To receive a greater portion of State Water during these shortages (up to their full
WSAmts), most agencies have entered into “Drought Buffer Water Agreements” with the
District for use of an additional portion of the District’s SWP allocation, as shown in the table
above. For example, when the SWP can only deliver 50 percent of contracted allocations, an
agency with 100 AFY WSAmt and 100 AFY drought
buffer allocation can still receive 100 AFY WSAmt –
50 percent of their 100 AFY allocation plus 50
percent of their 100 AFY drought buffer allocation
equals 100 AFY.
The District has 15,273 AFY of unsubscribed SWP
allocation (equal to District allocation (25,000 AFY)
minus Total Reserved (9,727 AFY)), commonly
referred to as the “excess allocation.” Hydraulics,
treatment plant capacity, and contractual terms
and conditions limit how the excess allocation (or
capacity) can be used. In 2011, the District
evaluated the available hydraulic capacity in the
treated water portion of the Coastal Branch, and
compiled a report in partnership with the Central
Coast Water Authority (CCWA) titled, “Capacity
Assessment of the Coastal Branch, Chorro Valley, &
Lopez Pipelines.” This comprehensive report can
be found at:
<http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Major%20Projects/State%20Water%20Project/p
df/Capacity%20Study.pdf>
The reach of pipeline reviewed in the report begins at the Devil’s Den Pumping Plant and ends
at Tank 5 (see close-up figure above of Figure D-3), including the Chorro Valley and Lopez
pipelines in San Luis Obispo county. The capacity assessment provides the recommendations to
consider in rating the pipeline capacity, and develops operational scenarios for future optimal
use.
The following is a summarized list of options for use of excess pipeline capacity:
Coastal Branch
Item 8.m. - Page 113
• Direct delivery after contract-revision negotiation for use of any additional capacity
available in the Coastal Branch treatment and conveyance facilities for use as a
conjunctive use supply to relieve groundwater basins in the wet hydrologic years
when surface water availability is at its highest
• As additional drought buffer water to supplement deficiencies in other supply
sources in dry and critical years
• Permanent, multi-year or single year transfer or exchange to other SWP contractors,
utilizing revenues to improve the reliability of existing water systems
• As a source of either direct groundwater recharge through injection or spreading
basins, or as a source of water for reservoir storage
• As a source of irrigation supply in lieu of groundwater use in normal/wet year
hydrology through extension of raw water conveyance and distribution facilities
beginning at the Coastal Branch Water Treatment Plant, where the larger SWP raw
water pipeline terminates, and delivering to Paso Robles Basin farmers
Further detailed discussion on the reliability of SWP supply to the San Luis Obispo Region can
be found in the MWR.
Appropriated Water Rights D.2.4
The State Water Resources Control Board has historically regulated and permitted diversions
from rivers and creeks for beneficial purposes. Appropriative water right permits are held by
numerous entities (i.e., water agencies, landowners, industry, etc.) and typically have a
maximum diversion limit stated in the permit. The seniority of water rights is based on the
permit number with older permits having seniority over more recent permits. The location and
diversions amounts of this type are perhaps the most difficult to site and quantify given that
many diverters are private landowners using water for irrigation with no annual reporting of
the quantity used. Urban water agencies, however, do report their diversion locations and
amounts, and are included in the overall water budget for the IRWM Region.
Other Sources of Water Supply D.2.5
In a few cases, water originating from outside the IRWM planning region is used within a WPA.
In these cases, the source of water is either from a watershed and groundwater basin shared
between two regions, resulting in coordinated management, or the water comes from non-
potable sources such as ocean water or treated wastewater, delivered in the form of
desalinated or recycled water supplies, respectively.
Twitchell Reservoir D.2.5.1
Twitchell Dam is on the Cuyama River about six miles upstream from its junction with the
Sisquoc River. Though the dam is located in Santa Barbara County to the south, and operated
Item 8.m. - Page 114
by the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation
District (SMVWCD), the reservoir straddles the
county line and some agricultural land within
San Luis Obispo County (South County Sub-
Region) is irrigated from the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin, which is replenished by
the reservoir’s and downstream Cuyama River
flood plain’s natural groundwater recharge
capacity.
The multiple-purpose Twitchell Reservoir has a
total capacity of 224,300 AF. It stores
floodwaters of the Cuyama River, which are released as needed to recharge the groundwater
basin and to prevent sea water intrusion. The reservoir supplies on average 32,000 AFY of
recharge to the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, though this value fluctuates significantly
relative to annual precipitation. Because the reservoir is managed for flood control and
groundwater recharge, the reservoir is empty much of the time. A majority of the groundwater
flows towards the ocean, though a small gradient flows seasonally to the Nipomo Mesa
Management Area groundwater basin.
Desalination D.2.5.2
The Cambria CSD
service area is
isolated from inland
areas by the Santa
Lucia mountain range
to the east and the
Pacific Ocean to the
west, and there are
currently no nearby
aqueducts from
which to import
freshwater into the
area. These factors
resulted in the CSD’s
Water Master Plan's Program-level EIR (WMP PEIR) to recommend sea water desalination as
the most cost-effective alternative for supplemental potable drinking water supplies. Since
2004, the CSD has been striving to develop the desalination plant to meet existing and future
Item 8.m. - Page 115
water demands. The plant, if implemented, is expected to produce up to 602 AFY, and is
planned to operate during the summer season to augment supply during the summer and high
demand periods (from summer tourism). A recycled water system is also planned, with an
estimated 180 AFY made available for unrestricted outdoor irrigation use.
The City of Arroyo Grande, the City of Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services
District participated in the evaluation of a desalination project to supplement their existing
potable water sources. Currently, all three agencies receive water from various sources,
including the California State Water Project, Lopez Lake Reservoir, and groundwater from the
Arroyo Grande Plain Hydrologic Subarea that is part of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater
Basin. Recent projections of water supply shortfalls in the region motivated the agencies to
conduct a more detailed study of desalination as a supplemental water supply.2 The study
focused on utilizing the existing South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District’s (SSLOCSD)
wastewater treatment plant to take advantage of utilizing the existing ocean outfall, while
having the plant located near the ocean sea water source. The feasibility study, completed in
2008, was based on a 2,300 AFY sea water desalination facility. Some of the major points of
interest and concern of this study include:
• Some 20 or more beach wells may be needed to provide enough sea water to
produce the 2,300 AFY potable water
• Permitting and environmental issues could be complex, and implementation could
take eight years or longer
Initial capital cost could be in the range of $35 million, and customer rates could be impacted
by 18 percent to over 100 percent to fund the project, and would cost approximately $2,300
per AF or more, on a 20-year life cycle basis; project design could begin by 2016, depending on
availability of existing water supplies.
Water Recycling D.2.5.3
Several purveyors and agencies in the County recycle municipal wastewater (see Figure D-4 for
illustration of water recycling process). Details of each purveyor or sanitary agency’s recycled
water program are discussed later in this report. Recycled water qualities range from secondary
quality (as defined by Title 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR)) to the highest level of
treatment for unrestricted use.
2 City of Arroyo Grande 2010 UWMP currently cites a 2006 report entitled, Water Supply Study; Desalination,
concluding that the estimated cost per acre-foot of desalination water of $2,675/AF (2010 Dollars) makes
desalination infeasible.
Item 8.m. - Page 116
The most established water recycling program in the County is that of the City of San Luis
Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo currently delivers 135 AFY to nearby golf courses, schools,
and commercial establishments, with expectations of increasing recycled water deliveries to
1,000 AFY. The City must also maintain treated effluent discharge from their wastewater
treatment plant to San Luis Obispo Creek, and this flow amounts to approximately 1,800 AFY.
Figure D-4.Water Recycling Process
Other water recycling projects in the County include those listed in Table D-5 and are discussed
briefly in the MWR, and in the draft San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water Strategic
Plan (RRWSP):
Item 8.m. - Page 117
Table D-5. Existing and Projected Recycled Water Use
Agency / WWTP Existing Projected (2030/2035)
MGD AFY MGD AFY
Templeton CSD
Meadowbrook WWTP 0.15 170 0.40 450
W ith Diversion 0.37 410 0.67 750
Morro Bay
Morro Bay W RF 0.87 975 1.0 1,121
W ith Cayucos CSD 1.12 1,250 1.3 1,437
Northern Cities
Pismo Beach WW TP 1.1 1,230 1.8 2,020
SSLOCSD WWTP 2.6 2,910 3.5 3,920
Nipomo CSD
Blacklake WWTP 0.07 80 0.07 80
Southland WWTF 0.8 900 1.7 1,900
Others
California Men’s Colony (Dairy Creek Golf Course) 0.18 200 0.18 200
City of Atascadero WRF (Chalk Mountain Golf Course) 0.27 300 0.27 300
City of San Luis Obispo (Golf courses, schools, and
commercial) 0.12 135 0.12 135
Rural Water Company (Cypress Ridge Golf Course) 0.05 50 0.05 50
Woodlands MWC (Monarch Dunes Golf Course) 0.05 50 0.05 50
Total 7.75 8,660 11.11 12,413
Source: (Draft RRWSP, January 2014)
The planned future use of recycled water from San Luis Obispo County agencies are included in
their forecasted water supply portfolio discussed below.
Other Cooperative Supply Opportunities D.2.6
Other cooperative supply opportunities exist between agencies internal to the planning region.
There are also future programs such as the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP). Currently, 9,655
AFY of water available from the project is subscribed for and 6,095 AFY is unsubscribed for. The
following are examples from the MWR of how the use of the NWP could be used as a viable
supply source in the future.
Unsubscribed Urban Use: This would entail direct delivery of the unsubscribed water to
existing or new urban participants.
Unsubscribed Non-Urban Use: This would entail delivery to new rural and/or agricultural
participants directly or via wheeling through existing participants’ infrastructure.
Groundwater Banking or Recharge: This would entail direct or in-lieu delivery of subscribed
and/or unsubscribed water to a recharge location for later extraction and/or to benefit the
groundwater basin. In-lieu delivery refers to delivering additional NWP water to existing
participants in-lieu of those existing participants pumping groundwater.
Item 8.m. - Page 118
Exchanges: This would entail using the unsubscribed water in exchange of a currently used
water resource. Examples include connecting CMC or Cal Poly to the NWP and freeing up State
Water and/or Whale Rock Reservoir water for use by others; the City of San Luis Obispo
utilizing additional water from the NWP and freeing up Salinas Reservoir water for use by
others; or delivering unsubscribed water to urban areas to free up groundwater for rural and/or
agricultural users.
Other more developed supply sources of the County that are outside of groundwater basins
discussed above are listed in Table D-6. If the District requires more detailed information,
focused studies would be necessary.
Table D-6. Other Developed Supply Sources
ub-Region Area
North Coast Villa/Cayucos/Old/Willow/Toro Creek Roads
North County Nacimiento/San Antonio Lakes
North County Adelaida
North County Park Hill
North County Templeton Hills
South County Coast San Luis Hills/Oak Park
South County Coast Nipomo Valley/Los Berros/Tematte Ridge
Source: 2012 MWR
Most of these opportunities do provide a reliable source of water due to the nature of existing
contract provisions and surface water rights. However, given the affordability and institutional
challenges associated with new urban or non-urban participants working both inside and
outside of the San Luis Obispo County IRWM region, and costs associated with a
banking/recharge program that would likely only have a short-term benefit, further studies are
needed to look at:
• Developing supply scenarios and evaluating each scenario regarding the needs,
willingness of participants, capacity availability, stakeholder review and/or approval,
exchange valuation assessments, and water rights issues.
• Conducting flow tests or reservoir releases to evaluate the benefit of outside
cooperative new supply scenarios.
Current Water Supply Total D.2.7
Total current water supplies of the IRWM planning region are presented in two different
aggregations to present the supply totals on both a Sub-Region and WPA level. The breakdown
of water supplies includes five categories of water supply sources:
1. Groundwater – groundwater indigenous to the Sub-Region
2. SWRCB Water Rights Diversions – SWRCB permitted surface water diversions within
the IRWM Region
3. Imported Surface Water – includes SWP water from the Coastal Branch WTP
Item 8.m. - Page 119
4. Reuse/Recycled water – includes recycled and desalination supplies
5. Other Cooperative Supply Opportunities – includes working within and adjoining
IRWM regions in securing urban and non-urban supplies for direct use or banking
and exchange using groundwater basins.
Current Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub-Region D.2.7.1
As shown in Table D-7 and Figure D-5, approximately two-thirds of the current urban water
supply comes from groundwater. Typical for many regions, the dependency on groundwater is
a result of using the least cost/best quality water supply alternative. With groundwater
elevations continually sliding downward causing increased pumping costs, and with the real
threat of sea water intrusion and upwelling of high TDS groundwater requiring expensive
treatment, the reduced availability of low cost fresh groundwater supplies is driving the need
for looking to supplemental surface water, recycled water, and desalinated water supplies.
