CC 2015-11-10_12d Endorsement for Zone 3 Emergency Water Supply ProjMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A FORMAL ENDORSEMENT OF
INTEREST LETTER TO SLO COUNTY FOR THE ZONE 3 EMERGENCY
WATER SUPPLY PROJECT -EXCESS SUPPLY FROM THE PG&E
SEAWATER DESALINATION FACILITY
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a formal Endorsement of Interest letter to SLO County Board of Supervisors for
the Zone 3 Emergency Water Supply Project-Excess Supply from the PG&E Seawater
Desalination Facility and direct staff to engage in discussions with the County.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
No direct financial impact at this time. Some City staff time will be expended to meet
with County and Zone 3 Agency staff on further investigation and development of
options for future consideration by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, in correspondence dated
October 15, 2015, requested that the City of Arroyo Grande, as well as the other
contracted Zone 3 agencies confirm interest in a potential Zone 3 Emergency Water
Supply project, potentially taking advantage of excess capacity from the PG&E
desalination facility at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Attachment 1 ).
On May 19, 2015, the SLO County Board of Supervisors, (BOS) following review of a
report of potential desalination projects in the County, (Attachment 2) directed County
staff to explore the challenges and opportunities associated with delivering water from
the existing PG&E desalination plant to areas in need of water in the County.
On August 6, 2015, the San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department presented a
report to the Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), requesting support for the
exploration of potential opportunities for the delivery of the excess water production
capacity from the PG&E desalination facility at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant to the
Zone 3 agencies through water distribution facilities located near Avila Beach
(Attachment 3). The members of the Zone 3 TAC were supportive of exploring the
opportunity, however, requested that SLO County Public Works Department send a
Item 12.d. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A FORMAL ENDORSEMENT OF INTEREST
LETTER TO SLO COUNTY FOR THE ZONE 3 EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT -EXCESS SUPPLY FROM THE -PG&E SEAWATER DESALINATION
FACILITY
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGE2
formal request to each contracting agency asking for a response from the elected
boards of the participating agencies.
-
Concurrent to and independently from the activities by the County of San Luis· Obispo
relative to the potential excess water production capacity from the PG&E desalination
facility, the Zone 3 TAC had initiated and began exploration of potential water supply
options in the event that the current drought continues and existing water supplies are
exhausted. The Zone 3 TAC presented these options to the Zone 3 Advisory Board on
September 17, 2015. The potential use of excess water production capacity from the
PG&E desalination facility was included in the list of potential emergency water sources.
A copy of the Zone 3 TAC report to the Advisory Committee is included in attachment 4.
On September 17, 2015, the Zone 3 Advisory Board submitted a letter to the SLO
County Board of Supervisors (BOS) requesting that the County initiate a study session
to further evaluate emergency water supply options for San Luis Obispo-'County. A
copy of the letter to the BOS is included in attachment 5.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
As the current drought conditions continue, local water system managers are exploring
regional options to reduce cusJomer demand, maximize current supplies and plan for
contingencies in the event that the drought continues beyond our existing water
supplies. Despite our confidence in the current conservation and water management
strategies that contain some assumptions about anticipated rainfall, it is prudent to plan
for worst-case-scenarios such as the continuation of the drought beyond ttie next two
years. The chart below represents the Zone 3 agency's current annual water supplys:
Available Urban Water Supplies, 2014 (AFY)
Urban Lopez SWP Groundwater Ag Other Total
Area Lake Allocation Allotment Credit Supplies
Arroyo 2,290 0 1,202 121 160 3,873 Grande
Grover 800 0 1,198 209 0 2,207 Beach.
Pismo 896 1,240 700 0 0 2,836 Beach
Oceana 303 750 CSD 900 0 0 1,853
Total 4,289 1,990 4,000 330 160 10,769
Item 12.d. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL 'OF A FORMAL ENDORSEMENT OF INTEREST
LETTER TO SLO COUNTY FOR THE ZONE 3 EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT -EXCESS SUPPLY FROM THE PG&E-SEAWATER DESALINATION
FACILITY
NOVEMBER 10, 20·15
PAGE3
The Zone 3 TAC, through action of the City Council and the BOS has implemented the
Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP) which has reduced municipal water deliveries
and is maximizing the· current Lake Lopez water,'supply. In addition, water use
restrictions implemented by the Arroyo Grande City Council have resulted in further
extending our water supplies. Currently, some agencies are ~ignificantly limiting the
amount of ground water pumped from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin· and all of the
regional partners have, significantly cut demand. Despite th~se measures, severe
drought conditions continue into a fourth year ar:ld even if the much anticipated El Nino
rain storms materialize, Arroyo Grande and the other Zone 3 agencies may still face
significant water supply challenges.
As a result, the Zone 3 TAC formed a sub-committee to explore potential water supply
options in the event that the current drought continues and water supplies are
exhausted. The sub-committee developed and prioritized a list of potential emergency
supply options, which included the PG&E desalination facility is listed. The potential
use of excess water production capacity from the PG&E desalination facility has
become a potentially viable option that could provide a drought resistant water supply
but would require ,funding and delivery mechanisms as well as a multi-agency
contractual agreement. Some baseline information about the project is a follows:
• An existing desalination facility at the PG&E power plant does not use its current
treatment capacity
o Approximately 500 Acre Feet per year (AFY) without modification
o Approximately 1,300 AFY with improvements to the treatment facility
• Delivery from the PG&E facility would require.approximately seven (7) miles of
new pipeline installation to a connection point for the Zone 3 Lopez delivery line
near Avila Beach.
Zone 3, through the management of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control District
is uniquely positioned, physically and contractually, to provide a conduit for the use of
this potentially critical water source. According to County Public Works staff, as much
as 1,300 ·Acre Feet (AF) of excess water production capacity from the PG&E
desalination facility may be available to partner agencies.
The potential amount of water available for the City of Arroyo Grande would be
contingent upon the number of partnering 'agencies as well as other factors. Among the
issues to be discussed and brought back to the Council for consideration would be the
following:
e Post-treatment system capital and Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
• .Conveyance capital and O&M
• Existing system compensation
Item 12.d. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A FORMAL ENDORSEMENT OF INTEREST
LETTER TO SLO COUNTY FOR THE ZONE 3 EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT -EXCESS SUPPLY FROM THE PG&E SEAWATER DESALINATION
FACILITY
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGE4
• Project implementation steps and level of complexity
-• Permitting requirements
• Potential Lopez Contract Amendments
The BOS is actively looking for partners for use of excess water production capacity
from the PG&E desalination facility has reached out the Zone 3 Agency members. Los
Osos has also been considered as a potential partner.
The effort to secure a portion of the excess PG&E desal water supply could be a viable
option that coupled with regional recycled water project could make significant headway
to provide a more sustainable and drought resistant water supply for the City of Arroyo
Grande. In addition, City staff considers this potential partnership through Zone 3 to be
a unique and limited-time opportunity to provide a drought resistant water supply that
will expand and diversify our water supply portfolio and strongly encourages the Council
to approve the formal endorsement of interest letter to the SLO County for the Zone 3
water supply project and to engage in discussions with County staff about this project.
Providing authorization for staff to engage in discussions with the County does not
obligate the City to any financial or contractual commitments. This important action
simply provides staff the opportunity to explore the issues further and bring back options
to the City Council.
ADVANTAGES
1. Provides drought resistant water supply
2. Could potentially provide vital drinking water to Zone 3 customers when other
water sources fail.
3. Existing Zone 3 infrastructure and· funding mechanisms are in place to improve
expedited delivery of this potential supplemental water source.
DISADVANTAGES
Several challenges would require further discussion to evaluate feasibility:
• Lack of an existing pipeline to the nearby water purveyors and communities
• Location of the existing facility on high-level security private property
• Permitting issues including the California Coastal Commission and recent
updates to the Ocean Water Plan
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Approve staff's recommendation to submit a formal Endorsement of Interest
letter to SLO County for the Zone 3 Emergency Water Supply Project-Excess
Item 12.d. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A FORMAL ENDORSEMENT OF INTEREST
LETTER TO SLO COUNTY FOR THE ZONE 3 EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT -EXCESS SUPPLY FROM THE PG&E SEAWATER DESALINATION
FACILITY
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGES
Supply from the PG&E Seawater Desalination Facility and direct staff to engage
in discussions with the County.
2. Do not approve of submitting a formal Endorsement of Interest letter; or
3. Provide direction to staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Not applicable at this time.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 5, 2015 and on the
City's website on Friday, November 6, 2015.
ATTACHMENTS
#1-County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department correspondence dated
October 15, 2015
#2-SLO County report of potential desalination projects
#3-SLO County Public Works Department report to the Zone 3 (TAC)
#4-September 17, 2015 Zone 3 TAC report to the Advisory Committee
#5-Zone 3 Advisory Board letter to the SLO County Board of Supervisors (BOS)
Item 12.d. - Page 5
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPART;\,llENT OF PUBl~C VVORKS
Wade Horton, Director
County Government Center, Room 206 ·San Luis Obispo CA 93408 • (805) 781-5252
Fax (805) 781-1229 email address: pwd@co.slo.ca us ~o
ATTACHMEtfte \N•
October 15, 2015
City of Arroyo Grande
Geoff English
300 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
genglish@arroyogrande.org
Subject: Request for Confirmation of Interest in Zone 3 Emergency Water Supply Project
Dear Mr. English;
The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is evaluating the
feasibility of developing an emergency water supply project to address drought impacts in the District
Zone 3 service area. The project would deliver up to an estimated 1,000 acre-feet per year of
desalinated sea water from PG&E's treatment facility, located next to the Diablo Canyon power plant,
to the existing Zone 3 water distribution system in Port San Luis. Project financing and other factors,
including the severity of the ongoing drought, must be considered prior to moving forward; therefore it
is important to note that implementation of an emergency project is not certain at this time.
In late January 2016, District staff intends to present a project feasibility review, along with the latest
drought projections, to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations on whether to proceed to the
design phase of the emergency project. A formal endorsement of interest in the emergency project
from your governing body will be an important factor in the Board of Supervisors' decision
making, and is requested by December 15, 2015. Developing this emergency project will require a
significant commitment of resources by the District and will ultimately require funding commitments by
the Zone 3 agencies.
At this time, the District is in the early stages of evaluating the proposed project. Discussions with
PG&E and other project partners, including the Zone 3 agencies, are in progress, and will help define
the emergency project scope, schedule, and budget. Pending a decision to proceed with the design
phase, project cost estimates and financing options will be further refined. It is anticipated that Zone 3
agencies will need to formally commit to project participation by mid-2016 in order for the bidding and
construction process to be completed and emergency water deliveries to begin in late-2016.
I am looking forward working with your agency as it evaluates its level of interest in the project. If you
have any questions, please contact our Project Manager, John Waddell at (805) 788-2713 or myself.