Table D-7. Current (2010) Urban Water Supply for Entire IRWM Planning Region
Total Water Supply By Sub-Region (AFY) Sub-
Region
Totals
Sub Region Groundwater
SWRCB Water
Rights
Diversions
Imported
Surface
Water
ReUse/
Recycled Desalinated
Other
Cooperative
Supply
Opportunities
North Coast 3,297 3,169 258 6,724
North County 21,135 2,272 66 132 1,700 25,305
South County 10,670 11,749 1,571 227 5,402 29,619
Region Total 35,102 17,190 1,637 359 258 7,102 61,648
Source: IRWM Database
Item 8.m. - Page 120
Figure D-5.Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub-Region and for Total Region
Urban Water Supply Summary by Water Sector and WPA D.2.7.2
To better represent the urban supply usage, Table D-8 and Table D-9 provide a breakdown in
water supplies in the IRWM planning region by WPA and Sub-Region for the years 2010 and
2035. Urban supplies often use a mix of groundwater, surface water, imported water, recycled
water and/or desalinated water. Figure D-6 illustrates the change in water supplies between
2010 and 2035 showing increases in all supply sources with recycled water and desalinated
water having the largest percent change.
Item 8.m. - Page 121
Table D-8. Water Supplies for 2010 Urban Uses
WPA
Total Water Supply (AFY) by WPA
Totals Groundwater
SWRCB Water
Rights
Diversions
Imported
Surface
Water
ReUse/
Recycled Desalinated
Other Cooperative
Supply
Opportunities
North Coast
1.San Simeon 140 - - - - - 140
2.Cambria 673 - - - - - 673
3.Cayucos - 661 - - - - 661
4.Morro Bay 328 2,508 - - 258 - 3,094
5.Los Osos 2,156 - - - - - 2,156
North Coast Total 3,297 3,169 - - 258 - 6,724
North County
10.Carrizo - - - - - - -
11.Rafael/Big Spring - - - - - - -
12.Santa Margarita 1,785 22 - - - - 1,807
13.Atascadero/Templeton 12,452 2,250 - 132 - - 14,834
14.Salinas/Estrella 6,898 - 66 - - - 6,964
15.Cholame - - - - - - -
16.Nacimiento - - - - - 1,700 1,700
North County Total 21,135 2,272 66 132 - 1,700 25,305
South County Total
6.San Luis Obispo/Avila 238 11,749 - 151 - 23 12,161
7.South Coast 10,432 - 1,571 76 - 5,379 17,458
8.Huasna Valley - - - - - - -
9.Cuyama Valley - - - - - - -
South County Total 10,670 11,749 1,571 227 - 5,402 29,619
IRWM Total Urban 35,102 17,190 1,637 359 258 7,102 61,648
Sources: IRWM Database, 2014
D.3 TECHNICAL RESOURCES FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER DEMANDS AND
SUPPLIES
Having established the baseline of water supplies above, the balance of those supplies are
compared against current and future water demands. This water balance is used to recognize
where problems are either already occurring or will occur, and if there are data gaps making
the balance of supplies and demands not possible unless further study is completed.
Water Demand Data Sources D.3.1
The primary sources of data used to develop the water balance for the San Luis Obispo Planning
Region were 2010 Urban Water Management Plans and the 2012 San Luis Obispo County
Master Water Report. Additional information was provided by urban water suppliers within the
San Luis Obispo Planning Region.
Item 8.m. - Page 122
Table D-9. Water Supplies for 2035 Urban Uses
WPA
Total Water Supply (AFY) by WPA
Totals Groundwater
SWRCB Water
Rights
Diversions
Imported
Surface
Water
ReUse/
Recycled Desalinated
Other Cooperative
Supply
Opportunities
North Coast
1.San Simeon 140 - - - - - 140
2.Cambria 809 - - 100 - 600 1,509
3.Cayucos - 661 - - - - 661
4.Morro Bay 1,923 2,948 - - 645 - 5,516
5.Los Osos 2,156 - - - - - 2,156
North Coast Total 5,028 3,609 - 100 645 600 9,982
North County
10.Carrizo - - - - - - -
11.Rafael/Big Spring - - - - - - -
12.Santa Margarita 1,785 22 - - - - 1,807
13.Atascadero/Templeton 13,447 2,250 - 475 - - 16,172
14.Salinas/Estrella 8,861 5,400 66 - - - 14,327
15.Cholame - - - - - - -
16.Nacimiento - - - - - 1,700 1,700
North County Total 24,093 7,672 66 475 - 1,700 34,006
South County Total
6.San Luis Obispo/Avila 238 11,749 - 400 - 23 12,410
7.South Coast 9,967 - 1,735 2,235 - 7,896 21,833
8.Huasna Valley - - - - - - -
9.Cuyama Valley - - - - - - -
South County Total 10,205 11,749 1,735 2,635 - 7,919 34,243
IRWM Total Urban 39,326 23,030 1,801 3,210 645 10,219 78,231
Sources: IRWM Database, 2014
Figure D-6.Comparison in Urban Water Supply Portfolio 2010 and 2035
Item 8.m. - Page 123
2010 Urban Water Management Plans D.3.1.1
Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) are prepared by California's urban water suppliers
to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available
to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides
over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to
assess the reliability of its water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal,
dry, and multiple dry years. This assessment is included in an urban water supplier’s UWMP,
which are prepared every five years and submitted to the Department of Water Resources. The
following water suppliers prepared 2010 UWMPs that were used in this analysis (see Section N
– Relation to Local Water and Land Use Planning, Table N-1 for list of UWMP and their URLs):
• City of Arroyo Grande
• Cambria Community Services District
• City of Grover Beach
• City of Morro Bay
• Nipomo Community Services District
• City of Paso Robles
• City of Pismo Beach
• City of San Luis Obispo
2012 San Luis Obispo Master Water Report D.3.1.2
The Master Water Report (MWR) is a compilation of the current and future water resource
management activities being undertaken by various entities within the County and is organized
by WPA. The MWR explores how these activities interrelate, analyzes current and future
supplies and demands, identifies future water management strategies and ways to optimize
existing strategies, and documents the role of the MWR in supporting other water resource
planning efforts.
The MWR evaluates and compares the available water supplies (apart from the untreated
ocean) to the water demands for the different water planning areas. This was accomplished by
reviewing or developing the following:
• Current water supplies and demands based on available information
• Forecast water demands and water supplies available in the future under current
land use policies and designations
• Criteria under which there is a shortfall when looking at supplies versus demands
• Criteria for analyzing potential water resource management strategies, projects,
programs, or policies
• Potential water resource management strategies, projects, programs, or policies to
resolve potential supply deficiencies
Item 8.m. - Page 124
Given the amount of overlap between the MWR and the IRWM Plan, the District is going to
manage updates of the information in the MWR as part of the IRWM Plan update process. The
IRWM Plan has to update urban water demands based on all of the 2010 UWMPs, which were
not available when the MWR was written. Agricultural water demands are also updated from
the MWR based on a 2013 updated county survey and groundwater modeling work currently
taking place in the Paso Robles groundwater basin (see Figure D-8). Much of the descriptive
information has either been brought into the IRWM Plan or is summarized with a reference to
the MWR. To adhere to the MWR’s methods of reporting, the water budget tables are kept
very close to the same look and content, but the forecast numbers and supply sources have
changed. More specifically, each demand source is assigned a supply source regardless of the
uncertainty. For instance, in rural cases where the water supply comes from groundwater,
groundwater supplies are assigned to equal the demand, even if “Other Groundwater Sources”
is the named supply source.
Method for Developing Projected Water Demands D.3.2
The IRWM region demand analysis period starts at the year 2010, corresponding to the most
recent Urban Water Management Plans, and extends through 2035; the planning horizon of
this IRWM Plan Update. Unlike the MWR, the IRWM analysis does not consider a build-out
demand, unless the urban area is truly built-out by 2035. It is important, in this case, to place
IRWM projects on a common timeline with the availability of water supplies, and regional
statewide projects.
Urban Water Demand D.3.2.1
Figure D-7 provides a mapping of population density by census block to identify urban areas
requiring public water service for drinking water and outdoor water use. The Urban /Reserve
Boundaries indicate the potential build-out of incorporated cities and communities. Urban
water demand refers to residential, commercial, industrial, parks, institutional, and golf course
water demand within the unincorporated communities and incorporated cities in the IRWM
Region.
For purposes of the IRWM Plan, the urban water demand includes all unincorporated
communities and incorporated cities in the County where water purveyors have provided water
demand information for the purposes of reporting in the IRWM Plan. As mentioned above, the
urban water demand analysis relies heavily on the 2010 UWMPs. Data analysis was completed
in five-year estimates, reflecting the information provided by the 2010 UWMPs. Notification
was made to all urban water districts not having a UWMP, with some not responding to the
data request. In these cases, the MWR is used as the basis assuming the districts are small
enough to not change significantly.
Item 8.m. - Page 125
Figure D-7.Map of Urban and Rural Areas
Rural Water Demand D.3.2.2
Rural water demand refers to water demands that are not considered agricultural or urban, and
typically supplied through a private well or small water system. The typical land use is small to
medium acreage ranchette homes of 5 to 20 acres in size with minimal urban-style landscaping.
Since no update of the rural areas was conducted as part of the IRWM Plan Update, the analysis
used herein, to determine rural water demands relies wholly on the estimated current and
projected MWR demands. For purposes of illustration, the areas shown on Figure D-7 to be of
population densities 501 to 2500 people per square mile are considered to be typical of rural
residential zoning.
San Simeon
Item 8.m. - Page 126
Agricultural Water Demand D.3.2.3
Agricultural water demand (see Figure D-8) refers to the annual applied water in all agricultural
areas in the IRWM planning region. The current agricultural water demand was calculated using
the same method and crop-specific applied water variables employed by the MWR, which
utilized information on crop evapotranspiration, effective rainfall, leaching requirements,
Figure D-8.Agricultural Areas
irrigation efficiency, deficit irrigation, and frost protection. The variables used in the 2012 MWR
were reviewed and determined to be the most current values available. The Agricultural/Crop
ArcGIS® layer for the San Luis Obispo County from August 2013 was provided to update the
2008 MWR agricultural water use estimates. The seven (7) crop categories presented in the
IRWM represent approximately 37 crop types (or Primary Commodities, see Table D-10) with
each category’s water demand being based on a calculation of applied water using the crop-
specific evapotranspiration, contribution from rain or shallow water table, leaching
requirements, irrigation efficiency, and frost protection.
Item 8.m. - Page 127
Table D-10. Crop Group Primary Commodities
Seven (7) Crop
Categories
Crop Types (Primary Commodities)
Alfalfa • Alfalfa
Nursery
• Christmas trees
• miscellaneous
nursery plants
• flowers
Pasture
• miscellaneous
grasses
• mixed pasture
• sod/turf
• sudan grass
Citrus
• Avocados
• Grapefruits
• Lemons
• Oranges
• Olives
• Kiwis
• pomegranates
Deciduous
• Apples
• Apricots
• Berries
• Peaches
• Nectarines
• Plum
• Figs
• Pistachios
• Persimmons
• Pears
• Quince
• strawberries
Vegetables
• Artichokes
• Beans
• miscellaneous
vegetables
• mushrooms
• onions
• peas
• peppers
• tomatoes
Vineyard • wine grapes
• table grapes
For the Paso Robles groundwater basin, agricultural areas were taken from the recent
groundwater modeling effort to ensure consistency of the two ongoing efforts. Replacement of
the Paso Basin areas in the county data was done in GIS to create a single agricultural area layer
for calculation purposes.
For details on the methodology used for calculating agricultural water demands, see Chapter
4.6.3 of the MWR. For a detailed report on agricultural water demands presented in the IRWM,
see Appendix J-1 Agricultural Water Demand Analysis.
Environmental Demand and Unimpaired Runoff D.3.2.4
Environmental water demand refers to the amount of water needed in an aquatic ecosystem,
or released into it, to sustain aquatic habitat and ecosystem processes. The federally
threatened south-central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was used as the
primary indicator species for the development of a reasonable estimation of the amount of
water needed to support this species. Mean daily flow values from stream gaging stations
representative of long-term, unimpaired (or natural) flow conditions were used to derive
unimpaired mean annual discharge (MAD) estimates. The Unimpaired Mean Annual Discharge
Item 8.m. - Page 128
(UMAD) is estimated to translate the total volume of water yielded from the watershed
unimpaired from any impoundments or other regulated flow structures. The Environmental
Water Demand and UMAD are calculated for the entire WPA and not for individual streams.
These estimates, taken from the MWR, are not available for all WPAs and the calculation of
both Environmental and UMAD flow volumes are described fully in the MWR.
Note: Environmental water demands were to be determined based on watershed
“snapshots” provided by the County through a consultant contract being completed in
parallel with the IRWM Plan Update. Given delays, the environmental demands
provided in this section come directly from the MWR, unless updated demands become
available prior to the Public Draft.
As noted in the MWR, DWR identified over 1,000 water rights applications and permits for San
Luis Obispo County (DWR, 2009b) in 2009. Because many of those water rights are uncertain as
to their use and permitted amounts, and for purposes of the MWR analysis, the Environmental
and UMAD flow volumes are presented without including an analysis of the 1,000 diversion
rights in the IRWM region.
In order to obtain a better understanding of how much surface water is available for
aquatic life, the District would need to identify and quantify all diversion rights and
instream flow requirements in the watershed. (MWR)
Assumptions D.3.2.5
As in all planning studies where projections are based on what is known today, with an eye
towards the future using General and Community plans and various population projections, the
goal is to minimize the level of uncertainty to the extent possible given the data available. The
three primary planning documents used in this section are the 2007 IRWM plan, the 2012
MWR, and various 2010 UWMPs. To achieve this goal, a number of assumptions are made in
the development of the San Luis Obispo Region water demand analysis using these three
sources, including the GIS analysis conducted for agricultural demands:
• Existing and projected urban water demand values are obtained from the 2010
UWMPs, if available. If no 2010 UWMP is available, such as in the case of a smaller
water district, the water district is notified of the need to update their water
demands
• For the purposes of IRWM Plan’s reporting of urban water demands where no
UWMP or requested update exists, 2010 is assumed to be the MWR demand labeled
as existing, and 2035 is assumed to be the MWR demand labeled as Build-out.
Moreover, a straight-line interpolation is used in most cases to obtain the urban
demands in five-year intervals, unless information is available to change the
Item 8.m. - Page 129
assumption on the rate of growth
• Projected 2010 UWMP urban water demand values are assumed to include existing
and planned conservation measures, including those implemented to meet the
California 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (SBX7-7)
• Where the MWR water demand is used and demands are presented as a range
representing conservation and maximum build-out, the average of that range is
calculated and used in this analysis
• For rural and agricultural water demands, MWR and GIS updated values,
respectively, are used for each WPA, and straight-line interpolation is used in most
cases to obtain the demands in five-year intervals
• Agricultural and rural water supplies are approximated based on the area of each
groundwater basin underlying the agricultural and rural land uses. Surface water
use is estimated based on availability of water rights and assumed areas to utilize
surface water for irrigation (e.g., areas not overlying a groundwater basin)
D.4 WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLIES BY SUB-REGION AND WPA
Each of the Sub-Regions and WPAs described in Section C – Region Description are included
below to represent the forecast summary of water demands and 2035 water budget in the
form of a water balance showing demands for urban, rural, and agriculture water uses and
available supplies. Environmental water and estimated UMAD are also included to capture
each WPA’s full water supply requirements. This information is stored and managed in the
Region Description Database (see Section K – Data Management) and the tables produced are
exported for each WPA and Sub-Region. For further detailed information on supplies and
demands, please refer to the MWR. One significant change from the MWR is the use of actual
assumed values where, in some cases, supply amounts are listed as unknown. The purpose is
to provide a placeholder that allows for the summation of demands and supplies for a
comparison. Estimated values will be the focus of future updates to improve the understanding
of a very complex water demand and supply comparison.
This section is organized by Sub-Region, starting with a summary table (Table D-11) and graph
(Figure D-9) for the three Sub-Regions of the IRWM region, followed by a summary of the WPAs
for each Sub-Region, and ending with detailed information for each WPA at the scale of a water
district. More importantly, the collection of water demand and supply information contained
below is a reporting of published material, especially the 2012 MWR and 2010 UWMPs included
in Section M – Technical Analysis, and a reporting of calculated agricultural demands based
upon analysis conducted by crop type for each WPA. No separate unpublished findings of
water supply sufficiency are made within this section.
Item 8.m. - Page 130
Table D-11. IRWM Plan Sub-Region Demand Totals
Sum Urban, Rural, Ag 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
North Coast 11,371 12,121 12,744 13,369 13,973 15,533
North County 119,294 127,077 135,110 143,108 148,324 154,120
South County 105,813 103,816 99,569 96,085 92,659 89,329
Total for IRWM Region 236,478 243,014 247,423 252,562 254,956 258,982
Figure D-9.IRWM Plan Sub-Region Projected Demand Totals
Item 8.m. - Page 131
WPA 7 – South Coast D.4.2.2
Water Demands
There are ten urban water suppliers and users in WPA 7: Conoco Phillips Company, City of
Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, Oceano Community Services District, City of Pismo Beach,
Golden State Water Company – Nipomo, Golden State Water Company – Edna, Nipomo
Community Services District, Rural Water Company, and Woodlands Mutual Water Company.
Information on these water districts and water users is in Section C - Region Description.
The existing rural demand for WPA 7 is 3,466 AFY and the average projected demand is 5,661
AFY. The existing annual applied water for agricultural lands within WPA 7 is estimated at
45,746 AFY, which supports citrus, deciduous, nursery, pasture, vegetable and vineyard crops.
The projected future agricultural demand decreases to 20,222 AFY due to the significant
decrease in vegetable crops. The 25,524 AFY decrease in agriculture is offset by the urban
(increase of 5,000 AFY) and rural residential (increase of 2,200 AFY) areas.
The UMAD for WPA 7, inclusive of the water management areas, is approximately 49,100 AFY
and environmental water demand of 32,960 AFY.
Demand Supply Balance
With a significant reliance on both surface water and groundwater, WPA 7 can meet its
forecasted water demands through agricultural off-sets, surface water transfers, recycled water
and expanded surface water and groundwater facilities. Groundwater is constrained in the
region both in quantity and quality, and requires management efforts to increase its effective
yield in providing for the region. See MWR for a full detailed description of the region’s water
supply portfolio.
Figure D-18.WPA-7 South Coast Water Demands
Item 8.m. - Page 132
Table D-26. WPA No. 7 - South Coast
Urban Water Demands (AFY)
Urban Water District 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Notes
Golden State Water Company – Edna 410 410 411 412 412 458 1
City of Pismo Beach 1,944 2,036 2,002 2,182 2,364 2,550 1
City of Arroyo Grande 2,956 3,288 2,987 3,089 3,176 3,318 2
City of Grover Beach 1,605 1,781 1,634 1,669 1,703 1,755 2
Oceano CSD 855 954 1,052 1,151 1,249 1,348 3
Golden State Water Company – Nipomo 1,060 1,217 1,375 1,532 1,690 1,847 4
Nipomo CSD 2,367 3,404 3,588 3,775 3,995 4,198 2
Rural Water Company/Cypress Ridge Sewer Co 720 720 720 720 720 720 5
Woodlands Mutual Water Company 850 984 1,118 1,252 1,386 1,520 6
Conoco Phillips Co 1,200 1,226 1,252 1,278 1,304 1,330 7
Total 13,967 16,020 16,139 17,060 17,999 19,044
Rural Water Demands (AFY)
Rural Areas/Districts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Notes
South Coast - Rural 3,466 3,905 4,344 4,783 5,222 5,661 8
Total 3,466 3,905 4,344 4,783 5,222 5,661
Agricultural Water Demands (AFY)
Crop Types 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Notes
Alfalfa 0 0 0 0 0 0
Citrus 7,614 7,488 7,361 7,234 7,107 6,981
Deciduous 4,701 3,788 2,876 1,963 1,051 138
Nursery 655 601 548 494 441 388
Pasture 725 1,040 1,354 1,669 1,983 2,297
Vegetable 29,263 24,754 20,244 15,734 11,225 6,715
Vineyard 2,788 2,971 3,154 3,337 3,520 3,703
Total 45,746 40,642 35,537 30,431 25,327 20,222
Total Water Demands (AFY)
Sum Urban, Rural, Ag 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total Water Demand 63,179 60,567 56,020 52,274 48,548 44,927
Environmental Water Demands (AFY)
Environmental Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Estimated Unimpaired Mean Annual Discharge 32,960 32,960 32,960 32,960 32,960 32,960
Estimated Environmental Water Demand 49,100 49,100 49,100 49,100 49,100 49,100
Notes:
1 2012 MWR Future demand given as a range, 434-482 AFY. Average of range used for 2035. Straight line
interpolation between 2010 demand and the average of the 2035 demand range.
2 2035 demand calculated using straight line interpolation from 2020 and 2030 given demands.
3 2012 MWR Future demand given as a range, 1277-1419 AFY. Average of range used for 2035. Straight line
interpolation between 2010 demand and the average of the 2035 demand range.
4 2012 MWR Future demand given as a range, 1750-1944 AFY. Average of range used for 2035. Straight line
interpolation between 2010 demand and the average of the 2035 demand range.
5 Future (Build-out/2035) demand not available; calculations not performed.
6 2012 MWR Future demand given as a range, 1440-1600 AFY. Average of range used for 2035. Straight line
interpolation between 2010 demand and the average of the 2035 demand range.
7 2012 MWR Future demand given as a range, 1260-1400 AFY. Average of range used for 2035. Straight line
interpolation between 2010 demand and the average of the 2035 demand range.
8 Straightline Interpolation 2010 to 2035
Item 8.m. - Page 133
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
R
W
M
R
e
g
i
o
n
D
-
5
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
r
a
f
t
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
4
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
D
.
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
,
D
e
m
a
n
d
,
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
B
u
d
g
e
t
Table D-27. WPA No. 7 – South Coast Demand Supply Balance
WPA No. 7 - South Coast
Water Districts/Use
Sectors/Environmental/
Unimpaired Summary
Golden
State
Water
Company
– Edna
City of
Pismo
Beach
City of
Arroyo
Grande
City of
Grover
Beach
Oceano
CSD
Golden
State
Water
Company –
Nipomo
Nipomo
CSD
Rural Water
Company/Cy
press Ridge
Sewer Co
Woodlands
Mutual
Water
Company
Conoco
Phillips
Co
South
Coast -
Agricult
ure
South
Coast -
Rural
Environ-
mental &
UMAD
Total
Urban/Ag
/ Rural
Water
Demands
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY) No
t
e
s
Demand
(AFY)
Demand
(AFY)
Deman
d (AFY)
Demand
(AFY)
Demand
(AFY)
Existing Demands
410 1 1,944 2,956 5 1,605 7 855 9 1,060 1 2,367 7 720 12 850 1 1,200 45,746 3,466 63,179
Forecasted Demands (2035)
458 1 2,550 3 3,318 6 1,755 3 1,348 1,847 4,198 3 720 13 1,520 1,330 20,222 5,661 0 44,927
Water
Supply
Source
Groundwater
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW
Supply
(AFY)
GW Supply
(AFY)
GW Supply
(AFY)
Edna Valley
482 2 482
Northern Cities
Management Area
700
700
Pismo Creek Valley (outside
NCMA)
160
160
Arroyo Grande Plain (Part of
Santa Maria Valley Basin)
1,323
1,423
8
900
3,646
Nipomo Mesa Hyd Sub-Area-
Santa Maria Basin
852
1,448
462
817
1,400 4,979
San Luis Obispo Valley
809 226 1,035
Santa Maria Valley
7,482 2,095 9,577
Other GW Supply Sources
11,931 3,340 15,271
Total GW
482 700 1,483 1,423 900 852 1,448 462 817 1,400 20,222 5,661 0 35,850
Surface Water
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW
Supply
(AFY)
SW Supply
(AFY)
SW Supply
(AFY)
Lopez Lake
896 2,290 800 303 4,289
Recycled Water
1,985 50 200 2,235
Item 8.m. - Page 134
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
r
a
f
t
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
4
D
-
5
3
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
R
W
M
Re
g
i
o
n
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
D.
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
,
D
e
m
a
n
d
,
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
B
u
d
g
e
t
WPA No. 7 - South Coast
Water Districts/Use
Sectors/Environmental/
Unimpaired Summary
Golden
State
Water
Company
– Edna
City of
Pismo
Beach
City of
Arroyo
Grande
City of
Grover
Beach
Oceano
CSD
Golden
State
Water
Company –
Nipomo
Nipomo
CSD
Rural Water
Company/Cy
press Ridge
Sewer Co
Woodlands
Mutual
Water
Company
Conoco
Phillips
Co
South
Coast -
Agricult
ure
South
Coast -
Rural
Environ-
mental &
UMAD
Total
SWP - WPA 7
1,240 4 495 10 1,735
Ag Land Conversion Credit
112 14 209 14 321
In-Region Transfer
100 11
100
Transfers - WPA 7
-100 11 -100
Nipomo Supplemental
Water Project
208
15
2,167
15
208
15
703
15
3,286
Total SW
0 4,121 2,502 1,009 698 208 2,167 258 903 0 0 0 0 11,866
Total Supplies
482 4,821 3,985 2,432 1,598 1,060 3,615 720 1,720 1,400 20,222 5,661 0 47,716
Balance (Supplies -
Demand)
24
2,271
667
677
250
-787
-583
0
200
70 0 0 0 2,789
Environmental Water
32,960
Unimpaired Mean Annual Inflow
49,100
Notes:
1 2012 MWR
2 Edna Valley Sub-basin estimated safe basin yield is 4000 AFY and all pumping is for urban agricultural rural users golf courses and CSA 18.
3 Assumes 20x2020 per capita target water use.
4 140 AFY of the 1240 AFY contracted amount has been allocated for Pismo Ranch.
5 20x2020 target water use was calculated using DWR Method 1.
6 Provided by City of Arroyo Grande
7 Existing Demand = Projected 2015 Water Demand using the 20x2020 interim water use target. 20x2020 target water use was calculated using DWR Method 4.
8 Non-potable groundwater pumped from irrigation wells used on the State Parks Department golf course and a City park. The portion of the 225 AFY attributed to the golf course predates the
Gentlemen's Agreement.