Director of Public Works
File: WBS 300564
L·\Water Resources\OCT15\Desal Interest Letter docx WH Jb
Item 12.d. - Page 6
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
AUGUST2015
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 12.d. - Page 7
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPOR1
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
3 lntroduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Quality and Avail~bility of Desalinated Water .............................................................................. 5
3.2.1 Seawater and Brackish Water Salinity ................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Surface and Subsurface Sources ........................................................................................... 5
3.3 Desalination Projects in California ................................................................................................ 6
3.3.1 Existing Desalination Facilities .............................................................................................. 6
3.3.2 Proposed Desalination in California ...................................................................................... 6
4 Identification of Opportunities in SLO County ...................................................................................... 7
4.1 Increasing Capacity at Existing Desalination Facilities .................................................................. 7
4.1.1 Morro Bay Desalination Facility ............................................................................................ 7
4.1.2 Cambria Emergency Water Supply (EWS) Project ................................................................. 9
4.1.3 Diablo Canyon Power Plant ................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Co-Location Facilities ................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.1 Morro Bay Power Plant ....................................................................................................... 11
4.2.2 Nipomo Mesa Refinery ........................................................................................................ 13
4.2.3 South San Luis Obispo County Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................. 14
4.3 Potential New Sites ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.3.1 Estero Bay Marine Terminal -New Site .............................................................................. 15
4.4 Desalination Studies .................................................................................................................... 16
4.4.1 South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Studies ........................................................... 16
4.4.2 2007 Nipomo Community Services District Desalination Evaluation .................................. 19
4.5 Implementation Challenges ........................................................................................................ 24
4.5.1 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 24
4.5.2 Energy Use ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.5.3 Demand Risk ........................................................................................................................ 25
4.5.4 Growth Inducing Impacts .................................................................................................... 26
4.5.5 Policy Conflicts .................................................................................................................... 26
4.6 References ................................................................................................................................... 27
S:\Pubhc Works\Utilities\Water Conservat1on\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 8
SAN LUIS OBISPO (OUN1Y DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to identify the opportunities and challenges of desalination as a water
supply for San Luis Obispo County.
The communities within San Luis Obispo County are confronted with an exceptional drought, severe
declines in groundwater and surface water levels, and limitations on imported water supplies. To help
address existing and future water needs in the face of these issues, this report provides basic
information about desalination for consideration by water purveyors, groundwater sustainability
agencies, community leaders and other water resource management entities.
A regional desalination project may be an appropriate solution for San Luis Obispo County to address
water supply issues when integrated with the communities' goals and strategies. However, the
feasibility for a desalination project highly depends on the various needs by water managers, decision
makers and the general public. Desalination must be compared with a range of water supply alternatives
and approaches to demand management that exist to assist San Luis Obispo communities with long-
term water supply issues.
Desalination provides a safe and reliable drinking water supply to communities with significant
considerations for costs and environmental impact than other alternatives. Operation and maintenance
of a reverse osmosis system--the predominate technology used for desalination--is energy intensive.
High energy use means high operating costs and, depending on the source of power, an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of seawater desalination, environmental impacts must be
properly mitigated to avoid harming marine life.
Successful long-term operation of a regional desalination facility requires well-structured agreements
between the supplier and customers to avoid demand risk, the condition where alternative water
supplies are readily available and cheaper than desalinated water.
The desalination opportunities that were identified for San Luis Obispo County include expanding
existing desalination facilities, co-locating a new facility at an existing industrial site, and locating a
desalination facility at a new site. The following list includes potential locations for desalination
opportunities in San Luis Obispo County:
e Expansion of the Morro Bay Desalination Facility
• Expansion of the Cambria Emergency Water Supply (EWS) Project
~ Expansion of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) desalination facility
(il Co-location at the South SLO County Wastewater Treatment Plant
11 Co-location at the Nipomo Mesa Refinery
• Co-location at the Morro Bay Power Plant
• New facility at the Estero Marine Terminal
The major implementation issues associated with desalination were identified from Chapter 10 of the
2013 California Water Plan (Appendix A):
• Permitting and regulatory framework
e Energy use and sources
S.\Public Works\Utiht1es\Water Conservat1on\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 9
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORl
e Climate change
liJ Funding
s Intakes and ocean and freshwater ecosystems
e Concentrate (brine) management
., Subsurface extraction
o Planning and growth
Some of these challenges are discussed in this report and further details are also provided in the 2013
California Water Plan.
For desalination to be a feasible option on a large scale, partnerships are necessary. With a regional
approach, certain costs exist regardless of the facility's size, include permitting, intake design, energy
needs, brine disposal, and agreement structures between sellers and buyers of the water supply.
Addressing institutional barriers will require each potential partner, including regulatory agencies, to
review its relevant guiding regulations and policies, identify what combination of supply enhancement
and conservation strategies it wants to plan for and support, and determine how desalination fits in. A
particular agency may find that their policies support a certain hierarchy of solution strategies. For
example, the County's Conservation and Open Space Element prioritizes optimization of existing
infrastructure first before developing new supply via desalination (Water Resources Policy 1.3). Another
approach may be to prioritize investing in projects that provide the highest reliability and can be
combined with optimization strategies for existing infrastructure and/or conservation programs to.meet
multiple needs in multiple areas through mutually beneficial partnerships.
Successful regional desalination projects in California have been implemented only after long and
extensive project vetting, development and implementation processes. The communities of San Luis
. Obispo would benefit from discussions to develop and potentially fund integrated regional water
resources projects, including a regional desalination concept, in the county.
3 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to introduce desalination, the quality and quantity of water produced, and
California current and proposed projects.
3.1 BACKGROUND
Desalination is the process of removing salt from water. Various technologies are used to lower the
salinity of a water, such as thermal distillation, electrodialysis, capacitive deionization, and membrane
separation. The majority of the proposed desalination projects within California are utility-scale
applications using reverse osmosis (RO) technology. RO uses high pressure to force water across a semi-
permeable membrane, which produces a highly pure desalinated water stream and a brine waste
stream that contains a higher concentration of salt than the incoming water source.
Desalinated water can be used as a new water source to meet the demands for various beneficial uses
including supplementing an existing municipal supply, agricultural/landscape irrigation, groundwater
replenishment, and seawater intrusion mitigation.
S:\Public Works\Ut1ht1es\Water Conservation\Drought Planmng and Response\PGE Desai project\Report docx PAGE•
Item 12.d. - Page 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
3.2 QUALITY AND AVAILABILITY OF DESALINATED WATER
The availability and quality of desalinated highly depends on the water source, type of desalination
process, and desired end product (e.g., potable or nonpotable). Various water sources can be treated
using desalination to provide a municipal water supply including ocean water, inland seas, groundwater
aquifers, and wastewater effluent streams.
These water sources can be characterized further by general salinity levels (seawater and brackish
water) and general source locations (surface or subsurface).
3.2.1 Seawater and Brackish Water Salinity
Salinity refers to the concentration of dissolved salt for a given water source. Sodium chloride is usually
the highest concentration salt and most frequently equated with salinity. Salinity levels are often
represented with the measurement of total dissolved solids (TDS), which usually includes other
dissolved constituents such as ionic salts and metals. However, TDS remains a common representation
of salinity for municipal water sources.
The salinity of ocean water usually ranges between 30,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 50,000 mg/L
with an average value of 35,000 mg/L. While the term "seawater" implies water from the ocean, it
better describes the degree of salinity commonly found in oceans and inland seas independent of
location.
The term "brackish water" while commonly used to refer to groundwater, also better describes a degree
of salinity independent of the water source. Brackish water has a salinity level greater than natural fresh
water but lower than seawater. Natural fresh water typically has a salinity concentration less than 1,000
mg/L TDS. Municipal drinking water systems using desalinated water produce less than 500 mg/L TDS.
Brackish water from a groundwater source or another origin generally describes the salinity level from
1,000 to 30,000 mg/L TDS.
3.2.2 Surface and Subsurface Sources
The general water sources for desalinated water can be from surface waters such as an ocean or an
inland sea or from subsurface waters such as a brackish groundwater aquifer.
The Pacific Ocean is the primary surface water considered for desalination projects in California. While
ocean water practically provides an inexhaustible source, the marine environment is susceptible to
adverse conditions at the intake and outfall structures and surrounding areas. To mitigate
environmental impacts from open water intakes and outfalls, subsurface wells can be used to collect
wat~r from the ocean or other saline surface water. These wells, galleys, or other structures are located
underneath the seafloor, within the beach, under an inland sea, bay or estuary, or other configuration.
Although an intake may be subsurface, the level of salinity encountered can be either category seawater
or brackish water as determined by the TDS concentration. Naturally, subsurface intakes in proximity to
the ocean will usually be seawater. Locations that are farther inland from the beach may be a mix of
ocean water and groundwater salinity, providing a less saline water source to improve treatment cost
effectiveness. It's important to consider the impact to the fresh groundwater from inland wells however.
Other potential sources for desalinated water may include brackish groundwater, inland surface water
bodies, bays and estuaries, and recycled wastewater. The identification and investigation of brackish
S·\Pubhc Works\Ut1hties\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 11
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
water sources is important for any given project to consider as lower energy is required to desalinate
sources with lower salinity.
Most of the current and proposed desalination projects within California are sourced from brackish
waters. Further discussion to identify both brackish waters as potential sources--including their locations
and safe yields--is recommended.
3.3 DESALINATION PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA
As California's current drought cycle has constrained the water supplies for many communities including
those within San Luis Obispo County, the number of proposed desalination projects within California has
significantly increased.
Some communities are anticipating the benefits of increased supply and drought-proof reliability.
However, these benefits are coming at high capital/operating costs and environmental challenges.
3.3.1 Existing Desalination Facilities
About two dozen desalination facilities are operating in California, with almost all of these using a
brackish water source (e.g., low quality groundwater) to provide an additional water supply for urban
and agricultural use. The production capacities for these facilities range from 0.2 to 15 million gallons
per day (MGD).
The remaining desalination facilities use seawater but are privately owned and operated for industrial
purposes or operate intermittently as an emergency/standby water source. Only three seawater
facilities provide consistent municipal water: Santa Catalina Island, San Nicolas Island, and Marina (Fort
Ord). However, these facilities are relatively small with a total capacity of 562 acre feet per year (AFY).
In late 2015, the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Facility (owned and operated by Poseidon Resources)
will be the first large utility-scale seawater desalination in California, delivering 50 million gallons per
day (56,007 AFY) of potable water to the San Diego County Water Authority. Further study of the
Carlsbad facility and other large seawater desalination projects in other states such as Florida and Texas
and other countries such as Mexico and Australia can help inform local decision makers on the
successful factors for a project in San Luis Obispo County.
3.3.2 Proposed Desalination in California
In California, there are about 17 brackish groundwater desalination projects and about 15 ocean
desalination projects in various stages of planning and design. Most of the brackish groundwater
facilities will be an expansion of existing sites, contributing to California's municipal water supplies by an
estimated 75,000 AFY. The proposed seawater desalination facilities are estimated to contribute a total
supply of 380,000 AFY, including two facilities located in Mexico where desalinated water would cross
the border for final treatment to the State's drinking water standard.