9 Ten percent additional water conservation (beyond what has already been accomplished) assumed for the low end of the forecast build-out demand, except for Grover Beach, which
assumed 20% additional reduction.
10 Oceano CSD has a 750 AFY allocation but no drought buffer. Therefore the 66 percent assumption for State Water Project delivery is 495 AFY.
11 Arroyo Grande has an active agreement to purchase 100 AFY of Oceano CSD supplies from groundwater or Lopez Lake water. This temporary agreement ends in 2014.
12 Existing demand = 2010 demand. Currently there are over 100 lots within the service area that could request water service, plus other potential requests for service
13 2015 Demand
14 2002 Settlement Agreement provides that groundwater allocations can be increased when land within the incorporated boundaries is converted from agricultural uses to urban uses.
15 Nipomo supplemental water project includes Nipomo CSD, Woodlands MWC, Golden State Water Company, and Rural Water Company. Nipomo CSD will receive approximately 1,667 AFY
and has reserved an additional 500 AFY. The other three will receive 833 AFY.
Item 8.m. - Page 135
Need for Per Capita Water Demand D.4.4
An IRWM Plan’s use of per capita demands in place of aggregated land use-based demands is
often preferred where the correlation in daily indoor water use and population work well and
are useful in showing progress in meeting given levels of water conservation over time.
The California Water Conservation Plan calls for a 20 percent per capita water use reduction
statewide by the year 2020. As part of the Urban Water Management Plan Act, urban water
suppliers are required to complete a plan and set an interim (2015) 10 percent reduction goal
as per the DWR guidance manual to meet the goals of the California Water Conservation Plan
as briefly summarized in the excerpts below:
#1. An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management
plan…due in 2010 the baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target,
interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with
the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.
#2. Urban wholesale water suppliers shall include in the urban water management plans
. . . an assessment of their present and proposed future measures, programs, and
policies to help achieve the water use reductions required by this part (10608.36). Urban
retail water suppliers are to prepare a plan for implementing the Water Conservation Bill
of 2009 requirements and conduct a public meeting, which includes consideration of
economic impacts (CWC §10608.26).
#25. Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, and
projected water use (over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a)),
identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to,
all of the following uses: (A) Single family residential; (B) Multifamily; (C) Commercial;
(D) Industrial; (E) Institutional and governmental; (F) Landscape; (G) Sales to other
agencies; (H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use,
or any combination thereof; (I) Agricultural (10631(e)(1) and (2)).
The table below presents the baseline and target per capita water demands for the urban water
suppliers required by the Urban Water Management Plan Act.
Item 8.m. - Page 136
Table D-47. Per Capita 20X2020 Goals for Large Urban Water Suppliers
Per Capita Water Use (GPCD)
Urban Water Supplier Baseline 2015 Interim 2020 Target
City of Arroyo Grande 186 167 149
Cambria CSD 112.4 109 105
City of Grover Beach 140.7 127 113
City of Morro Bay 125 119 113
City of Paso Robles 241 217 193
City of Pismo Beach 236 214 192
City of San Luis Obispo 124 120 117
Nipomo CSD 240 222 204
Source: 2010 UWMPs
D.5 DEMAND REVIEW SUMMARY DISCUSSION
As noted earlier in this section, no “unpublished” conclusions are made by the IRWM Plan. The
reasoning behind this decision is to maintain local agency control over reporting of water
demands and water supply use and management practices, including agricultural and rural
users. From the UWMPs and various planning documents, it appears that, in some WPAs, the
current and projected water supply cannot keep up with the growing water demands where
planned growth is already approved.
An additional concern is the inherent uncertainty of water demands where supplies for rural
and agricultural water use are estimated based on current land use and crop demand
coefficients. In some parts of the region, the water supply for rural and agricultural water uses
is currently in deficit and/or the basin safe basin yield in unknown. It should be noted that the
main source of supply for rural and agricultural applications is groundwater, and 16 out of the
37 groundwater basins supplying the San Luis Obispo Region do not have reported safe basin
yields. This leaves uncertainty when estimating water balances. Moreover, many of the DWR
groundwater basin studies are out of date, such as the study for the Santa Maria Valley Basin in
2002, which was prior to the formal establishment of both the Nipomo Mesa Management
Area, Northern Cities Management Area and Santa Maria Valley Management Area. Without an
assessment on the safe basin yields for all of the groundwater sources in the San Luis Obispo
Region, the total future supply sustainability is unknown.
Urban water supply appears more balanced due to the use of multiple water supply sources. In
addition to groundwater, urban water demand is met by surface water, State Water Project
Water, and alternative sources such as recycled water. However, as with the rural and
agricultural water applications, not knowing the current state of the groundwater basins in the
San Luis Obispo Region makes any true and meaningful comparison difficult to impossible.
While uncertainty exists around groundwater supplies and sustainability, the region has made a
concerted effort to increase water reliability by diversifying communities’ water portfolios.
Item 8.m. - Page 137
Communities and unincorporated areas of the region are considering the potential for various
surface water sources, recycled water and desalination facilities to improve sustainability. As is
described in Section G – Project Solicitation, Selection and Prioritization, stakeholders are
considering a number of projects to help adapt water supplies to the changing situations this
region faces (e.g. climate change, extended droughts, etc.).
Item 8.m. - Page 138
DRAFT
June 19, 2014
Cannon
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.544.7407
Participating Agencies:
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Grover Beach
City of Morro Bay
City of Pismo Beach
County of San Luis Obispo
Nipomo Community Services District
Oceano Community Services District
South San Luis Obispo County SanitaƟon District
Templeton Community Services District
San Luis Obispo CountySan Luis Obispo County
Regional Recycled Water Strategic PlanRegional Recycled Water Strategic Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 139
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Item 8.m. - Page 140
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The County of San Luis Obispo (County) is investigating opportunities for the use of treated
wastewater (recycled water) across the County as part of the San Luis Obispo Region
Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan (SLO IRWMP). The Regional Recycled
Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP) is one component of an update to the SLO IRWMP, and is
funded by a Round 2 IRWM Regional Planning Grant from the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR).
Increased interest in recycled water use has been expressed across the County through
individual agency water and wastewater planning efforts, and through County-wide efforts such
as SLO IRWMP and the County Master Water Plan. The interest in recycled water is driven by
several factors, particularly the acknowledgement of limited existing water sources and the
desire to maximize the benefit of local resources. Historically, the primary obstacles to recycled
water implementation were cost competiveness with existing water supplies and some future
water supplies, as well as, in some cases, public or customer acceptance of reuse. Some of
these obstacles still exist and are explored in the RRWSP.
RRWSP Purpose, Objectives, and Approach
The purpose of the RRWSP is to identify and prioritize potentially viable next steps in
successfully implementing water reclamation across the County in a safe and cost-effective
manner. The RRWSP objectives are to:
x Update previously defined recycled water projects, identify new projects, and identify
opportunities for inter-regional cooperation.
x Apply a similar cost and benefit basis to all projects to identify higher regional priorities.
x Advance existing recycled water planning efforts for each study area based on the
progress and needs of each area.
x Define the critical next steps for individual agencies and regional entities to move priority
projects forward.
x Identify one or more projects for the final round of Proposition 84 implementation grant
funding, which is scheduled for 2015.
The RRWSP’s approach builds upon the technical information developed by each agency,
including treatment plant upgrades, market assessments, and project descriptions. This work
also updated relevant information for previously identified projects, and identified potential
modifications to those projects to lower cost while maintaining potential benefits. The RRWSP
identifies high-priority projects based on costs and benefits, and defines critical next steps for
each project. The RRWSP also addresses policy, regulatory, permitting, legal, and funding /
financing considerations for different types of recycled water projects.
The RRWSP covers region wide recycled water opportunities, and has focused evaluations
within four study areas (refer to the figure on the following page):
1. Morro Bay
2. Nipomo (Nipomo Community Services District (CSD))
3. Northern Cities (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano CSD, and South
San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD))
4. Templeton (Templeton CSD)
Item 8.m. - Page 141
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
City of Morro Bay
City of Pismo Beach
Nipomo Community Services District
Templeton Community Services District
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
S
alinas
R
i
v
e
r
Estrell
a
R
i
v
er
S a n t a Maria River
S
a
n
Ju
an
C
r
e
e
k
H
u
e
r
h
u
e
ro
Creek
A l a m o C r e e k
Chorro
C
reek
P o z o Cr e e k
C h ol a m e C r e e k
L
a
s
Tab l a s C r e e k
C
u
y
a
m
a
R
i
v
e
r
Legend
Arroyo Grande
Grover Beach
Oceano
Highways
m
048122
Miles
1:500,000
RRWSP Study Areas
San Luis Obispo County
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
DRAFT JUNE 2014
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
Item 8.m. - Page 142
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-3
Regional Overview
The County’s water supplies consist of groundwater, local and imported surface water, recycled
water, and ocean desalination. The specific water supply portfolio for each water purveyor
varies according to its location and previous investments in water supply infrastructure. For
example, many purveyors are entirely dependent on groundwater, while a limited number use
only groundwater to meet peak season demand. As reflected in the following figure, most water
purveyors have a heavy reliance on groundwater.
County Water Supply Portfolio & Types of Water Use
Source: San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region Public Draft (June 2014), Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
In general, there are limited untapped groundwater supplies for municipal drinking water use. As
a result, many purveyors have invested in surface water supplies over the past decade, such as
the State Water Project and Nacimiento Water Project. These new surface supplies have eased
the stress on many groundwater basins. In addition, some historical supplies may be reduced in
the future – whether from unsustainable pumping of groundwater, groundwater quality issues, or
reductions in surface water availability. Climate change also has the potential to reduce the
County’s water supplies. These conditions, among others, have spurred interest in recycled
water, particularly in locations where treated wastewater is discharged to the ocean and no
associated water supply benefit is realized.
Urban water use accounts for approximately 21% of total water use across the County, which
equates to approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year (afy). As shown in the following figure,
approximately half of this volume is used outdoors and the other half is used indoors. All the
indoor urban water use is conveyed to municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and
has the potential for reuse. After accounting for water losses and reuse within the WWTPs,
approximately 20,000 afy (or roughly 10% of total water use across the County) has the
potential for reuse. Finding the highest and best beneficial reuse for this volume of water is the
focus of the RRWSP.
Ground
water
89.5%
Surface
Water
10.0%
Recycled
Water
0.4%
Ocean
Desal
0.1% Rural
4%
Urban
21%
Agricultu
re
75%
Item 8.m. - Page 143
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-4
Estimated Municipal Water Use and Wastewater Production
Source: San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region Public Draft (June 2014), Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
Recycled Water Background
Currently there are six operational non-potable reuse (NPR) projects across the region primarily
consisting of golf course irrigation with disinfected secondary recycled water from treatment
plants serving planned residential communities. The City of San Luis Obispo operates the only
recycled water distribution system in the region, serving primarily City parks for landscape
irrigation. Also, the County Department of Public Works is currently constructing a recycled
water treatment and distribution system for the community of Los Osos, which will be
operational in 2016. In total, approximately 810 afy of effluent is currently reused across the
region by the following existing non-potable reuse projects:
x Atascadero (300 afy to Chalk Mountain Golf Course)
x California Men’s Colony (200 afy to Dairy Creek Golf Course)
x Nipomo CSD, Blacklake WWTP (50 afy to Blacklake Golf Course)
x Rural Water Company WWTP (50 afy to Cypress Ridge Golf Course)
x City of San Luis Obispo (160 afy to nearby golf courses, schools, and commercial
establishments; in addition to a minimum of 1,800 afy to San Luis Obispo Creek for
streamflow augmentation)
x Woodlands MWC WWTP (50 afy to Monarch Dunes Golf Course)
In addition, approximately 790 afy of discharges are counted toward groundwater rights:
x Nipomo CSD Southland WWTP (640 afy percolated to Nipomo Mesa groundwater)
x Templeton CSD Meadowbrook WWTP (150 afy infiltrated for Salinas River underflow)
Unplanned or incidental reuse occurs in the County via discharge of disinfected secondary
effluent to percolation ponds from WWTPs without an ocean outfall. The ponds discharge to the
Indoor Use
(to WWTP)
Outdoor Use
Coastal Discharge
Inland Discharge
Non-Potable Reuse
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Urban Water UseWaterwater Discharges / Reuse
AF
Y
Item 8.m. - Page 144
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-5
underlying groundwater or an adjacent river and may eventually be used for potable or non-
potable use, such as agriculture.
Unlike inland discharges, effluent discharge via ocean outfalls has no existing water supply
benefit. Therefore, reuse of effluent from WWTPs with ocean outfalls would provide the largest
water supply benefit. Approximately 6,200 afy of effluent is currently discharged to the ocean
and the volume will rise as growth occurs in these areas. These discharges offer the highest
opportunity for water supply benefit through reuse since the effluent does not provide any water
supply benefit at this time. The following table summarizes effluent discharges and reuse across
the region and the following figure shows the locations of each of these WWTPs.
Summary of Existing Effluent Discharges
Agency / WWTP Existing Effluent Existing
Reuse
Inland
Discharge
Ocean /
Coastal
Discharge
North County Sub-Region
City of Atascadero 1.0 mgd 1,100 afy 300 afy 800 afy --
Heritage Ranch CSD 0.2 mgd 230 afy -- 230 afy --
City of Paso Robles 3.0 mgd 3,300 afy -- 3,300 afy --
San Miguel CSD 0.1 mgd 130 afy -- 130 afy --
TCSD Meadowbrook WWTP1 0.15 mgd 170 afy -- 170 afy2 --
North Coast Sub-Region
California Men’s Colony 1.2 mgd 1,340 afy 200 afy3 1,140 afy3 --
Cambria CSD 0.5 mgd 540 afy --4 -- 540 afy
Cayucos CSD 0.25 mgd 275 afy -- -- 275 afy
Los Osos WWTP5 1.2 mgd 1,340 afy -- 1,340 afy --
Morro Bay 0.87 mgd 975 afy -- -- 975 afy
San Simeon CSD 0.07 mgd 80 afy --6 -- 80 afy
South County Sub-Region
Avila Beach CSD 0.05 mgd 50 afy -- -- 50 afy
NCSD Blacklake WWTP 0.05 mgd 50 afy 50 afy -- --
NCSD Southland WWTF 0.6 mgd 640 afy -- 640 afy7 --
Pismo Beach 1.1 mgd 1,230 afy -- -- 1,230 afy
Rural Water Company 0.05 mgd 50 afy 50 afy -- --
City of San Luis Obispo8 5.1 mgd 5,700 afy 160 afy 5,540 afy8 --
San Miguelito MWC 0.15 mgd 170 afy -- -- 170 afy
SSLOCSD WWTP 2.6 mgd 2,910 afy -- -- 2,910 afy
Woodland MWC 0.05 mgd 50 afy 50 afy -- --
Total 18.3 mgd 20,330 afy 810 afy 13,290 afy 6,230 afy
Notes:
1. Templeton CSD is considering diverting existing sewer flows that go to the Paso Robles WWTP
(approximately 0.22 mgd) and conveying the flow for treatment at the TCSD Meadowbrook WWTP.
2. Templeton CSD retrieves the percolated water at downstream wells.
3. Must maintain a minimum discharge of 0.75 cfs (0.5 mgd; 540 afy) to Chorro Creek.
4. Percolated effluent serves as a barrier to slow the seaward migration of subterranean fresh water.
5. Currently under construction and start of operations planned for 2016.
6. Trucking of recycled water for irrigation started in 2014.
7. Percolated water is accounted for in the Nipomo Mesa Management Area groundwater balance.
8. Must maintain a minimum discharge of 2.5 cfs (1.6 mgd; 1,800 afy) to San Luis Obispo Creek.
Item 8.m. - Page 145
Cypress Ridge WWTP
NCSD Southland WWTF
Woodlands MWC WWTP
SSLOCSD WWTP
Avila Beach WWTP
San Luis Obispo WRF
California Men's Colony WWTP
City of Morro Bay and Cayucos CSD WWTP
Los Osos WWTP (2016)
Atascadero WRF
TCSD Meadowbrook WWTP
Cambria CSD WWTP
San Simeon CSD WWTP
Paso Robles WWTP
Heritage Ranch WWTP
San Miguel CSD WWTP
NCSD Blacklake WWTP
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
Pismo Beach WWTP
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Ocean Discharge WWTP
*Inland Discharge WWTP
QP Existing Reuse Project
Highway
Stream
Lakes
m
048122
Miles
1:600,000
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants within San Luis Obispo County
San Luis Obispo County
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
DRAFT JUNE 2014
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
Item 8.m. - Page 146
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-7
Common Types of Reuse
Common types of water reuse can be divided into the following categories (based on USEPA
2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse):
x Urban Reuse
o Unrestricted: The use of recycled water for non-potable applications in municipal
settings where public access is not restricted
o Restricted: The use of recycled water for non-potable applications in municipal
settings where public access is controlled or restricted by physical or institutional
barriers, such as fencing, advisory signage, or temporal access restriction
x Agricultural Reuse
o Food Crops: The use of recycled water to irrigate food crops intended for human
consumption
o Processed Food Crops and Non-food Crops: The use of recycled water to irrigate
crops that are either processed before human consumption or not consumed by
humans
x Impoundments
o Unrestricted: The use of recycled water in an impoundment in which no
limitations are imposed on body-contact water recreation activities
o Restricted: The use of recycled water in an impoundment where body contact is
restricted, such as a landscape feature
x Environmental Reuse
o The use of recycled water to create, enhance, sustain, or augment water bodies,
including wetlands, aquatic habitats, or stream flow
x Industrial Reuse
o The use of recycled water in industrial applications and facilities, power
production, and extraction of fossil fuels
x Potable Reuse
o Indirect Potable Reuse: Augmentation of a drinking water source (surface or
groundwater) with recycled water followed by an environmental buffer and, for
surface water only, normal drinking water treatment
o Direct Potable Reuse: The introduction of recycled water (with or without
retention in an engineered storage buffer) directly into a water treatment plant,
either collocated or remote from the advanced wastewater treatment system
All of the types of reuse listed above are examined in the RRWSP with the exception of:
x Restricted Impoundments: Restricted impoundments are common recycled water
storage methods for golf courses and agricultural fields but are not an end use. Use of
recycled water for unrestricted impoundments is not considered in the RRWSP.
x Direct Potable Reuse: This option has recently emerged as a viable recycled water
alternative across the United States, but several years of study and development of
regulations await before a feasible project could be conceived in the County.
Item 8.m. - Page 147
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-8
Opportunities, Constraints, and Recommendations by Study Area
This section presents the recycled water evaluation conducted for each of the study areas and
summarizes opportunities across the region.
City of Morro Bay
The City of Morro Bay is currently conducting a planning effort to define and site a new water
reclamation facility (WRF). One key goal of the new facility is to produce tertiary effluent for
reuse. As of February 2014, The City Council is scheduled to decide on a site in August 2014
and plans to have the new WRF online by February 2019.
There are a range of recycled water opportunities in and around the city, including landscape
irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and groundwater recharge / streamflow augmentation. The city
wants to maximize reuse from the new WRF. However, implementation of each type of potential
reuse is subject to constraints, and feasible recycled water options are ultimately dependent on
the site selected for the new WRF.
Next Steps
x Decide on a location for the new water reclamation facility.
x Pursue reuse opportunities specific to the WRF location.
x Incorporate recycled water planning into salt and nutrient management planning.
New WRF Sites Evaluated by Morro Bay
Source: Figure 1 from New WRF Project: Options Report – Second Public Draft (December 5, 2013)
Item 8.m. - Page 148
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-9
Nipomo CSD
NCSD has two WWTPs (Southland WWTF and Blacklake WWTP) and both currently maximize
reuse. Blacklake WWTP effluent is reused for irrigation at Blacklake Golf Course. Southland
WWTF is percolated into the underlying groundwater basin, and these flows are included in the
Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA) water balance. Reuse of Southland WWTF effluent
for landscape irrigation in strategic locations, such as offsetting pumping in groundwater
depressions, could provide benefits to NCSD but would not necessarily provide new water.
Also, Southland WWTF would need a tertiary treatment upgrade or an equivalent soil aquifer
treatment and pumping system.
Potential landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and groundwater recharge projects from
Southland WWTF were explored in the RRWSP. However, the projects were not cost effective
($10,000+/af) primarily because NCSD would only receive a 10% water supply benefit for every
unit of recycled water use since percolated Southland WWTF effluent is already part of the
NMMA water balance. (The water balance assumes 10% of percolated water is lost during
transport to the groundwater table and reuse of the effluent for irrigation would avoid these
losses). In summary, NCSD beneficially reuses 90% of treated effluent from Southland WWTF
and would only be able to receive a maximum new water supply benefit of 90 afy if all 900 afy of
existing effluent is reused for irrigation.
NCSD Recycled Water Project Concepts
Alternative Average
Annual
Demand
Unit Cost Based on
ID Description Annual
Demand
Water Supply
Benefit
N1a Nipomo Regional Park Project 51 afy $4,790 / AF $47,900 / AF
N1b N1a & Blacklake Golf Course Extension 551 afy $1,730 / AF $17,300 / AF
N1c N1a & Monarch Dunes Golf Course Extension 951 afy $1,310 / AF $13,100 / AF
In addition, NCSD recycled water opportunities and constraints include:
x Limited opportunity for direct offset of NCSD potable water use since largest potential
customers pump water from their own irrigation well
x Substantial agricultural demand exists in proximity to the Southland WWTF
x Southland WWTF will require an upgrade to tertiary filtration or pumping after percolation
to implement a recycled water project
x Additional treatment may be needed to meet water quality requirements of specific
customers (e.g., agriculture) resulting in additional costs for treatment and concentrate
management
Based on this assessment, a water supply benefit will not drive a NCSD recycled water project.
However, recycled water projects could be driven by the need for alternative disposal methods
in the future based on potentially stricter waste discharge requirements from the RWQCB.
Next Steps
x Continue to monitor potential mounding of effluent recharge at the Southland WWTF
and, if mounding is realized, pursue reuse opportunities
x Work with SSLOCSD representatives on potential cross-basin reuse projects
x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled
water planning.
Item 8.m. - Page 149
So
u
t
h
l
a
n
d
W
W
T
F
Ni
p
o
m
o
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
r
k
Bl
a
c
k
l
a
k
e
G
o
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
Mo
n
a
r
c
h
D
u
n
e
s
G
o
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
(
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
s
)
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
s
r
i
,
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,
G
e
o
E
y
e
,
i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
U
S
D
A
,
U
S
G
S
,
A
E
X
,
G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,
A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,
I
G
N
,
I
G
P
,
sw
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
I
S
U
s
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Le
g
e
n
d
WW
T
F
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N1 N2 N3
m
00
.81
.6
0.
4
Mi
l
e
s
1:
4
5
,
0
0
0
Ni
p
o
m
o
C
S
D
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
DR
A
F
T
J
U
N
E
2
0
1
4
Item 8.m. - Page 150
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-11
City of Pismo Beach
The Pismo Beach WWTP currently discharges approximately 1.1 mgd (1,230 afy) of disinfected
secondary effluent through the joint Pismo Beach / SSLOCSD ocean outfall. Nine landscape
irrigation project concepts from the Pismo Beach WWTP were defined. In addition, use of Pismo
Beach WWTP effluent in combination with SSLOCSD effluent for larger, regional projects, such
as agricultural reuse, groundwater recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water
augmentation are discussed under SSLOCSD in the following section.
Pismo Beach Recycled Water Project Concepts
Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts
PB1: Pismo Beach Sports Complex
PB2: Caltrans and Middle School
PB3: Price House Historic Park
PB4: South to Arroyo Grande
PB5: Pismo State Beach Golf Course
PB6: Dinosaur Caves Park
PB7: Palisades Park
Projects using the existing effluent outfall
PB8: Pismo State Beach Golf Course
PB9: Western Grover Beach
Unit Costs of Pismo Beach Project Concepts ($/AF)
AFY 16 89 28 26 86 47 62 77 44
Opportunities and Constraints
Based on findings from the project concepts development process, preliminary recycled water
opportunities and constraints for Pismo Beach include:
• Maximizing reuse will require more types of uses than just existing landscape irrigation.
• Approximately 130 afy of landscape irrigation demand is located within 0.5 mile of the
WWTP, which offers promising reuse opportunities. However, demand estimates for
several key potential customers must be confirmed before proceeding much further with
planning.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
PB1PB2PB3PB4PB5PB6PB7PB8PB9
Cost of Tertiary Treatment
Item 8.m. - Page 151
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-12
x Tertiary treatment upgrades for small treatment plant commonly have high unit costs due
to the lack of scale and could result in high project unit costs for service to customers
close to the WWTP.
x There is potential for large recycled water use from new development if approved by the
City.
x Two of the largest potential customers – Pismo Beach Sports Complex and Pismo State
Beach Golf Course – are not Pismo Beach potable water customers, so their water
supply benefit must be achieved through groundwater exchange.
x Most landscape irrigation customers have relatively low demands and are spread across
the city, which causes service to these customers have high unit costs.
x Use of Pismo Beach effluent for agricultural irrigation is potentially the most cost-
effective reuse project as long as the Pismo Beach receives a water supply benefit.
Agricultural irrigation is included in the SSLOCSD section.
x Use of Pismo Beach effluent for groundwater recharge is a viable option and is included
in the SSLOCSD section.
The City recently purchased abandoned oil pipelines with the intent to consider their use for
conveyance of recycled water. This option could potentially reduce distribution infrastructure
costs and make more landscape irrigation projects cost effective. This concept will be evaluated
as part of the City’s Recycled Water Facilities Plan, which is currently being prepared and is
expected to be completed in early 2015.
Next Steps
x Prepare Recycled Water Facilities Plan in consultation with regional stakeholders and
the SWRCB.
x Investigate ability to use abandoned oil lines for recycled water conveyance. The
RRWSP did not consider this option and its application could make non-potable reuse
cost effective for the City.
x Confirm demand estimates for cost effective projects
x Explore alternative tertiary treatment method geared toward relatively small flows (i.e.