As interest in desalination grows in California and elsewhere throughout the world, new technologies
and processes are making desalination more efficient and cost effective. Recent research has shown
significant gains in efficiency with reverse osmosis including energy use, brine recovery rates and heat
recovery potential. Other technologies such as forward osmosis, solar distillation, dual nanofiltration
. and so on should be include any future feasibility study using a saline water source for supply
augmentation.
S:\Public Works\Utllities\Water Conservat1on\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE1
Item 12.d. - Page 12
SAN LUIS OBISPO (OUN1Y DESALINATION OPPORTUl~ITIES SUMMARY REPORT
4 IDENTIFICATION OF OPPORTUNITIES IN SLO COUNTY
Three categories for identifying opportunities in San Luis Obispo County are presented in the following
section:
e Increasing capacity at existing desalination facilities
e Using existing facilities to develop a desalination facility
9 Identifying potential viable new sites
The presentation of these locations is not exhaustive. Although a seawater desalination project has the
potential to be situated along approximately 90 miles of coastline within San Luis Obispo County, careful
consideration of factors such as appropriate land use, location of sensitive and protective areas (e.g.,
National Marine Sanctuaries), siting concerns related to the coastal zone (Appendix B), and proximity to
power and piping infrastructure would narrow the feasible locations.
4.1 INCREASING CAPACITY AT EXISTING DESALINATION FACILITIES
The following desalination facilities in SLO County were identified for the potential to expand the
existing capacity to provide an increase of water supply:
c Morro Bay Desalination Facility
"' Cambria Emergency Water Supply (EWS) Project
@ Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Desalination Facility
Expansion of these facilities would save time and costs,related to permitting, design, infrastructure, and
land acquisition. Existing facilities that expand may be subject to improvements related to the State
Wat?r Resources Control Board's recent amendment to the Ocean Water Plan (Appendix C), which
require specific intake and brine discharge design elements.
The expansion at an existing site may provide a cost effective solution for increasing a water supply at a
lower marginal cost per unit of water compared to construction of a new facility. However, certain
institutional challenges including facility ownership, agreement structures with communities andwater
purveyors, and long-term operation exist.
4.1.1 Morro Bay Desalination Facility
The City of Morro Bay constructed a seawater desalination plant in 1992 to address the water
emergency at the time. The capital cost for construction was about $3 million. Since then the facility has
been operated intermittently during drought conditions, offsetting seasonal peaking, and routine
maintenance. A pretreatment system to remove iron and manganese was added in 2002 at an
additional cost of about $2 million. Currently, the pretreatment system does not adequately address
clogging and may require upgrading to be more effective.
In 2009 the City expanded the desalination facility to treat brackish groundwater (due to elevated
nitrate levels) from wells within the Morro Valley Groundwater Basin. The low salinity of the brackish
groundwater allows for lower energy costs during operation than the seawater treatment system. The
brackish water treatment system currently supplies the City in situations of reductions or interruptions
from State Water deliveries. This project was funded with CA-CD HP grants.
S·\Public Works\Utihties\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report docx PAGE'
Item 12.d. - Page 13
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITltS SUMMARY REPORT
4.1.1.1 Existing Capacity and Unit Costs
The seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) system produces 400 gallons per minute (gpm), or 645 acre-feet
per year (AFY) of drinking water from five intake wells located along the Embarcadero. The cost to
operate the seawater system is about $1,550 per AF. The brackish water reverse osmosis (BRWO)
system capacity produces 450 gpm, or 725 AFY, from groundwater wells with in the Morro Valley
Groundwater Basin. The City is currently permitted to withdraw up to 581 AFY. The cost to operate the
brackish system is about $1,000 per AF. The total permitted production from both SWRO and BRWO
systems is 1,126 AFY, or approximately 1.1 MGD.
The City's entitlement to 1,313 AFY from the State Water Project costs $1,600 per AF in comparison.
However, the City pays the fixed rate for the duration of the contract with the state regardless of water
delivery or usage. A surcharge for desalination facility operations has been proposed to cover the cost of
producing drinking water from seawater during periods of need. The surcharge would be levied when
the plant is operating at a maximum rate of $3.00 per hundred cubic feet, or $1,303 per AF.
4.1.1.2 Expansion Opportunities
The Morro Bay Desalination Facility is located adjacent to the existing Morro Bay-Cayucos Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) that is jointly owned by the City of Morro Bay and Cayucos Sanitary District. An
agreement between Morro Bay and Cayucos prohibits brine disposal through the existing WWTP outfall.
The Morro Bay Desalination Facility currently uses the outfall of the neighboring Morro Bay Power Plant
to discharge brine waste.
Planning for the potential upgrade and relocation of the WWTP is currently underway. The City has
proposed a site for a new wastewater facility located outside of the city limits and away from the
Coastal Hazards, such as tsunami, sea level rise, increased storm surge and coastal flooding. The future
use of the desalination plant at the existing location would need to include a discussion of the fate of
.· the existing WWTP property and infrastructure, includin~ the continued use of the intake and outfall
structures to that location.
Expansion of the existing desalination facility at the existing WWTP provides an opportunity for the City
of Morro Bay to offset all current and future needs as well as the potential to exchange their
entitlement to State Water with other water agencies if desired. The current industrial setting with
other existing facilities allow for expanded desalination operations to be appropriately located.
However, land use/zoning of the site may be updated in the future to align with community desires.
The potential challenges for an expanded desalination facility at the existing WWTP including the
permitting process through the California Coastal Commission, increasing the number of intake wells,
future agreements for the Morro Bay Power Plant or existing WWTP outfalls (unless a stand-alone
outfall is desired), and the location of a permanent facility in coordination with the City's planning
strategies.
Any expansion of the desalination facility would necessarily increase the SWRO treatment train because
additional extraction from the Morro Valley Groundwater Basin is currently prohibited, unless additional
appropriative rights can be secured. Therefore, seawater as a source for desalination provides a more
feasible option for expansion. Additionally, upgrading the pretreatment system for iron and manganese
removal would be needed to ensure proper operation of the facility.
S:\Pubhc Works\Utilities\ Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 14
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
4.1.2 Cambria Emergency Water Supply (EWS) Project
The Cambria Emergency Water Supply (EWS) Project began operating in January 2015 to treat brackish
water using advanced water treatment at Cambria CSD's San Simeon well field and percolation pond
system property. The source for the brackish water is a combination of diluted seawater that occurs
from the subterranean dispersion of salts from a deeper saltwater wedge into an overlying freshwater
interface zone, creek underflow, and percolated treated wastewater effluent (Cambria Project EIR
2015). The project's advanced water treatment plant includes microfiltration, three-stage reverse
osmosis, and advanced oxidation. Treated water is injected near the CCSD's existing San Simeon well
field where it travels at least 60 days before entering an existing production well. This system meets the
State's requirements for indirect potable reuse of recycled water.
4.1.2.1 Existing Capacity and Costs
The EWS Project can provide up to 250 AF over an assumed six-month dry season to recharge the San
Simeon well field aquifer with advance treated water, based on the current permit with the California
Water Board.
Cambria CSD's Water Master Plan, adopted in September 2008, provided an evaluation of water supply
alternatives for the community, including long-term water solutions such as seawater desalination,
surface water from Lake Nacimiento, additional groundwater wells, recycled water, demand
management, and basin management. The long-term desalination alternative, depending on the
number of RO units and operating days, could provide 300, 520 or 820 AFY. The annualized capital cost
and O&M cost (in 2002 dollars) based on 4 percent interest over a 30-year life cycle was estimated at
$800, $710, or $680 per AF, respectively.
Further concepts and options were explored in the Cambria Water Supply Alternatives Engineering
Technical Memorandum prepared by CDM Smith in 2013. Several seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO)
desalination alternatives were identified and screened:
o New SWRO facilities near Cambria at Shamel Park, Lampton Park, and San Simeon Village
• New SWRO facility at the Estero Bay Marine Terminal
~ Upgrading and sharing the existing SWRO plant in Morro Bay
Other alternatives included treating brackish water at San Simeon Creek Road, building a pipeline from
Lake Nacimiento, exchanging water at Whale Rock Reservoir, hard rock aquifer storage, and small scale
storage ponds.
The long-term solutions, including the use of seawater desalination, are currently being analyzed as part
of an ongoing Army Corps managed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The Cambria CSD
previously estimated desalination costs at $1,233 per AF, however their EIS is still in progress and no
long-term preferred alternative has been proposed. The feasibility and cost of a seawater desalination
water supply solution for Cambria will highly depend on whether one could be permitted in an
environmentally sensitive area. Much of the immediate offshore area of Cambria is within the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, as well as the Cambria State Marine Park. Earlier attempts by
the CCSD and Army Corps to explore the San Simeon Creek beach and Santa Rosa Creek beach areas for
subterranean seawater intakes were either stopped by appeals to the Coastal Commission, or were
denied access by State Parks. The Army Corps has found that deeper alluvial deposits along the
coastline that are conducive to subterranean intakes usually coincide with the mouths of creeks, which
S:\Public Works\Utilities\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai proJect\Report.docx PAGE•
Item 12.d. - Page 15
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINA110N OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
are often recreational beach areas. The cost and feasibility for a Cambria seawater desalination facility
will depend upon location, total capacity, location of the intake/outfall structures, pipeline delivery, and
permitting.
4.1.2.2 Long-Term Permitting Considerations
The Cambria CSD is ·currently working towards obtaining a regular Coastal Development Permit (CDP),
which would ultimately replace its existing EWS emergency CDP. The emergency CDP limits operation of
the current EWS to times when the CCSD Board has declared a Stage 3 Water Shortage Emergency. The
CCSD's goal is to obtain a regular CDP, which would provide the CCSD greater operating flexibility,
including the avoidance of future water shortages, by proactively operating its EWS before such an
emergency occurs. To support its regular CDP permitting effort, the CCSD is currently completing an
Environmental Impact Report on its EWS. Additionally, the Army Corps managed EIS on its longer-term
water supply project is evaluating means to incorporate the EWS into one of its longer-term brackish
water supply alternatives. A longer-term brackish water alternative may include consideration of
sharing the existing San Simeon CSD outfall for future brine discharge. Such an approach, if deemed
feasible, would require future negotiations and agreements between the CCSD and San Simeon CSD.
Expansion of the existing EWS Project to meet other water needs elsewhere in the County may not be
appropriate until completion of the CCSD's environmental analyses and longer-term CDP permitting
efforts.
4.1.3 Diablo Canyon Power Plant
The Diablo Canyon Power Plant {DCPP) operates a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination
system to supply water to the remote facility. The SWRO system provides non-potable water for the
facility needs such as keeping the raw water pond above minimum levels and feeding the advanced
water treatment plant for the steam generation system. The SWRO system also provides potable water
for employees and other uses.