0.1 to 0.3 mgd)
x Evaluate the cost to retrofit Pismo Beach State Golf Course and the ability for the city to
receive groundwater benefits
x Refine potential projects to develop a phased recycled water program
x Continue discussions with new development (if approved by the City) regarding recycled
water demand and funding
x Consider use of the existing outfall as a recycled water conveyance facility (but only if
100% tertiary treatment conversion is planned)
x Compare costs of viable projects with alternative water supplies
x Continue to participate in discussions with regional SSLOCSD projects that could put
Pismo Beach effluent to beneficial use and confirm the ability of the City to receive a
water supply benefit
x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled
water planning.
Item 8.m. - Page 152
`_6
`_1
`_8
`_3
`_4
`_7
`_2
`_9
`_5
`_11
`_23
`_13
`_16`_15
`_12
`_26
`_20
`_14
`_10
`_17
`_24
`_25
`_21
`_22
`_18
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
s
r
i
,
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,
G
e
o
E
y
e
,
i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
U
S
D
A
,
U
S
G
S
,
A
E
X
,
G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,
A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,
I
G
N
,
I
G
P
,
sw
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
I
S
U
s
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Le
g
e
n
d
WW
T
P
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
PB
1
PB
2
PB
3
PB
4
PB
5
PB
6
PB
7
1:
4
5
,
0
0
0
m
00
.5
1
1
.5
0.
2
5
Mi
l
e
s
^ŝ
ƚ
Ğ
E
Ž
͘
>
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
Đ
Ă
Ɖ
Ğ
/
ƌ
ƌ
ŝ
Ő
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
ŵ
Ğ
ƌ
ϭ
Ă
LJ
Đ
ů
ŝ
Ĩ
Ĩ
Ž
Ŷ
Ě
Ž
Ɛ
,
K
Ϯ
Ž
Ž
Ŷ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
Ğ
ƌ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϯ
Ă
ů
d
ƌ
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ͳ
,
t
z
ϭ
Ϭ
ϭ
D
Ğ
Ě
ŝ
Ă
Ŷ
;
E
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ś
Ϳ
ϰ
Ś
Ƶ
ŵ
Ă
Ɛ
Ś
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϱ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ă
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Ă
ǀ
Ğ
Ɛ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϲ
ů
Ě
ǁ
Ă
LJ
Ğ
Ŷ
K
Đ
Ğ
Ă
Ŷ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϳ
ǀ
Ğ
ƌ
Ğ
ƚ
ƚ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
ϴ
&
ŝ
ǀ
Ğ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ğ
Ɛ
^
Ś
Ž
Ɖ
Ɖ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
ϵ
&
ƌ
Ă
Ŷ
Đ
ŝ
Ɛ
:
Ƶ
Ě
Ŭ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ɛ
D
ŝ
Ě
Ě
ů
Ğ
^
Đ
Ś
Ž
Ž
ů
ϭϬ
,
ŝ
Ő
Ś
ů
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϭϭ
/
ƌ
Ă
>
Ğ
Ă
Ɛ
Ğ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϭϮ
:
Ă
ŵ
Ğ
Ɛ
t
Ă
LJ
^
ů
Ž
Ɖ
Ğ
Ɛ
D
Ğ
Ě
ŝ
Ă
Ŷ
ϭϯ
D
Ă
ƌ
Ő
Ž
Ž
Ě
Ě
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϭϰ
D
Ă
ƌ
LJ
,
Ă
ƌ
ƌ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϭϱ
E
Ğ
ǁ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
Ś
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ś
ϭϲ
K
Ă
Ŭ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
^
Ś
Ž
Ɖ
Ɖ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
ϭϳ
W
Ă
ů
ŝ
Ɛ
Ă
Ě
Ğ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ϭϴ
W
ŝ
Ɛ
ŵ
Ž
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ś
^
Ɖ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
dž
ϮϬ
W
ŝ
Ɛ
ŵ
Ž
Ž
Ă
Ɛ
ƚ
s
ŝ
ů
ů
Ă
Ő
Ğ
Z
s
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
Ϯϭ
W
ŝ
Ɛ
ŵ
Ž
^
ƚ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ś
'
Ž
ů
Ĩ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ğ
ϮϮ
W
ƌ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
,
Ž
Ƶ
Ɛ
Ğ
,
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
ƌ
ŝ
Đ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
Ϯϯ
^
Ś
Ğ
ů
ů
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ś
^
Đ
Ś
Ž
Ž
ů
Ϯϰ
^
Ž
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
W
Ă
ů
ŝ
Ɛ
Ă
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
ͬ
t
Ă
ů
Ŭ
ǁ
Ă
LJ
Ϯϱ
^
Ɖ
LJ
Ő
ů
Ă
Ɛ
Ɛ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
Ϯϲ
s
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ă
Ŷ
Ă
/
Ɛ
ů
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
D
Ğ
Ě
ŝ
Ă
Ŷ
Pi
s
m
o
B
e
a
c
h
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
DR
A
F
T
J
U
N
E
2
0
1
4
Pi
s
m
o
B
e
a
c
h
W
W
T
P
Item 8.m. - Page 153
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-14
Northern Cities – SSLOCSD
The SSLOCSD WWTP currently discharges approximately 2.6 mgd of disinfected secondary
effluent through a joint ocean outfall (shared with Pismo Beach). Approximately 1.1 mgd of
disinfected secondary effluent from Pismo Beach WWTP is discharged through the same ocean
outfall. SSLOCSD has the largest volume of effluent considered in the RRWSP and the largest
opportunities for large-scale reuse; however, landscape irrigation projects are expensive
($3,000+/af) and the more cost effective reuse opportunities – agricultural irrigation, industrial
reuse, groundwater recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water augmentation – will
require institutional, legal, outreach, and financial planning to be feasible.
SSLOCSD Recycled Water Project Concepts
Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts
S1a. Small Landscape Irrigation Project
S1b. Core Landscape Irrigation Project
S1c. Extension to Grover Beach Project
S1d. Extension North of Highway 101 Project
S1e. Nipomo Mesa Golf Courses
Agricultural Irrigation Project Concepts
S2a. Direct delivery over 12 hours each day (Tertiary)
S2b. S2a with 40% RO
S2c. Direct delivery over 24 hours each day (Tertiary)
S2d. S2a; Serving 50% of estimated demand
Groundwater Recharge Project Concepts
S3a. GWR via surface spreading (60% RO)
S3b. GWR via surface spreading (Full AWT)
S3c. GWR via injection (Full AWT)
Surface Water Augmentation Project Concepts
S4a. Arroyo Grande Creek Augmentation (80% RO)
S4b. Arroyo Grande Creek Augmentation (Full AWT)
S4c. Los Berros Creek Augmentation (80% RO)
S4d. Los Berros Creek Augmentation (Full AWT)
S4e. Lopez Reservoir Augmentation (Full AWT)
Industrial Reuse Project Concepts
S5a. Tertiary Treatment
S5b. Full RO
Unit Costs of SSLOCSD Project Concepts ($/AF)
AFY 12 162 44 52 1890 1890 1810 1890 1200 2760 2390 2390 2670 2390 2670 2390 2390 1100 1100
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
S1aS1bS1cS1dS1eS2aS2bS2cS2dS3aS3bS3cS4aS4bS4cS4dS4eS5a S5b
Cost of Tertiary Treatment
Landscape
Irrigation
Surface Water
Augmentation Groundwater
Recharge Agricultural
Irrigation
Industrial
Item 8.m. - Page 154
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-15
Overall, the amount of reuse for landscape irrigation is limited by the demand, while supply
limits the amount of agricultural irrigation during the peak demand season (summer).
Groundwater recharge and reservoir augmentation are limited by supply. Stream augmentation
could be limited by supply or demand depending on future regulatory scenarios related to the
volume of flow required at different points in the creek in the Habitat Conservation Plan.
Opportunities and Constraints
Based on the project concepts development process, SSLOCSD recycled water opportunities
and constraints include the following:
x Reuse from SSLOCSD WWTP will require upgrade to tertiary treatment.
x Additional treatment may be needed to meet water quality requirements of specific
customers (e.g., agriculture) or discharge regulations for specific types of reuse (e.g.,
stream augmentation or indirect potable reuse).
x Landscape irrigation projects have the highest unit costs due to limited demand in
proximity to the SSLOCSD WWTP.
x Agricultural irrigation projects have the lowest unit costs due to substantial agricultural
demand in proximity to the SSLOCSD WWTP.
x GWR and stream augmentation projects have moderate unit costs and include a range
of costs primarily due to the level of treatment assumed for each project.
x GWR regulations limit the potential for cost effective projects due to the need for blend
water.
x GWR and stream augmentation projects offer the highest volume of reuse.
x Industrial reuse has moderate unit costs and could potentially be combined with
agricultural reuse since the industrial pipeline has the same alignment as the primary
agricultural pipeline.
Next Steps
General
x Complete planned treatment plant improvements and re-evaluate facilities needed to
implement tertiary treatment upgrade.
x Track regulatory drivers and their impacts on reuse opportunities from SSLOCSD
WWTP, including:
o RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (NPDES Permit)
o NOAA Habitat Conservation Plan
o California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit
o Flood Protection / SWRCB Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer
Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003
x Address institutional issues and potential funding mechanisms for regional projects
o Discuss cost sharing of projects between water and wastewater agencies or
water/sewer funds.
o Discuss operations and management of the project
o Discuss the logistics and legal basis for groundwater exchanges.
o Coordinate with Pismo Beach reuse plans to identify the most cost effective
reuse projects for the NCMA.
o Develop project concepts sufficiently to position for grant funding opportunities
Item 8.m. - Page 155
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-16
o Initiate discussions with member agencies about project funding between the
water supply entities (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Oceano CSD) and
SSLOCSD.
o Investigate funding mechanisms for regional projects that benefit NCMA pumpers
in addition to SSLOCSD and its member agencies.
o Discuss support for use of SSLOCSD recycled water in the NMMA and the
related ability to receive water supply benefits in the NCMA.
x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled
water planning.
Nipomo Mesa Golf Courses
x Confirm demand estimates that account for future growth
x Address issues associated with use of NCMA effluent in the NMMA.
Agricultural Irrigation
x Initiate planning for agricultural reuse program to enable a project to be developed within
10 years.
x Conduct outreach to agricultural operations in the area determine willingness to use
recycled water in the future and obstacles to implementation.
x Set up a pilot study potentially in conjunction with Cal Poly1 similar to the Paso Robles
Recycled Water Demonstration Garden. Identify funding source for a pilot project.
Industrial Reuse
x Discuss reuse options with Phillips66 refinery.
x Address issues associated with use of NCMA effluent in the NMMA.
Groundwater Recharge / Seawater Intrusion Barrier
x Track regulations associated with groundwater recharge and surface water
augmentation that impact the basis of projects in the RRWSP.
x Further investigate NCMA groundwater basin, potentially with a groundwater model, to
identify surface recharge locations, inland injection locations, and coastal injection
locations. Define the benefits of these projects to the basin, particularly the prevention of
seawater intrusion.
x Determine benefits of and need for a seawater intrusion barrier (via direct injection or in-
lieu reuse) and groundwater levels that would necessitate its use. Determine the value of
groundwater protected from seawater intrusion.
Streamflow Augmentation
x Continue to track developments in Arroyo Grande Creek flow requirements / restrictions.
x Track new and potential surface water discharge regulations.
1 California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Irrigation Training & Research Center; www.itrc.org
Item 8.m. - Page 156
Pi
s
m
o
B
e
a
c
h
Ni
p
o
m
o
Ar
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
Oc
e
a
n
o
Gr
o
v
e
r
B
e
a
c
h
Z[10
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
s
r
i
,
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,
G
e
o
E
y
e
,
i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
U
S
D
A
,
U
S
G
S
,
A
E
X
,
G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,
A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,
I
G
N
,
I
G
P
,
sw
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
I
S
U
s
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
0
0.
2
5
0.
5
0.
1
2
5
Mi
l
e
s
Le
g
e
n
d
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Gr
o
u
d
w
a
t
e
r
R
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
u
s
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Su
r
f
a
c
e
W
a
t
e
r
A
u
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
WW
T
P
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Ri
v
e
r
s
1:
8
0
,
0
0
0
m
SS
L
O
C
S
D
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
DR
A
F
T
J
U
N
E
2
0
1
4
SS
L
O
C
S
D
W
W
T
P
Pi
s
m
o
B
e
a
c
h
W
W
T
P
To
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
C
r
e
e
k
a
n
d
L
o
p
e
z
L
a
k
e
Item 8.m. - Page 157
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-18
Templeton CSD
Templeton CSD is currently maximizing the water supply benefits of its Meadowbrook WWTP
discharges and is planning to divert district sewer flows from Paso Robles WWTP to
Meadowbrook WWTP. TCSD is evaluating the percolation capacity of the existing Selby Ponds
to handle the proposed flow from the sewer diversion in addition to untreated Nacimiento water,
so reuse opportunities are being explored. Most reuse options will require an upgrade to tertiary
treatment. Eleven recycled water project concepts were defined for Templeton CSD.