4.1.3.1 Existing Capacity
The existing SWRO system shares the intake and outfall structures with the power plant and produces
desalinated water at a designed capacity of 600 gpm. The normal average water demand for the DCPP
facility is 170 gpm. The excess capacity of the existing system that would be available is 500 AFY.
Additional SWRO units could be retrofitted to the existing system to increase the production rate to the
permitted capacity.
4.1.3.2 Near Term and Regional Expansion Opportunities
Expansion of DCPP desalination facility may be feasible as a near term solution to supply water to
nearby communities. The co-location with the nuclear power plant and the excess capacities of the
existing intake/outfall structures also provide opportunities to site a regional facility at larger capacities.
Several challenges would require further discussion to evaluate feasibility:
a Lack of an existing pipeline to the nearby water purveyors and communities
• Location of the existing facility on high-level security private property
• Permitting issues including the California Coastal Commission and recent updates to the Ocean
Water Plan
S.\Public Works\Utilittes\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 16
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
.. The DCPP desalination faciliW is remotely located on the coast several miles from communities within
San Luis Obispo. Potential routes for a pipeline would be along the existing access roads from the facility
going to the north (to the communities of Los Osos and Morro Bay) and to the south (to the
communities of Avila Beach and Pismo Beach). Generally, a pipeline going eastward toward the City of
San Luis Obispo appears less feasible due to the mountainous terrain.
Discussions about near term expansion and regional desalination project opportunities could be
investigated further.
4.2 CO-LOCATION FACILITIES
Three sites were initially identified that could be opportunities for the co-location of a desalination
facility:
(j Morro Bay Power Plant (MBPP)
<11 Nipomo Mesa Refinery
o South SLO County Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
The construction of a desalination facility at an existing industrial facility has several advantages over a
new undeveloped or redeveloped site. Since these facilities are currently zoned for industrial purposes,
the co-location of a desalination facility would be appropriate use. Wastewater treatment plants and
power plants located with either intake or outfall structures could be used by a desalination facility with
minimal increased impacts to the environment and with reduced infrastructure costs. Industrial facilities
also have existing power supply infrastructure that wou_ld provide access to the desalination facility to
meet the typically high energy demands.
4:2.1 Morro Bay Power Plant
The Morro Bay Power Plant (MBPP), retired in February 2014, is located on about 100 acres of privately
owned land within the City of Morro Bay limits. City representatives are discussing the future of the
industrial site, including the possibility of re purposing the facility or rezoning the area.
The Morro Bay Power Plant area is appropriately zoned for an industrial facility such as a seawater
desalination facility. The adjacent Morro Bay-Cayucos Wastewater Treatment Plant currently operates
the City of Morro Bay's desalination facility, which uses the power plant's outfall for brine disposal.
Discussions for an expansion of the existing facility or a planned regional facility would need to consider
several challenges:
E> Future operation and location of the wastewater treatment plant
0 Future use of the facility and properties of the Morro Bay Power Plant area
e Property ownership/transfer considerations
e City of Morro Bay's master plan for the Embarcadero ar.ea
• Increasing intake/discharge capacity and associated permitting
® Visual and noise related impacts
Although MBPP is located in an industrial· zone, the future development of the existing property, its
location within the city limits and near tourism and commerce centers, and potential marine impacts to
S·\Pubhc Works\Utihttes\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai proJect\Report.docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 17
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
the bay and nearby estuary would need to be included in further discussions by the community's
decision makers.
4.2.1.1 MBPP Properties
The properties associated with MBPP were discussed at the February 24, 2015 Morro Bay City Council
meeting in order to clarify the status of the major parcels of the property as well as identification of
restrictions and limitations affecting future development. The following is a review of the properties
associated with MBPP property status, as outlined on Figure 1:
• The Dynegy Morro Bay LLC (Dynegy) property
o Includes the majority of the Morro Bay Power Plant land and facilities
o Includes the large intake building on the bay side of the Embarcadero
• Parcels to be transferred
o Includes several contiguous parcels under consideration for transfer to the City of Morro
Bay
o Primarily "green space" on the north side of the property including Lila Kaiser Park
~ City of Morro Bay property --"The Triangle Parking Lot"
o Consists of a 2.5 acre parcel recently deeded from Dynegy to the City of Morro Bay
o Zoned as Coastal Dependent Industrial (M-2/PD/I) as with the other properties
o PG&E property (not shown on Figure 1)
o Includes significant portion of "power plant" land
o Includes the "switchyard" located immediately west of the power plant
o Expected to remain essential to PG&E operations
Future use of the MBPP properties owned by Dynegy were briefly identified in the City's staff report and
the most relevant issue related to the development of desalination facility was that the City does not
have controlling interest or influence on the private ownership of the property.
Considering MBPP's location within the city limits since the 19S9s, proximity to the bay intakes/outfall,
and connection to a regional pipeline network (i.e., State Water Project), a desalination facility at the
Morro Bay Power Plant could warrant further investigation.
S·\Pubhc Works\Utilities\Water Conservation\Drought Plannmg and Response\PGE Desai project\Report docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 18
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
Figure 1 Morro Bay Power Plant properties: Dynegy property containing the Morro Bay Power Plant (bottom}, "Green space"
parcels to be transferred to the City of Morro Bay (top left), "Tnangle Parking Lot" owned by the City of Morro Bay (top nght)
4.2.2 Nipomo Mesa Refinery
The Nipomo Mesa Refinery (Santa Maria Refinery, owned by Phillips 66) was studied by the Nipomo
Community Services District (CSD) as a potential site for a seawater desalination facility initially in 2007.
S·\Public Works\Utthttes\Water Conservat10n\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 19
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
The study evaluated the construction a seawater desalination plant co-located at the Nipomo Mesa
Refinery site, which would supply potable water up to 6,300 AFY to the nearest Nipomo CSD pipeline.
Directionally drilled wells into the aquifer-bearing sands beneath the ocean were evaluated, which were
located approximately two miles from the site. Brine discharge from the desalination facility was
evaluated to be mixed with the existing cooling water outfall from the refinery.
The study identified several advantages of co-location of a desalination facility at the Nipomo Mesa
Refinery site:
" The refinery is close to the ocean at approximately two miles
o The refinery currently operates as a permitted industrial site
e The refinery has an existing ocean outfall for brine discharge
s Industrial wastewater could be used as a brackish water source to blend with the seawater
source, lowering the salinity and thus energy use
e The Nipomo CSD pipeline system is relatively close the site at approximately six miles
See Section 4.4.2 2007 Nipomo Community Services District Desalination Evaluation for details from the
study about the Nipomo Mesa Refinery.
4.2.3 South San Luis Obispo County Wastewater Treatment Plant
The South San Luis Obispo County Wastewater Treatment Plant was studied by the City of Arroyo
Grande, City of Grover Beach and Oceana Community Services District as a potential site for a seawater
desalination facility.
The study evaluated the construction of a 2,300 AFY seawater desalination facility co-located at the
S~uth San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District's (SSSLOCSD) wastewater treatment plant. A funding
study that was prepared in 2008 followed the feasibility study that was prepared in 2006.
See Section 4.4.1 SSLOCSD Desalination Studies for details about the evaluation of a desalination facility
at the South San Luis Obispo County Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4.3 POTENTIAL NEW SITES
Two sites were identified that are potentially suitable for a seawater desalination facility:
e Estero Bay Marine Terminal
() Nipomo CSD stand-alone site
The Estero Bay Marine Terminal was initially identified as part of the Cambria EWS Project evaluation
(CDM Smith 2013) and the Nipomo CSD stand-alone site was initially identified in the 2007 Nipomo CSD
Desalination Evaluation.
Other sites may also be suitable for desalination facilities. The identification of other suitable sites would
require further investigation including discussions with potential property owners, proximity to ocean
intake/discharge locations, identification of appropriate zoning and permitting requirements, proximity
to power and water supply delivery networks.
Fortunately, desalination facilities require relatively small footprints. The 2 MGD (2,300 AFY) plant
proposed at the South SLO County WWTP would require a facility footprint of less than an acre. The SO
S·\Public Works\Utilities\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 20
: '-~ 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
MGD (56,000 AFY) Carlsbad Desalination Project located at .the existing Encina Power Station requires a
facility footprint of about four acres. Intake and discharge structures have been typically located up to
three miles from the ocean, based on the facilities re.searche~ within California. New sites, however,
· .. face the permitting and planning challenges that might not apply to an existing desalination facility
seeking expansion or a new desalination facility co-located at an industrial site.
Further studies for any new sites are recommended to determine feasibility if a regional desalination
facility is considered.
4.3.1 Estero Bay Marine Terminal -New Site
The Estero Bay Marine Terminal is located between Cayucos and Morro Bay along Highway 1. A new
desalination facility was identified to be located off Toro Creek Road at a site about one mile east
(inland) from Highway 1.
The Estero Bay Marine Terminal was evaluated as a Tier 1 Concept in the Cambria Water Supply
Alternatives Engineering Technical Memorandum (CDM Smith 2013). The site was not recommended to
be further developed or evaluated as part of the Cambria EWS Project. However, regional desalination
discussions may be appropriate for the site based on its historical industrial use. Figure 2 shows the
loca~ion of a SWRO facility at the Estero Bay Marine Terminal as initially proposed in the Cambria Water
Supply Alternatives.
i~ ,..:: ; PropOS€d SV'JRO Treatment Plan~ -· Seawater Plpe'lne
C:::! Temporary HDDl"I Drill Pit -Concentrate Return Pipelme
=--=..:::: Product \"'litter Pipeline
::.'\!:" Sublerra1ean HDOW ln~ake Pipeline 1 Belo.., Gradi::; Wellhead Vault
--Coasta, Zone Boundal)'
Figure 2 Proposed SWRO facil1ty at Estero Bay Marin Terminal (source: CDMSm1th 2013)
S:\public Works\Utilit1es\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\pGE Desai project\Report docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 21
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
The proposed facility was proposed to use horizontal direct drilling wells (HDDW) to install to intake
structures as a seawater source to a desalination facility. The proposed facility is shown with an existing
concentrate return pipeline that runs to Morro Bay and a proposed product water conveyance pipeli~e
that runs to Cambria. The SWRO plant would be located outside of the Coastal Zone boundary.
4.4 DESALINATION STUDIES
4.4.1 South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Studies
The City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach and the Oceana Community Services District retained
the Wallace Group in September 2006 to prepared two studies for a supplemental water analysis. The
first study analyzed the extension of the then-proposed Nacimiento Water Project pipeline from the City
of San Luis Obispo to the Lopez Water Treatment Plant.
The second study determined the feasibility of a desalination facility at the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) wastewater treatment facility. This 2006 SSLOCSD Desalination
Feasibility Study (Appendix D) focused on a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) system that would
provide drinking water for the three agencies. The proposed desalination facility was evaluated at the
existing SSLOCSD wastewater treatment facility, which was the most logical location for the purposes of
.the study. No other site locations for a desalination facility were identified. : ','
',1".