Templeton CSD Recycled Water Project Concepts
Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts
T1a. Downtown Core Landscape Irrigation Project
T1b. Evers Sports Park Extension Project
T1c. Vineyard Elementary School Extension Project
T1d. Jermin Park Extension Project
T1e. Commercial Landscape Irrigation (Equestrian
Center) Project
Agricultural Irrigation Project Concepts
T2a. Direct delivery over 12 hours each day (Tertiary)
T2b. T2b with 40% RO
T2c. Direct delivery over 24 hours each day (Tertiary)
Groundwater Recharge Project Concepts
T3a. GWR via surface spreading (60% RO)
T3b. GWR via surface spreading (Full AWT)
T3c. GWR via injection (Full AWT)
Unit Costs of TCSD Project Concepts ($/AF)
AFY 27 16 20 5 160 260 260 260 530 500 500
Opportunities and Constraints
Based on the project concepts development process, TCSD recycled water opportunities and
constraints include the following:
x Reuse via percolation at the Selby Ponds is the preferred use of Meadowbrook WWTP
effluent.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$14,000
$15,000
T1aT1bT1cT1dT1eT2aT2bT2cT3aT3bT3c
Cost of Tertiary Treatment
Landscape Irrigation
Groundwater
Recharge Agricultural
Irrigation
Item 8.m. - Page 158
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-19
x Significant increases to effluent flows are dependent on a combination of septic tank
conversions, build-out growth, and diversions from the East Side Force Main and Lift
Station Project.
x Potential for reuse of up to 0.2 mgd of effluent without treatment upgrades for feed and
fodder irrigation but the reuse would not offset potable water demand.
x Reuse from Meadowbrook WWTP with a water supply benefit will require at least an
upgrade to tertiary treatment.
x Additional treatment may be needed to meet water quality requirements of specific
customers (e.g., agriculture) or regulations for specific types of reuse (e.g., GWR).
x Landscape irrigation projects have high unit costs due to limited demand in proximity to
the WWTP.
x Commercial landscape irrigation (i.e., equestrian farm) has moderate unit costs due to
moderate demand.
x Agricultural irrigation has moderate unit costs due to moderate demand in proximity to
the Meadowbrook WWTP but a proper market assessment was not conducted.
x GWR has moderate unit costs due to treatment requirements and has the highest
volume of reuse all effluent. There is an opportunity to include Nacimiento Water in
GWR plans as well. However, costs to incorporate blend water are not included.
Next Steps
TCSD plans to incorporate feasible projects into the District’s planned Integrated Water
Resources Strategic Plan and must be able to adjust reuse needs based on future percolation
performance of the Selby Ponds and actual increases to future flows. Therefore, TCSD should:
x Incorporate commercial irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and groundwater recharge
options into the forthcoming Integrated Water Resources Strategic Plan.
x Continue investigation into improving recharge capacity at Selby Ponds through WWTP
improvements as well as upgrades and improvements to the ponds.
x Considers water supply benefits and impacts to discharge capacity of continued
recharge of Nacimiento water in the Selby Ponds.
x Refine feed and fodder disposal option as a temporary disposal alternative until Selby
Pond recharge capacity is better known.
x If Selby Ponds cannot recharge all effluent, refine agricultural irrigation and commercial
irrigation options.
x Survey private agricultural and large turfgrass operations in the vicinity of the WWTP for
their interest in recycled water use combined with the ability for TCSD to use a similar
amount of groundwater currently being used by the entity.
x Consider inclusion of Nacimiento water with recycled water groundwater recharge plans.
x Track GWR regulations for changes that may improve economics of GWR concepts,
particularly the need for blend water.
x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled
water planning.
Item 8.m. - Page 159
Z[10
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
s
r
i
,
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,
G
e
o
E
y
e
,
i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
U
S
D
A
,
U
S
G
S
,
A
E
X
,
G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,
A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,
I
G
N
,
I
G
P
,
sw
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
I
S
U
s
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
00
.30
.6
0.
1
5
Mi
l
e
s
Le
g
e
n
d
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
R
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
WW
T
P
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
In
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
e
l
l
A
r
e
a
Re
c
h
a
r
g
e
B
a
s
i
n
A
r
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
W
e
l
l
Ri
v
e
r
s
1:
5
0
,
0
0
0
m
Te
m
p
l
e
t
o
n
C
S
D
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
DR
A
F
T
J
U
N
E
2
0
1
4
TC
S
D
M
e
a
d
o
w
b
r
o
o
k
W
W
T
P
Item 8.m. - Page 160
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-21
Other Potential Recycled Water Projects
The RRWSP focused on defining projects in five areas across the region but many more
relevant opportunities exist.
North County
x City of Atascadero: The City currently reuses non-potable discharges at Chalk
Mountain Golf Course and is currently preparing a Wastewater Collection System and
Treatment Plant Master Plan update that is evaluating reuse at local parks and
Atascadero Lake but no projects were defined at the time the RRWSP was prepared.
x Heritage Ranch CSD: HRCSD currently discharges effluent that eventually enters an
unnamed tributary to the Nacimiento River. The district is considering construction of a
spray irrigation discharge site to reduce discharge to surface waters.
x City of Paso Robles: The City is currently upgrading its WWTP to an advanced
secondary (nutrient removal) process and has begun preliminary design of filtration and
disinfection processes that are necessary to produce tertiary quality recycled water. The
City recently adopted a Recycled Water Master Plan that identifies areas in east Paso
Robles where recycled water may be used to offset pumping from the Paso Robles
Groundwater Basin. Also, a major vineyard owner has expressed interest in purchasing
recycled water for in-lieu recharge of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin.
North Coast
x California Men’s Colony: CMC currently reuses tertiary effluent at Dairy Creek Golf
Course and helps to maintain a continuous flow rate of 0.75 cfs in Chorro Creek. CMC is
also a regional site considered by the City of Morro Bay and Cayucos CSD for treatment
of their effluent.
x Cambria CSD: CCSD’s effluent discharges serve as a barrier to seawater intrusion.
CCSD is currently pursuing an indirect reuse project involving extraction and treatment
brackish groundwater near the effluent percolation ponds and is considering future non-
potable reuse options.
x Los Osos WWTP: The new WRF plant started construction in 2014 and startup is
planned for 2016. Reuse will occur via agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, and
discharge to leach fields. The volume to each type of use is currently being defined
through potential customer outreach.
x San Simeon CSD: The district installed a 36,000 gpd tertiary filtration system in 2013.
Current reuse is via hauling by truck for irrigation of commercial properties. The district
has plans to construct a distribution system in phases as funds become available.
South County
x Rural Water Company: All effluent is currently reused at the Cypress Ridge Golf
Course and capacity remains to reuse more effluent at the course as flows to the plant
increase.
x City of San Luis Obispo: The City is currently updating its Recycled Water Master Plan
to develop plans to expand the system from existing use of 160 afy. There is also a
possibility of recycled water sales to agricultural customers on the edge of the city limits,
but the City ordinance limits sales of City water supplies to within city limits.
x Woodlands Mutual Water Company: All effluent is currently reused at the Monarch
Dunes Golf Course and capacity remains to reuse more effluent at the course as flows
to the plant increase.
Item 8.m. - Page 161
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-22
Regional Opportunities, Constraints, and Recommendations
Ultimately, recycled water is one of many water resources options for the region. As presented
in the RRWSP, there are several potential recycled water projects across the region that can
provide cost effective benefits. A number of factors must be present to successfully implement a
cost effective recycled water project, including water supply needs, recycled water supply and
demand, acceptable economics, and protection of public health. Local conditions across the
region result in a range of recycled water project opportunities and constraints. There are also
opportunities and constraints that apply across the region. This section discusses these
opportunities and constraints and outlines potential recommendations to move recycled water
projects forward on a regional level.
Regional Opportunities and Constraints
The project concepts considered in the RRSWP revealed several recycled water opportunities
across the region as well as substantial obstacles to implementation of successful projects. All
the reuse projects considered in the RRWSP are technically feasible and some are cost
effective but barriers remain to successful project implementation. The most common drivers for
recycled water projects across the State are:
x Need for new water supply
x Occurrence of significant seawater intrusion
x Wastewater discharge restrictions
Portions of these drivers are present across the region but not to the degree to support
significant recycled water investments. These drivers may increase in the future and would
improve the opportunity for reuse projects. Each driver is discussed further here.
Water Supply Need
The need for a new, local, and reliable water supply is the primary driver for recycled water
projects in the region. However, the region currently lacks the need for a new, large water
supply. (Although, the 2014 drought is testing this assumption). Recycled water projects
typically have strong economies of scale since the two largest components – treatment and
pipelines – have economies of scale. Several potentially viable large (1,000+ afy) recycled
water projects were identified but the need for this volume of new water by the individual
sponsoring agency has not been demonstrated. The need may be present when considered
across multiple water suppliers. A few small, cost effective (< 100 afy) recycled water projects
were defined and showed some viability until the cost of small-scale treatment is included. This
is the region-wide dilemma for recycled water.
On the other hand, desalination is the other primary potential large, new source of water for the
county and studies of potential desalination plants in the County2 resulted in water supply unit
costs ranging from $3,000/af to $3,900/af. In addition, desalination raises non-monetary
concerns, such as impact to the marine setting and energy intensity. Most recycled water
project concepts in the RRWSP are more cost effective and have less environmental impacts
than desalination.
Also, the maximum recycled water rate for willing agricultural customers is the cost of current
water supplies, which is roughly of the avoided cost of groundwater pumping. Agricultural reuse
2 South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study (Wallace, October 2008); Evaluation of Desalination
as a Source of Supplemental Water, Administrative Draft, Technical Memorandum 2 (Boyle, September 2007)
Item 8.m. - Page 162
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-23
project concepts are some of the most cost effective projects in the region but the full cost of
recycled water is significantly higher than groundwater. As a result, successful agricultural reuse
projects require creative funding and financing plans.
Occurrence of Significant Seawater Intrusion
The NCMA and NMMA have reduced pumping in recent years to avoid seawater intrusion and,
on a smaller scale, Morro Bay, San Simeon, and Cambria have managed pumping to avoid
seawater intrusion. To date, their efforts appear to be effective and there does not appear to be
a need for a new seawater intrusion barrier. However, conditions may change that could
necessitate the need for a new barrier. Recycled water could be recharged via percolation or
injection to create a barrier or could provide in-lieu supplies to groundwater pumpers overlying
the coastal area threatened by seawater intrusion.
Wastewater Discharge Restrictions
The cost to meet NPDES discharge requirements is generally attributed to wastewater rates
and additional costs to produce recycled water are attributed to the recycled water system.
Treatment plant upgrades can be a significant project cost, especially the initial phases, and
most plants to date have not been required to upgrade to tertiary effluent. Placing the full cost of
tertiary treatment plant upgrades with the benefitting recycled water project reduces the
potential for a cost effective recycled water project in most cases. However, the future direction
of wastewater discharge requirements is toward greater strictness and may require WWTP
upgrades that would benefit reuse.
Regional Obstacles and Recommendations
The following table summarizes recycled water obstacles from a regional perspective and
recommendations to address these obstacles. The table is followed by a review of regional
opportunities, constraints, and recommendations for specific types of reuse projects.
Item 8.m. - Page 163
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
DR
A
F
T
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
6/
1
9
/
2
0
1
4
ES
-
2
4
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
O
b
st
a
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Le
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
/
A
d
v
o
c
a
t
e
Wa
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
a
k
e
m
a
n
y
y
e
a
r
s
(
a
n
d
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
c
y
c
l
e
s
)
f
r
o
m
co
n
c
e
p
t
t
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
,
a
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
,
m
a
n
y
a
r
e
p
u
t
o
n
h
o
l
d
f
r
o
m
po
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
/
o
r
s
t
a
f
f
t
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
.
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
a
n
a
l
s
o
t
a
k
e
j
u
s
t
as
l
o
n
g
a
n
d
c
a
n
c
a
u
s
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
o
r
s
t
a
f
f
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
d
u
e
t
o
pu
b
l
i
c
m
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
r
m
i
s
l
e
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
m
o
s
t
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
a
r
g
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
,
pu
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
,
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
a
d
v
o
c
a
t
e
s
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
b
y
b
e
i
n
g
a
b
l
e
t
o
c
h
a
m
p
i
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
,
h
e
l
p
ga
i
n
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
’
s
t
r
u
s
t
,
a
n
d
a
s
s
i
s
t
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
o
p
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
-
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
h
a
m
p
i
o
n
s
i
n
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
s
-
sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
he
a
l
t
h
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
,
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
-
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
-
Su
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
co
s
t
s
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
s
p
r
e
a
d
ac
r
o
s
s
d
i
v
e
r
s
e
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
.
-
Ad
v
o
c
a
t
e
f
o
r
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
b
e
s
t
u
s
e
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
o
t
a
b
l
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
Co
s
t
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
o
s
t
s
a
r
e
t
o
o
h
i
g
h
t
o
g
a
i
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
-
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
n
e
w
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
n
e
e
d
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
,
qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
o
r
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
li
t
y
.