:·-~he SSLOCSD desalination. facility proposed in the feasibility study is approximately shown on Figure 3.
'.,
\"JGS_1oo.a_Wt1ti_M1Ue11tor_Ait:cth1t1Y_Sphe11
'' COl.lntj of San Lu11. Obispo Pubt.c Wo1ks & Trtnspcrtaben 0!-partmenl
1 9,600 0
Figure 3 Proposed SSLOCSD Desalmat1on Fac1/1ty based on the 2006 Feasibility Study and 2008 Funding Study information
S:\Public Works\Utililles\Water Conservat1on\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 22
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
The SSLOCSD wastewater treatment facility operates adjacent to,the ocean with an existing outfall
extending approximately 4,000 feet offshore. The outfall has a total capacity of 16 million gal Ions per
day (mgd) which is shared between SSLOCSD wastewater treatment facility and the City of Pismo Beach.
The study estimated that approximately 2 MGD, or 2,300 AFY, would be available as additional capacity
through the outfall. For this proposed location, the flow rate available for brine disposal from the SWRO
system would limit the total capacity of the desalination facility.
The study generated a cost estimate based on engineering judgement, confirmed bid prices for similar
work in the Central Coast area, consultation with vendors and contractors, established budgetary unit
prices, and other reliable sources. The capital costs included the intake structure and piping, building,
treatment system, pumps and distribution piping, design and permitting costs. Operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs included energy usage, membrane replacement, chemical usage and labor.
Based on the 20-year life cycle cost analysis, the total unit cost for the desalination project (in 2005
dollars) was approximately $2,675 per AFY.
Subsequently, with the conclusion that desalination was a viable water supply, the three agencies
secured Proposition 50 grant funding to prepare a follow-up funding study in 2008. The funding study
included a preliminary design, identification of regulations and permitting needed for construction, an
updated cost estimate, and potential water rate increases for each of the three participating agencies.
'('ff he 2008 SSLOCSD Desalination Funding Study (Appendix E) further detailed the preliminary planning
;and design including the following elements:
'
,' :-'
o Twenty or more relatively shallow (70 feet deep) beach wells to intake seawater
e Pumping seawater through a 16-inch diameter pipe from the beach wells to the SSLOCSD
wastewater treatment facility located up to 3,000 linear feet away
G The total estimated power consumption including pre-treatment using microfiltration and salt
removal using reverse osmosis (RO), consuming an equivalent of 5,300 kWh per AF of desalted
water produced
• Delivering 2,300 AFY of potable water using 12-inch diameter piping to the three agencies
Depending on variability in permitting and environmental issues associated with the project, the
anticipated schedule would require 7 to 8 years to complete.
A rate study analysis, which was included with the funding study, was prepared by Tuckfield &
Associates to determine the impact to monthly water bills for each of the three agencies. The analysis
identified two project cost alternatives based on project phasing ("High Cost" and "Low Cost").
Additionally, the maximum and minimum annual capital costs that would be required for each
alternative was developed based on the requirements of the possible funding sources.
Table 1 summarizes each agency's average monthly water service bill for a single family residential
customer, and the range of additional costs that each customer would experience with the proposed
desalination project.
S'\Public Works\Ut11ities\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai proJect\Report docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 23
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
Tobie 1 SSLOCSD Desal111orion Project Esnmoted Monthly Water 811/ Surrhorge
-
Participating Average Monthly Desalination Project Total Monthly
Agency Water Service Bill 1 Additional Cost -Range 2 Water Service Bill
City of Arroyo Grande $ 58.86 $ 10.82 -$ 20.15 $ 69.68 -$ 79.01
City of Grover Beach $ 34.11 $ 20.74 -$ 38.65 $ 54.85 -$ 72. 76
Oceana CSD $ 45.90 $ 41.85 -$ 79.08 $ 87.75 -$ 124.98
Based on the 20-year life cycle cost analysis, the annualized capital costs and annual O&M costs for each
agency approximately ranged from $1.3 million for the minimum annual capital costs of the Low Cost
Alternative to $2.5 million for the maximum annual capital costs of the High Cost Alternative. Table 2
provides the range of total annual cost for each agency and the calculated unit cost per acre-foot per
year.
Table 2 SSLOCSD Desol111ot1on Project Total Annual Costs and Unit Cost per Acre-Foot per Year {afy}
Total Annual Cost (2008 Dollars}3
Participating Allocated (Annualized Capital Cost+ Annual O&M)
I Agency Supply High Cost High Cost Low Cost Low Cost
Max Min Max Min
City of Arroyo Grande 750 AFY $ 2.4M $ 2.2M $1.4M $ l.3M
·tity of Grover Beach 800 AFY $ 2.5M $2.4M $ l.5M $1.4M
Oceano CSD 750 AFY $ 2.5M $ 2.3M $ l.5M $ l.3M
UNIT COST PER AFY {CALCULATED)
City of Arroyo Grande 750 AFY $ 3,165 $ 2,909 $1,909 $1,700
City of Grover Beach 800 AFY $ 3,395 $ 3,137 $ 2,045 $ 1,821
Oceana CSD 750 AFY $ 3,343 $ 3,024 $1,979 $ 1,769
The total unit cost of the proposed desalination project described in the funding study (in 2008 dollars)
for each agency ranged from $1,700 to $3,165 per AFV (Arroyo Grande), from $1,821 to $3,395 per AFV
(Grover Beach), and from $1,769 to $3,343 per AFV {Oceana).
1 Based on the average monthly consumption for a single family residential customer in July 2008 (reference:
SSLOCSD Desalination Funding Study Table 7-4)
2 Additional cost range for desalination project using the minimum of the Low Cost Alternative and the maximum
of the High Cost Alternative (reference: SSLOCSD Desalination Funding Study Table 7-4)
3 Based on Table 5 Impact of Desalination Project to Participants, Tuckfield & Associates Rate Study Analysis, July
28,2008
S.\Pubhc Works\Utilities\Water Conservat10n\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai proJect\Report.docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 24
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
The study concluded that the construction of a 2,300-AFY desalination plant at the SSLOCSD wastewater
treatment plant is technically feasible. The following key issues that may impact the proposed project
were identified:
e Intake System -acceptability and capacity
e Outfall System -increasing capacity
11 Desalination Facility-available existing and future footprint
Using the existing wastewater treatment facility with its existing outfall structure provides significant
cost savings for the project and increases the viability of desalination for the three agencies.
4.4.2 2007 Nipomo Community Services District Desalination Evaluation
The Nipomo Community Services District {CSD) retained Boyle Engineering Corporation in 2007 to
perform an evaluation of supplemental water alternatives including the preparation of a two technical
memorandums related to a desalination project. Technical Memorandum No. 1 (TM 1) provided an
analysis of the constraints for multiple alternatives which included desalination. Technical Memorandum
No. 2 (TM 2) Work Plan for Project Implementation (Appendix F) provided a work plan for the
implementation of a facility that could reliably deliver a future water demand of 6,300 AFY as
determined in the District's Water Master Plan .
. 4.4.2.1 TM 2 Work Plan Elements
'The work plan outlined the project approach including the identification of key studies that were
needed to proceed with a project and the development of a preliminary schedule and budget. The
regulatory agencies and information needs that are applicable to a Nipomo desalination project
included the following:
i~
~
ii
•
G
•
8
$
•
•
•
i)
•
•
US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) -Section 10 and Section 404 Permits
US Fish and Wildlife Service -Compliance with Endangered Species Act
US Coast Guard -Review USACE Section 10 permit
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service -Compliance with Endangered Species Act
US Department of Interior-Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act
California Coastal Commission -Coastal Development Permit
State Lands Commission -State Lands Lease
California Regional Water Quality Control Board -NPDES Permit
California Department of Health Services -Domestic Water Permit
California Department of Transportation -Highway 1 Encroachment Permits
California Department of Fish and Game -Pipelines crossing over streams
California Office of Historic Preservation -Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act
County of San Luis Obispo -Coastal Development Permit
In addition to permitting requirements for regulatory agencies, the following studies that would need to
be undertaken to provide information for the permitting and design of the proposed project were
identified:
e Terrestrial and Freshwater Impact Study
• Marine Impact Study
S:\Public Works\Utiht1es\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report docx PAGE
Item 12.d. - Page 25
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
e Cultural Resource Impact Study
• Hydrogeologic Feasibility Study
• Intake/Discharge Feasibility Study
a Pilot-Scale Treatment Feasibility Study
The remainder of the work plan outlined the tasks related to preliminary engineering, CEQA/NEPA
process, public outreach, design and permitting, and bidding and construction. The "best case"
projection for the schedule to implement the work plan including construction of the project was
estimated over 8 years.
4.4.2.2 Project Location
Three sites for a desalination facility were identified in the evaluation:
o Site 1-Shared facility with South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCS D)
• Site 2 -Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery (Nipomo Mesa Refinery)
e Site 3 -NCSD stand-alone site on undeveloped parcel (Highway 1)
The potential facility locations including the piping routes from the intake/discharge locations and the
tie-in to the Nipomo CSD are shown on Figure 4.
·-.-;
l ;~ ... ,
\
S.\Public Works\Utihties\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE'.
Item 12.d. - Page 26
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
An evaluation of the sites used criteria including the ability to purchase the property, the proximity of
the facility to the intake/discharge locations and to the tie-in location, availability of power, zoning of
the facility and surrounding areas, and visual impacts.
Site 1 -SSLOCSD
The cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach and the Oceana Community Services District studied the
feasibility of a desalination facility located at the existing SSLOCSD wastewater treatment plant. Based
on the available capacity of the wastewater treatment plant's existing outfall structure, any facility
would be limited to a total of 2,300 AFY of desalinated water. A new brine disposal structure would
need to be built to accommodate any additional production.
Site 2 -Nipomo Mesa Refinery
The 1,780-acre Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery was evaluated as a potential site for a desalination
facility. The property owners operate a petroleum refinery on about 200 acres of the site, which is zoned
as an industrial facility, with the remainder used for open space or wildlife preservation.
An existing outfall was considered for the brine disposal of a new desalination facility located on the site
in the Nipomo CSD 2007 Water and Sewer Master Plan Update. The refinery used approximately 1.3
MGD of extracted groundwater and the permitted capacity to discharge through the existing outfall was
0.575 MGD. It was assumed that the full capacity of the outfall was used. To create capacity for brine
disposal from a desalination facility, disposal alternatives of the refinery effluent would be required,
including groundwater recharge, direct injection, or landscape irrigation. Up to 1,900 AFY of desalinated
water that could be generated from a new facility was estimated, assuming that some of the outfall
capacity was handled through alternate means of disposal or reuse.
The Nipomo Mesa Refinery site would most likely require new intake and discharge structures for
desalinated water capacities that are more than 1,900 AFY.
Three preliminary locations for using subsurface seawater intake and surface seawater discharge with
alternative pipeline alignments were recommended for investigation (see 5):
11 Intake/Discharge Location No. 1-Black Lake Canyon Extension
• Intake/Discharge Location No. 2-Willow Road Extension
il Intake/Discharge Location No. 3 -Southern Area of Oso Flaco Creek mouth
According to the work plan, the hydrogeology of the coastal area between Oceana and Osos Flaco is not
understood in detail. Brackish groundwater may be encountered in the beach region and would be more
cost effective due to the lower energy needed for water source with lower salinity concentrations.
However, due to the adjudicated status of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, intake wells
located within the groundwater basin may be prohibited or limited.
S:\Public Works\Utilities\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE'.
Item 12.d. - Page 27
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
11 N/36W-35.J02-06
ii>
.. 1 ON/36W-2~~"!Q~
~ '
VALLEY
Figure 5 Pornble Intake/Discharge Locations for Oesalmat10n Fac1l1ty at N1pomo Mesa Refinery (Boyle, 2007}
Site 3 -Nipomo CSD Stand-Alone Site
A privately owned 35-acre parcel was considered as a stand-alone site to be purchased and owned by
Nipomo CSD. The parcel is zoned rural residential, so visual and noise impacts may be significant
concerns. However, the parcel is on Highway 1 and the siting of an adjacent wastewater treatment
,'.facility could improve the possibility of a desalination facility being appropriately located on the parcel.
As part of the Nipomo CSD Supplemental Water Alternatives Evaluation prepared on March 15, 2013 by
the Supplemental Water Alternatives Evaluation Committee (SWAEC), desalination was considered to
meet the stipulated a physical solution to a stipulated.
4.4.2.3 Project Costs
The Technical Memorandum No. 2 provided an opinion of the probable cost of implementing and
operating a 6,300 AFY desalination facility for Nipomo CSD, using the primary assumption that the
Nipomo Refinery would be suitable. The probable costs of implementation are provided in Table 3 and
the probable costs of operation and maintenance are provided in Table 4. The probable costs include a
roughly estimated escalation cost for $20 million from 2007 to 2015.
Table 3 Probable Costs of Implementation and Operation, Nipomo Desa/mat1on Facr/1tv
IMPLEMENTATION I PROBABLE cosr
Planning & Studies ..
I Terrestrial and Freshwater Impact Studies I $ 440,000
I Phase 1 Marine Impact Studies I 250,000
4 Section 10 Budget and Appendix D: Opinion of Probable Cost, Technical Memorandum No. 2, Boyle 2007
S \Public Works\Utilities\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 28
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
Cultural Resource Study 66,000
Phase 1 Hydrogeologic Field Study 360,000
Pilot-Scale Feasibility Study 2,320,000
Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Field Study 180,000
Preliminary Engineering 210,000
CE QA/NEPA 240,000
Public Outreach 1,310,000
Project Management 1,500,000
TOTAL Planning & Studies 6,876,000
Design & Permitting "
Design/Construction Management -Design Phase 3,870,000
TOTAL Design & Permitting 3,870,000
Construction
Engineering Services -Construction Phase 6,180,000
Intake/Discharge/Product 13,560,000
Treatment Facility 48,200,000
TOTAL Planning & Studies 67,940,000
Contingency (20%) 15,737,000
Estimated Cost Escalation (2007 to 2015} 20,000,000
TOTAL Implementation Cost 114,423,000
Table 4 Probable Costs of Operation and Maintenance, N1pomo Desalination FacJ/1ty
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROBABLE COST5
·Annual Operation and Maintenance
Intake Pipeline Pumping Cost@ $0.13/kWh $ 180,000
Delivery Pipeline Pumping Cost@ $0.13/kWh 630,000
Treatment Plant O&M 6,220,000
TOTAL Annual Operation & Maintenance 7,030,000
The total cost for project implementation was $114,423,000, and the annualized capital cost based on 6%
over 20 years was$ 9,975,919. The total unit cost for the desalination project (estimated in 2015 dollars)
was approximately $2,699 per AFY, with the annualized capital cost at$ 1,583 per AFY and the annual
O&M cost at $1,116 per AFY.
5 Section 10 Budget and Appendix D: Opinion of Probable Cost, Technical Memorandum No. 2, Boyle 2007
S.\Public Works\Utilities\Water Conservation\Drought Plannmg and Response\PGE Desai proJect\Report.docx PAGE'.
Item 12.d. - Page 29
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
Additional cost factors that would need to be adjusted include electricity rates, technology advances,
heat recovery and efficiency equipment, and impacts from permitting and the new SWRCB's
desalination amendment to the Ocean Water Plan, for instance.
4.5 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
The implementation challenges are briefly discussed to provide a framework for consideration of
seawater desalination as a water supply alternative.
9 Environment Impacts
0 Energy Use
e Demand Risk
Cl Growth Inducement
0 Policy Conflicts
Chapter 10 of the 2013 California Water Plan provides detail discussion of the challenges presented with
seawater desalination projects along California's coastline. California Department of Water Re5ources'
California Desalination Planning Handbook (Appendix G) includes key findings and major
recommendations to help water managers and stakeholders with a framework for developing a
desalination project.
4.5.1 Environmental Impacts
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) was amended by the
State Water Resources Control Board in May 2015 to address the construction and operation of
seawater desalination facilities. The amendment provides protection to the coastal marine environment
:. while setting up a consistent framework for both industry and communities.
The key provisions in the desalination amendment are requirements for intake structures and brine
disposal.
4.5.1.1 Intake Structures
The intake for a desalination facility consists of a structure where source water enters into the pipeline
usually by pumping to move the water. Intakes are categorized into surface or open-water intakes,
which are generally located above the floor of surface body such as the ocean, and subsurface intakes,
which are beneath the floor of a water body or below dry land. Subsurface intakes can include vertical
wells, horizontal wells, slant wells, infiltration galleys, and so on. The source of a subsurface intake can
be seawater or brackish, which depends on the location of the well either near the seawater source, a
groundwater aquifer, at a seawater "wedge" or beneath an inland saline water body.
Surface or open-water intakes impact marine organisms through impingement and entrainment.
Impingement occurs as organisms are pulled against filters or screens intake location. Entrainment
occurs as organisms are pulled into the intake structure itself. Fish and larger organisms are affected by
impingement at the screens while smaller organisms such as phytoplankton and zooplankton are
affected by entrainment. The depth and location of the intake, the pumping velocity at the intake,
construction of screen or filter mechanism, the type of intake structure, and other factors are critical to
minimize adverse impacts to the marine environment.
S·\Public Works\Utilities\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report docx PAGE'.
Item 12.d. - Page 30
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
The amendment requires new or expanded seawater desalination facilities use the best available
technology, site, technology and mitigation measures to minimize marine life damage and mortality. The
most significant provision is that a desalination project is required to use subsurface intakes unless a
comparative analysis demonstrates that subsurface intakes are not feasible.
4.5.1.2 Brine Disposal
Brine is the concentrated discharge from the desalination process. Typically seawater reverse osmosis
systems return half of the intake water back to the ocean at a higher salinity. Brine discharge affects
brackish water operations as well. Increased salinity concentrations occur at the point of discharge,
which can be operated as a solitary outfall by the desalination facility or comingled with a wastewater
treatment plant or power plant outfall.
Even small changes in salinity can negatively impact marine species that are located near the outfall.
Brine discharge has a higher density than the surrounding water due to the higher salinity
concentrations tends to sink, adversely affecting organisms that reside on and below the floor.
Diffusers and mixing strategies can be used to reduce the salinity of the brine discharge to background
levels. The standard set by the Ocean Plan amendment is a limit of two parts per thousand above
natural background salinity no further than 100 meters from the discharge point. Various brine
discharge technologies are identified including a preference to commingling brine discharge with
wastewater and using multiport diffusers.
4.5.2 Energy Use
Energy use constitutes the largest single variable cost of a desalination facility, ranging from one-third to
one-half the cost of produced water. The energy used for reverse osmosis is a direct function of the
. salinity and temperature of the source water. Brackish sources such as groundwater and wastewater
effluent have lower salinity and require much less energy per unit of water than seawater desalination.
The energy intensity for a SWRO facility ranges between 3,300 kilowatt-hours per acre-foot (kWh/AF) to
5,900 kWh/AF6• In comparison, conventional water treatment is typically 50 kWh/AF to 650 kWh/AF7•
The energy intensity for the current reverse osmosis technology is comparatively high to conventional
water treatment as well as water supply alternatives such as treating wastewater (to produce recycled
or reclaimed water).
California Governor's Executive Order B-29-15 (Appendix H) addresses the some of the issues with
energy by pursuing a Water Energy Technology (WET) program to investigate such innovations as
renewable energy-powered desalination.
4.5.3 Demand Risk
A regional desalination project would need to consider the risk of long-term demand and the types of
commitments and contracts with the water purveyors. A long-term contract with take-or-pay contracts
provides a guaranteed revenue for the project owner but exposes the buyer to demand risk, the
condition where alternative water supplies are readily available or cheaper than desalinated water.
6 California Water Plan Update 2013
7 Embedded Energy in Water Studies Study 1: Statewide and Regional Water-Energy Relationship, Prepared by GEi
Consultants/Navigant Consulting, Inc., August 31, 2010
S.\Pubhc Works\Ut1hties\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai proJect\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 31
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
As a case study, Australia experienced a recent long-term drought in the past decade and developed six
large-scale seawater desalination projects for major cities along the coast. In recent years, four of the
facilities are now operating or will be operating in stand-by mode as reservoirs are full and the
availability of lower cost alternatives exist (Cooley 2012).
As another case study, the City of Santa Barbara had placed their newly built desalination facility in
stand-by after a few months of operation in 1992, following an abundant rainfall in the prior winter
season. The Goleta Water District and Montecito Water District, who contracted for a portion of the
emergency water supply, elected not to extend or renew their interest in the facility after the initial five
year contract period. The sufficient freshwater supplies since the facility was built kept the demand for
desalinated water low and resulted in the facility being put into long-term storage and remaining
inactive for 22 years. New efforts have been initiated to reactivate the facility with the capital costs
estimated at $55 million and annual operating costs estimated at $4.1 million to produce 3,125 AFY to
the City of Santa Barbara.
The lesson for local water managers would be the need effectively plan for both drought and normal
conditions over the entire life-cycle of a desalination project to avoid demand risk.
4.5.4 Growth Inducing Impacts
The planning process requires community involvement to support projects which minimize impacts to
.environmental and growth inducing impact while maximizing the benefits on water supply alternatives
and the reliability benefit of seawater desalination.
Seawater desalination provides a new water supply which augments the existing water supply structure
for a community. While water conservation or other alternative water management strategies have the
,t.,'. same potentially growth-inducing impact as desalination, the reliable and inexhaustible natural of ocean
water significantly influences the perception about a community's ability to grow.
As part a water supply portfolio, water resource planners can include desalination to meet their
community's need for both current and future water supply reliability. However, land development
projects should be discussed in the context of the community planning, such as the San Luis Obispo
County General Plans, in addition to water supply planning.