-
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
u
s
e
(
i
f
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
)
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
n
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
p
l
a
n
.
-
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
/
o
r
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
f
o
r
fu
t
u
r
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
i
l
o
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
W
W
T
P
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
,
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
sy
s
t
e
m
s
.
-
In
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
,
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
s
t
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
t
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
,
a
s
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
t
o
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
gr
o
w
s
a
s
l
i
m
i
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
.
Co
s
t
o
f
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
t
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
t
o
te
r
t
i
a
r
y
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
n
o
b
s
t
a
c
l
e
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
t
i
g
h
t
e
n
i
n
g
o
f
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
u
s
e
a
s
fu
n
d
s
a
r
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
r
ea
t
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
t
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
.
-
P
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
e
r
t
i
a
r
y
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
i
n
W
W
T
P
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
p
l
a
n
s
.
-
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
fo
r
W
W
T
P
up
g
r
a
d
e
s
.
Br
i
n
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
i
s
a
m
a
j
o
r
h
u
r
d
l
e
f
o
r
r
e
u
s
e
(
a
n
d
a
n
y
ot
h
e
r
s
a
l
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
)
.
-
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
s
a
l
t
a
n
d
n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Re
u
s
e
h
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
b
u
t
m
a
n
y
of
t
h
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
ac
r
o
s
s
a
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
r
s
.
M
o
s
t
c
o
s
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
wa
t
e
r
su
p
p
l
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
li
t
i
e
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
.
-
G
r
a
n
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
c
a
n
h
e
l
p
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
ag
e
n
c
y
/
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
e
n
e
f
i
c
i
a
r
i
e
s
.
-
Ad
v
o
c
a
t
e
f
o
r
g
r
a
n
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
a
r
e
a
s
at
t
e
m
p
t
i
n
g
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
v
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
Le
g
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
r
s
d
o
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
h
e
i
r
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
r
i
g
h
t
s
i
n
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
o
f
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
a
s
is
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
i
n
m
o
s
t
a
d
j
u
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
n
s
.
-
S
t
a
r
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
n
p
u
m
p
e
r
s
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
me
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
t
o
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
r
i
g
h
t
s
f
o
r
u
s
e
o
f
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
wa
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
.
Item 8.m. - Page 164
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
DR
A
F
T
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
6/
1
9
/
2
0
1
4
ES
-
2
5
Ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
Re
l
i
a
n
c
e
o
n
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
o
r
l
o
w
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
c
a
n
c
a
u
s
e
p
a
y
b
a
c
k
is
s
u
e
s
if
t
h
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
i
s
o
v
e
r
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
o
r
t
h
e
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
m
a
y
n
o
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
th
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
-
C
o
n
f
i
r
m
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
d
e
m
a
n
d
e
s
t
i
ma
t
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
s
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
a
c
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
.
-
Ge
t
c
us
t
o
m
e
r
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
e
n
s
u
r
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
o
r
l
o
a
n
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
In
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
o
f
t
e
n
t
i
m
e
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
t
h
a
t
f
a
c
e
t
h
e
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
o
f
b
r
i
n
g
i
n
g
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
u
b
-r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
po
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
w
i
t
h
d
i
v
e
r
s
e
g
o
a
l
s
.
-
Le
v
e
r
a
g
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
u
b
-
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
w
a
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
p
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
N
C
M
A
an
d
N
M
M
A
,
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
g
a
i
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
Wa
t
e
r
a
n
d
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
a
r
e
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
b
y
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
i
n
s
o
m
e
ar
e
a
s
,
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
/
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
-
D
e
f
i
n
e
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
o
f
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
o
su
p
p
o
r
t
c
o
s
t
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
p
o
t
a
b
l
e
r
e
u
s
e
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
,
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
e
f
f
o
rt
s
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
s
e
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
t
e
n
d
to
b
e
u
n
d
e
r
f
u
n
d
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
p
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
a
l
l
-em
b
r
a
c
i
n
g
,
an
d
w
e
l
l
-
t
i
m
e
d
.
-
Ma
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
t
h
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
p
s
.
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
So
m
e
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
S
W
R
C
B
a
n
d
R
W
Q
C
B
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
t
r
e
a
t
re
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
s
a
w
a
s
t
e
a
n
d
n
o
t
a
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
.
T
h
e
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
s
sl
o
w
l
y
s
h
i
f
t
i
n
g
b
u
t
s
t
i
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
a
h
i
n
d
r
a
n
c
e
.
-
N
e
w
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
W
a
s
t
e
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
(W
Q
O
2
0
1
4
-0
0
9
0
)
(
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
)
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
re
u
s
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
i
e
d
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
a
l
t
a
n
d
nu
t
r
i
e
n
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
n
s
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
ou
t
c
o
m
e
s
m
a
y
h
i
n
d
e
r
u
s
e
o
f
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
.
-
M
o
v
e
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
w
i
t
h
s
a
l
t
a
n
d
n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
a
l
l
b
a
s
i
n
s
w
h
e
r
e
r
e
u
s
e
is
b
e
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
n
d
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
e
f
f
o
r
t
.
Po
l
i
c
i
e
s
Ma
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
u
s
e
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
m
o
s
t
ju
r
i
s
d
ic
t
i
o
n
s
.
-
A
n
y
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
d
o
p
t
a
ma
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
u
s
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
at
e
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
t
o
b
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
m
o
s
t
g
r
a
n
t
f
u
n
d
s
o
r
l
o
w
-i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
l
o
a
n
s
.
-
Ha
v
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
‘
p
u
r
p
l
e
p
i
p
e
’
i
n
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
wi
t
h
i
n
a
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
WW
T
P
o
r
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
d
e
(
C
W
C
)
1
3
5
5
1
3 pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
i
f
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
3 C
W
C
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
3
5
5
1
:
“A
p
e
r
s
o
n
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
g
e
n
c
y
…
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
u
s
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
a
n
y
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
p
o
t
a
b
l
e
d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
u
s
e
f
o
r
n
o
n
-
p
o
t
a
b
l
e
u
s
e
s…
i
f
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
3
5
5
0
.
”
Item 8.m. - Page 165
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-26
Landscape Irrigation
Urban landscape irrigation represents the most common type of reuse across California
followed by environmental flows and agricultural irrigation. It is the first use for recycled water for
most municipal areas since opportunities for agriculture irrigation or environmental flows are
limited in these settings. As a result of decades of project operations, implementation of
landscape irrigation projects is generally straightforward and involves the least obstacles – with
the exception of cost.
There is limited opportunity for cost effective landscape irrigation in the region for a combination
of reasons:
x There is a limited amount of large landscape areas due to long-standing water
conservation measures taken.
x Most of the existing large landscape areas are golf courses and most of these use at
least some recycled water or non-potable groundwater. (Although significant volumes of
potable water are used at these courses too to meet irrigation demand).
x Potential large landscape areas identified in the RRWSP are too far from existing
WWTPs and/or demands are too small for cost effective distribution to the sites.
x The small opportunities that exist require WWTP upgrades to tertiary treatment, which
generally have high unit costs on a small scale.
Several potential landscape irrigation projects are identified in the RRWSP. The cost effective
projects are close to the WWTP and/or include a golf course that uses large volumes of potable
water. Implementation of the smaller projects is probably more feasible due to the total cost as
long as the tertiary treatment portion of the cost can be managed. In addition, successful
implementation of small recycled water projects could spur support for expansion in the future.
Agricultural Irrigation
Of the types of recycled water projects evaluated in the RRWSP, agricultural reuse has the
most potential across the region. Agricultural water use represents approximately 75% of total
water use across the region. Agricultural reuse is advantageous because of the relatively high
demand in concentrated areas combined with proximity to the existing WWTPs. Also,
agricultural reuse represents matching water quality to use thus freeing potable water for
potable uses. Finally, agricultural reuse in coastal locations can serve as a seawater intrusion
barrier.
There are many hurdles to successful agricultural reuse projects in the region:
x Recycled water producers realizing a water supply benefit. The benefit can be realized if
the agricultural customer agrees to reduce pumping from potable groundwater aquifer(s)
by the amount of recycled water used.
x Providing recycled water at a competitive price to existing agricultural water supplies.
Recycled water can be sold to agricultural customers at or below their current cost of
water supply (primarily groundwater at up to $300/af) but the revenue from recycled
water sales would most likely not cover the cost of the recycled water project on its own.
To economically justify such a project, the avoided cost of new water supply acquisition
must be considered as well as the potable water revenue received from the new potable
supply.
x Gaining willing agricultural customers of recycled water due to real and perceived
issues.
Item 8.m. - Page 166
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-27
x Identifying or creating a lead agency with the capability and authority to develop,
construct, and operate a regional project.
Agricultural reuse offers one of the best opportunities for recycled water use in the region while
also having several obstacles to overcome. Considering this, the region can start to take efforts
to address the obstacles by starting discussions on governance, water supply benefits, and
recycled water pricing. In addition, steps can be taken to address grower concerns over
recycled water use so that these issues can be resolved while the other non-customer issues
are addressed. Recommended next steps include:
x Reach out to agricultural interests to determine steps necessary to gain willing
customers.
x Conduct technical studies considering specific recycled water quality, soil conditions,
and crops.
x Follow technical studies with pilot studies, potentially set in conjunction with Cal Poly 4,
similar to the Paso Robles Recycled Water Demonstration Garden.
x Identify funding source(s) for a pilot project.
x Conduct educational tours of existing agricultural reuse projects in Northern, Central,
and Southern California.
x Leverage the agricultural resources of the local Resource and Conservation Districts
during outreach and implementation.
x Consider application of CWC Section 135515 to gain agricultural customers based on the
availability of recycled water of adequate quality and at a reasonable cost. (Refer to
Section 13.2.1 for further discussion).
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge with recycled water has some potential opportunities across the region,
but geological constraints and treatment requirements cause most projects to be too expensive.
The two primary areas considered for recharge – Northern Cities Management Area and Paso
Robles Groundwater Basin – have limited areas where water recharged from the surface can
reach the potable water aquifers. Injection is needed where surface recharge locations are
lacking and injection requires the additional costs of injection wells and advanced treatment
(beyond tertiary) of recycled water.
One location where injection could make sense is along the coast as a seawater intrusion
barrier. Several key steps were identified for successful implementation of a potential seawater
intrusion barrier projects for SSLOCSD. Other than cost, the primary obstacles to GWR with
recycled water are:
x Better understanding of the groundwater basin.
x Definition of benefits other than a new water supply, such as preventing seawater
intrusion and/or subsidence.
x Receipt of benefits by project sponsors or sharing of costs across all basin beneficiaries.
4 California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Irrigation Training & Research Center; www.itrc.org
5 CWC Section 13551: “A person or public agency…shall not use water from any source of quality suitable for potable
domestic use for non-potable uses… if suitable recycled water is available as provided in Section 13550.”
Item 8.m. - Page 167
San Luis Obispo County DRAFT
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
6/19/2014 ES-28
Also, the region should track GWR regulations that impact the basis of projects in the RRWSP.
For example, currently, groundwater recharge regulations limit the potential for cost effective
projects due to the need for a large volume blend water.
Streamflow Augmentation
Streamflow augmentation is an attractive reuse option since many streams now have minimum
flow requirements for habitat and/or wildlife preservation. For example, offsetting Lopez Dam
releases to Arroyo Grande Creek or increasing stream flow in other portions of the region to
allow for pumping would create new water supplies.
However, the largest obstacles to implementation of these projects are surface water discharge
regulations. Existing surface water discharge regulations add significant treatment costs and
potential regulations would require even higher levels of treatment and the associated costs.
This creates a situation where the ultimate cost of a project may not be known once operations
start, since new regulations may require new treatment in the future to continue project
operations.
To assess streamflow augmentation options in the future:
x Continue to track developments flow requirements and restrictions in in Arroyo Grande
Creek and other potential sites across the region
x Track new and potential surface water discharge regulations
Concluding Remarks
The best opportunities for reuse – agriculture and groundwater recharge – align with the
region’s water resources profile: agriculture comprises approximately 75% of total water use
and groundwater represents approximately 90% of water supplies. However, institutional and
other implementation issues arise when attempting to allocate costs and realize benefits for
agriculture and GWR projects because recycled water is produced by public agencies but
beneficiaries extend beyond the municipalities.
Recycled water offers one of the region’s best options for new water supplies, especially when
compared with the cost and environmental impacts of desalination. However, many recycled
water projects are more expensive than additional conservation or fully realizing the relatively
recent investments in surface water projects. Additionally, water supply conditions and the
associated need for recycled water vary by individual agency while recycled water projects
require regional scale to achieve significant water supply benefits and acceptable costs due to
economies of scale.
The full cost of recycled water appears to be too high for many areas at this time, but will
become more competitive in the future as other options become more expensive, the value of
local supplies increases, and successful grant funding helps to subsidize local costs. In the
meantime, the region should take the initial steps outlined in the RRWSP to address hurdles to
implementation of feasible recycled water projects and provide minimal initial investment in
projects to position them for grant funding.
Item 8.m. - Page 168
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Item 8.m. - Page 169
Cannon
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.544.7407
Cannon
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.544.7407
Item 8.m. - Page 170