4.5.5 Policy Conflicts
San Luis Obispo County's Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan provides a
policy direction for new water supplies, including desalination:
Policy WR 1.3 New Water Supply
Development of new water supplies should focus on efficient use of our existing resources. 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.
Reusing and re-purposing existing infrastructure provides the benefit of a new source of water while
capturing embedded capital and operating costs. The San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water
Strategic Plan (2014) identified several potentially viable large (1,000+ AFY) and small (< 100 AFY)
S.\Public Works\Utihties\Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 32
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
recycled water projects throughout the county. Comparing the benefits and impacts of recycled water
projects with desalination projects would be appropriate in further analysis.
The County may need to re-prioritize optimization of existing infrastructure with other goals such as
investing in projects that provide the highest reliability such has seawater desalination.
4.6 REFERENCES
Ajami, N., Cooley, H., & Herberger, M. (12/2013). Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California
Marine Impacts.
Ajami, N., & Cooley, H. (11/2012). Key Issues for Desalination in California: Cost and Financing.
California Coastal Commission. {04/2013). California Coastal Commission Strategic Plan 2013-2018.
California State University, Sacramento Center for Collaborative Policy. Desalination Planning Handbook.
California Water Plan. Volume 3 -Resource Management Strategies. Desalination.
Cambria CSD. {02/2012). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
Cambria CSD. (03/2015). Project Information Packet & Environmental Checklist Cambria Emergency
Water Supply Project EIR.
Carollo. (05/2012). San Luis Obispo County Master Water Report Volume II of Ill.
Carollo. (09/2011).City of Pismo Beach, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
Central Coast Water Authority. (2010). Urban Water Management Plan.
CH2MHill. (06/2011).City of Morro Bay, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
CH2MHill. (07 /2011).City of Santa Maria, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Arroyo Grande. (01/2012). Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update.
City of Grover Beach. (06/2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Morro Bay. (04/2015). Public Works Advisory Board Meeting Agenda.
Cooley, H., & Donnelly, K. (07 /2012). Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California: Proposed
Seawater Desalination Facilities.
Cooley, H., & Herberger, M. (05/2013). Key Issues for Seawater Desalination in California Energy and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Cooley, H., Gleick, P., Wolff, G. (06/2006). Desalination, with a Grain of Salt A California Perspective.
Fermanian Business & Economic Institute. (07/2010). San Diego's Water Sources: Assessing the Options.
Food & Water Watch. Desalination Sn Ocean of Problems.
Fryer, J. (03/2010). An Investigation of the Marginal Cost of Seawater Desalination in California.
San Luis Obispo County. (07 /2014). 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
S:\Public Works\Utilities\ Water Conservation\Drought Planning and Response\PGE Desai project\Report docx PAGE'.
Item 12.d. - Page 33
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DESALINATION OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY REPORT
Spagnolo, D. City of Arroyo Grande Memorandum. Consideration of Supplemental Water Studies of the
Nacimiento and Desalination Projects and of Direction to Prepare Grant Application.
Todd Engineers. (06/2011). City of Paso Robles, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
Utilities Department. (06/2011). City of San Luis Obispo, 2010 Urban Water Management Pian.
Wallace Group. (06/2011). San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Urban
Water Management Plan 2010 Update.
Wallace Group. (10/2008}. South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (06/2011). Nipomo CSD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
WaterReuse Association. White Paper. {09/2011). Seawater Desalination Costs {Updated: 01/2012).
WaterReuse Association. White Paper. Seawater Desalination Power Consumption.
S:\Public Works\Utilities\Water Conservatlon\Drought Planmng and Response\PGE Desai project\Report.docx PAGE:
Item 12.d. - Page 34
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBl~C V\/ORKS
Wade Horton, Director
County Gov_ernmenl Center, Room 206 •San Lui5 Obispo CA 93408 • (805) 781-5252
Fax (805) 78i-1229 email addtess: pwd@oo.slo.oa.us
ATTACHMENT 3
Date: August 6, 2015
To: Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee
From: Courtney Howard, Water Resources Division Manager
Via:
Subject
Mark Hutchinson, Deputy Director
Consider supporting staff recommendation to review Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant Desalination Facility near-term opportunities with
Zone 3 agencies and Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Technical Group
Representatives
On May 19, 2015, the Board directed staff to explore the challenges and opportunities
associated with delivering water from the existing desalination facility located next to the
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) to areas of need in the county.
The desalination facility at Oiablo Canyon has existing unused capacity and PG&E has
already engaged with the County to partner on distribution infrastructure to deliver
available water to areas of need. The Santa Maria Groundwater Basin is a nearby area
of need and Attachment "1" summarizes Diablo.Canyon opportunity, including how much
water could be made avaUable at exis'ting and at full plant capacity.
Preliminary estimates indicate that there is potential to utilize the existing Flood Control
and Water Conservation District Zone 3 distribution infrastructure as a point of connection
with a pipeline from Diablo Canyon. Other key issues include:
o Would the project be for ongoing service or only for emergencies?
Q What is the end use for the water?
o What are the intended project benefits and what agreements will be needed to
ensure the benefits are achieved?
o What other effects would implementing the project have?
o What ownership, funding and operations agreements would need to be
established?
During the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 25, 2015, staff is recommending that
the Board direct staff to discuss the key issues vyith stakeholders in the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin and PG&E, to gauge interest in proceeding with developing project
descriptions and cost estimates and returning to the Board with recommendations on
advancing planning and engineering efforts.
File: CF 890.30.01 Water Desalting (desalination)
L:\UTILITIES\AUG15\TAC Staff Report.aoo~ Cl·l:JO:jb
6 of 9
Item 12.d. - Page 35
Desalination Water Supply Oppo. ...nities and Considerations Report
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Near-Term Opportunities Analysis
Objective: Provide information on the opportunity to bring desalinated water from D1ablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) to Los Osos Groundwater Basin or the
Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin so that management entities can compare against other alternatives to address
existing deficiencies and drought reliability needs.
Desalinated DCPP-Side SLO County-Side Need/Beneficial Use End Use Concepts
Suooly1 Lo11istical Steos2 Loaistical Steos3 Concepts
Estimated • Post-treatment system capital and 0 Develop Project Description NCMA NCMA
Available to O&M • Evaluate ability to use existing 1,026 AFY4 Urban customers via
Areas of Need • Conveyance capital and O&M distribution infrastructure Offset current urban pumping from agreements
at Existing e Existing system compensation 0 Conveyance capital and O&M the Northern Cities Management between project
Capacity • Project implementation steps and • Project implementation steps and Area of the Santa Maria partners
level of complexity level of complexity Groundwater Basin to mitigate
500 AFY against drought I seawater intrusion
Estimated ., Treatment expansion capital and • Develop Project Description
Available to incremental O&M • Evaluate ability to use existing
Areas of Need • Post-treatment system capital and distribution infrastructure
at Full O&M • Conveyance capital and O&M Los Osos Los Osos
Capacity e Conveyance capital and O&M Project implementation steps and 460AFY5 Urban customers • Halt seawater intrusion into Los Recharge basins • Existing system compensation level of complexity Osos Groundwater Basin's Lower Injection wells 1,000AFY • Project implementation steps and Aquifer (Basin Plan Immediate Goal
level of complexity No. 1)
1 These estimates continue to be refined by PG&E. Assumes potable water supply is desired (i.e., treated to drinking water standards)
2 Information to be developed by PG&E upon Board direction (see page 2). ·
3 Information to be developed by SLO County (Public Works Department) upon Board direction.
4 In 2014 the total groundwater pumping in the NCMA of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (urban, agriculture, and rural domestic) was 4,020 AF, which is 42% of the 9,500
AFY identified safe yield. The NCMA Agencies pumped 1,026 AF out of their 4,330 AF allocation of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin identified safe yield, or 24% of their
allocation. However, groundwater elevations declined several feet to levels similar to those seen in 2009, when seawater intrusion was detected in one of the sentry wells. The
current condition, with groundwater extractions at 42% of the safe yield and declining water elevations, illustrates the impacts of the ongoing severe drought that has
significantly reduced recharge (reference: NCMA 2014 Annual Monitoring Report, April 2015). The need would be refined with NCMA upon Board direction.
5 Under current conditions, replacing 460 AFV of lower aquifer production in the Western Area with an alternative potable water source would halt seawater intrusion into the
Lower Aquifer (reference: Updated Basin Plan for the Los Osos Groundwater Basin, January 2015, page 230).
DRAFT
7 of9
Item 12.d. - Page 36
Northern Route Terminal
Pacific
Ocean
I
0
~ , ,
i
<It
~
#
" s
I
1
Miles
Near Term Diablo Ca Jn Opportunity Concept
.~~~~~,·: ,,
·· Los psqs
, I•
' -
' "
,. ,,_,_ ----
I
2
Diab lo
Canyon Power
Plant (DCPP)
* D1ablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP)
~ Southern Pipeline Route
8 of9
"'1-. Northern Pipeline Route
City L1m1ts
' '-' Urban Reserve
County Boundary
N
i
Item 12.d. - Page 37
Attachment 1
Capital Costs
On-Site
Intake
pumping units
pipeline
power supply
Treatment
pre-filtration/treatment
high pressure pumps
ro membranes
conditioning/post treatment
disinfection system
Brine
Permeate
Pump Station
Transmission Pipeline
Storage
Ancillary Buildings/Structures
Off-Site
Pipeline -
Connection Point
Operations Costs
Labor
Electrical
Chemical
Administrative
Maintenance Costs
Labor
Equipment Replacement
pre-filters
ro membranes
pumps
Administrative
Implementation Costs
Engineering
Construction Management
Permitting & Regulatory
Division of Drinking Water
SLO County
NEPA/CEQA
Coastal Commission
Legal,
Water Purchase Agreements
Water Wheeling Agreements
PGE & GE Agreement
Contingencies
DRAFT -For discussion purposes at July 10, 2015 meeting
$/,OD().~ :;>c...o Co Are-.1t2°f 9r.0/ Item 12.d. - Page 38
ATTACHMENT 4
Zone 3 Lopez Water Project
September 1 7, 2015
Agenda Item VIII. A -Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee's
Extended Drought Emergency Water Supply Options Evaluation
September 17, 2015
MEMORANDUM
TO: Flood Control Zone 3 Advisory Committee
FROM: Flood Control Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: Extended Drought Emergency Water Supply Options Evaluation
Recommendation
The Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been investigating potential water
supply options for an extended drought and recommends that the Zone 3 Advisory
Committee (Advisory Committee) submit a letter to the San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (District) Board of Supervisors (BOS) requesting
a study session to further evaluate emergency water supply options for San Luis Obispo
County. A draft letter to the BOS is attached for your review and consideration.
Discussion
For nearly 50 years, Lopez Lake has been an integral component of the south county
water resources portfolio and for the first-time in its history, deliveries to the Zone 3
agencies have been reduced. Additionally, the Zone 3 agencies' other water supply
sources have been severely impacted as well. Groundwater levels are declining. Since
2009, when evidence of seawater intrusion was detected in the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin, the Zone 3 agencies that rely upon the basin have been forced to limit their
pumping to approximately 30% of their groundwater entitlements to protect this critical
18 of 91 Item VIII Item 12.d. - Page 39
water supply. Additionally, in 2014 and 2015 State Water Project Allocations have been
at unprecedented levels. Therefore, it is imperative that emergency sources of water are
identified and secured to ensure that the Zone 3 and other south county agencies can
continue to supply safe, reliable drinking water.
To help the Zone 3 agencies prepare for potential extended drought conditions, the Zone
3 TAC formed a drought preparedness subcommittee to investigate potential emergency
water supply options. The subcommittee developed a list of potential emergency supply
options, which are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Potential Emergency Water Supply Options
Investigate opportunities to utilize cloud seeding to enhance rainfall
Cloud Seeding within the Lopez Watershed. This could involve cooperative
agreement with Santa Barbara County.
SWP Maximization Maximize importation of District State Water Project (SWP) supplies,
including subcontractor and "Excess Entitlement" supplies.
Investigate transfer/exchange opportunities to obtain unsubscribed
Unsubscribed Nacimiento Nacimiento water for the Zone 3 agencies (i.e. exchange agreements
with the City of San Luis Obispo and the Chorro Valley pipeline SWP
subcontractors).
Investigate opportunities to obtain additional imported water and
deliver it to the Zone 3 agencies through the SWP infrastructure (e.g.
Water Market Purchases Exchange agreements with San Joaquin/Sacramento Valley farmers,
Water broker consultation, Groundwater Banking Exchange
Agreements, etc.).
Investigate opportunities to obtain SWP water from Morro Bay by
Morro Bay Desai providing incentives for Morro Bay to fully utilize its desalination plant
capacity.
Evaluate potential agreements with local agriculture representatives to
Land Fallowing offer financial incentives to fallow land within the Arroyo Grande and
Cienega Valleys and make that water available for municipal use.
Investigate feasibility of extracting water from Lopez Reservoir below
Lopez Reservoir Minimum the 4,000 AF minimum pool level. This may require utilization of
Pool emergency pumps to deliver the water to the Lopez Water Treatment
Plant.
Evaluate opportunities for enhanced water conservation by the Zone 3
Enchanced Conservation agencies beyond the Governor's Mandatory Water Conservation
Order (e.g. water rationing, no outdoor watering, agriculture water
restrictions, etc.) to preserve additional water.
Utilize excess capacity from the Diablo Power Plant's Desalination
Diablo Desai Facility to supply water to the Zone 3 agencies through a connection to
the Lopez Pipeline.
Nacimiento/CMC lntertie Complete design of pipeline that would connect the Nacimiento
Pipeline to the California Mens Colony (CMC) Water Treatment Plant.
19 of 91 Item VIII Item 12.d. - Page 40
,•\•
Emergency IPR
Emergency Desai
Price Canyon Produced
Water
Upper Lopez Wells
Investigate opportunities for Zone 3 agencies to purchase Nacimiento
Water and utilize exchange agreements and existing infrastructure to
deliver additional water to Zone 3 throu h the Coastal Branch i eline.
Investigate opportunities to develop an Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR)
Groundwater Recharge System, under emergency permits, to provide
a su lemental su I for the Zone 3 A encies.
Investigate opportunities to develop a desalination facility, under
emergency permits, to provide a supplemental supply for the Zone 3
A encies.
Investigation into opportunities to recover and utilize produced water
from on oin oil o erations in Price Can on.
Investigate potential water storage in aquifers upstream of Lopez
Reservoir and evaluate o ortunities to obtain this water su I .
The potential supply options were evaluated by the Zone 3 TAC using an agreed upon
set of evaluation criteria, which included: supply benefit (quantity available); timeframe
to implement; infrastructure requirements; feasibility; long term sustainability; and cost
effectiveness. To assist in providing an objective evaluation, a scoring system was
developed for each of the evaluation criteria. The scoring system is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Evaluation Criteria Scoring
Scoring Supply Benefit Time Infrastructure Feasibility Long Term Cost
(Quantity Frame to Requirements Sustainability Effectiveness
Available} Implement
1 X<l,000 AFY X>2 Yr Significant Very Difficult Temporary >$2,000AF
(One-time
only}
2 1,000<X <3 ,000 l<X<2 Yr Moderate Challenging 2-5 Year $500<X<$2,000
AFY Availability AF
3 X>3,000 AFY X<l Yr Minimal/ Easily Indefinite <$500/AF
None Implemented Duration
The individual Zone 3 TAC members evaluated the emergency supply options utilizing
the evaluation criteria and scoring system. The results of the individual scoring were then
averaged together to provide a preliminary ranking for the potential emergency water
supply options and are shown in Table 3 below. Not all of the specific evaluation criteria
information was available for each of the supply options, however, the Zone 3 TAC
members were instructed to select the appropriate scoring using their best professional
judgement. Additional information on some of the potential emergency supply options
has become available since the Zone 3 TAC Members completed the scoring (e.g. further
20 of91 Item VIII Item 12.d. - Page 41
development of the Diablo Desai supply option). This additional information, if available,
could have influenced the relative scoring of the potential emergency water supply
options. The scoring and ranking is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation, but
was designed to provide an initial evaluation of potential supply options for further
discussion.
The Zone 3 TAC is requesting that the Zone 3 Advisory Committee review the draft letter
and the emergency water supply options evaluation and submit a letter to the BOS
request a study session to further investigate potential actions that could be taken to
ensure sufficient water supply in an extended drought. A draft letter to the BOS is
included as an attachment to this Staff Report.
21 of 91 Item VIII Item 12.d. - Page 42
Table 3. Initial Emergency Water Supply_ Option Scoring and Ranking 1
Emergency Water Supply Option Average of Average of Average of Average of Average of Long Average of Average of
Supply Time Frame to Infrastructure Feasibility Term Cost Total Score
Benefit Implement Requirements Sustainability Effectiveness
(Quantity
Available)
Enhanced Conservation 1.83 2.83 3.00 2.67 2.33 3.00 15.57
Land Fallowing 1.60 2.80 3.00 2.60 1.60 2.20 13.83
Cloud Seeding 1.40 2.00 3.00 2.40 1.60 2.60 13.33
SWP Maximization 2.20 2.17 2.67 2.17 2.00 1.83 12.67
Nacimiento/CMC lntertie 2.17 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.67 1.67 11.50
Emergency Desai 2.80 1.40 1.20 2.00 2.80 1.20 11.40
Lopez Reservoir Minimum Pool 1.60 2.40 2.00 2.20 1.20 2.00 11.40
Water Market Purchases 1.75 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.50 1.33 11.25
Emergency IPR 2.00 1.20 1.40 2.20 3.00 1.40 11.20
Diablo Desai 1.75 1.50 1.75 1.75 3.00 1.50 11.20
Upper Lopez Wells 1.25 1.75 2.00 1.75 2.25 2.00 11.00
Unsubscribed Nacimiento 2.00 1.83 1.67 1.83 2.17 1.33 10.83
Morro Bay Desai 1.40 2.20 2.40 1.60 1.60 1.40 10.50
Price Canyon Produced Water 1.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 3.00 1.40 10.00
1 The scoring and ranking is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation, but was designed to provide an initial evaluation
of potential supply options for further discussion.
22 of 91 Item VIII
Item 12.d. - Page 43
ATTACHMENT 5
ZONE 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
September 30, 2015
San Luis Obispo County
Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo. CA 93408
Subject: Supplemental Water to Ensure Health and Safety
Dear Supervisors,
For nearly 50 years, Lopez Lake has been an inte9ral component of the south county water
resources portfolio and for the first time in its history, deliveries to the Zone 3 agencies have
been reduced. Additionally, the Zone 3 agencies' other water supply sources have been
severely impacted as well. The Zone 3 Advis9ry Committee reqommends, and believes it is
imperative, that the Board of Supervisors holds a study session to investigate and evaluate
emergency water supply options that could be used to provide the south county residents with
supplemental water to ensure that health and safety needs can be met as the drought persists.
Along with reductions in available Lope? water, groundwater levels are also ·declining. Since
2009, when evidence of seawater intrusion ·was detected in the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin, the Zone 3 agencies that rely upon the basin hav~ been forced to limit their pumping to
approximately 30% of their groundwater enJitleh1ent& to protect this critical water supply.
Additionally, in 2014 and 2015 State Water Project Allocations have been at unprecedented
levels~ Therefore, it is imperative that emergenqy sources of water are identified and secured
to ensure that the Zone 3 and other south county agencies can continue to supply safe, reliable
drinking water.
We appreciate the County's efforts to continue investigation of potential desalination options
for San Luis Obispo County and look forw~rg to ad~itional information about the potential
Diablo Desai project. The Zorie 3 Technical Advisory and Advisory Committees have also
been Investigating and evaluating emergency water supply options that could be implemented
to assist agencies in the continuing drought Through ttiis effort, we ha_ve developed a
preliminary list of potential options and utilized a systematic screening and ranking process to
evaluate them. We look forward to sharing and discussing the results of these evalu9tions with
the Board.
The large amount of time and ene_rgy devoted to flood control and habitat conservation has
also diverted attention away from efforts to improve our preparedness. For well over a decade,
the Zone 3 communities have been responding to and evaluating environmental water needs,
and funding the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan for species dependent on water
Item 12.d. - Page 44
from Lopez Reservoir. Extensive work by the County has also covered flood control needs
along Arroyo Grande creek, although delays continue with state and federal permitting
agencies. These lengthy and resource intensive issues have redirected work efforts and
funding from maintaining secure and reliable water supplies for our communities. The
emergency is now upon us and we must l9ok closely at our preparedness for continued
drought. We have to move expediently to identify emergency supplies and improve overall
regional water supply reliability.
Clean and affordable water is needed for families, pusinesses, and agriculture and the role of
counties throughout California is growing as the state legislature establishes new visions for
water resources management, and as local communities need leadership and regional
collaboration. We understand that local community leaders are responsible to meet the· needs
of their respective communities. Nevertheless, the County of San Luis Obispo has long
promoted collaboration, and as the single agency with tne greatest options, we believe that a
Board workshop will be important to identify options and to prov.ide staff with direction so that
all agencies can coordinate and collaborate while developing solutions and actions. We hope
you agree and will work to schedule time on your agenda in the near future.
Sincerely,
~o~~
PAAVO OGREN
Chair, Zone 3 Advisory Committee
c: Dan Buckshi, County Administrator
Zone 3 Advisory Committee
File: CF 340.120. 02 Zone 3 Advisory Committee -Correspondence/Claims
L:\UTILITIES\SEP15\Zone 3 Supplemental Water Letter to BOS.clocxAM:jb
Item 12.d. - Page 45
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 12.d. - Page 46