Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 01/22/2001 City of Petaluma, California City Hall, 11 English Street, .Petaluma, California 94952 PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, January 22, 2001 - 7:00 P:M. City Manager's Office Telephone:'707 778 4345 Fax 707 778 4419 Email:citymgr©ci.petaluma.ca.us Office of the City Clerk Telephone:707 778 4360 Fax: 707 778 4420,Einail:cityclerk @ci.petaluma.ca.us Website: www.ci.petaluma:ca.us Agenda posted according to Government Code Section 549542. A binder containing.supporting materials is available in.the City Council Chambers on the Friday;preceding the meeting. Packet materials are also available for public viewing at the Petaluma Regional Library,100 Fairgrounds Drive, Petaluma;Santa-.Rosa'Junior College Library,680 Sonoma Mountain Parkway, Petaluma;Lucchesi Senior Center,211 . Novak Drive, Petaluma; Cavanagh Center; 426 Eighth Street, Petaluma; and the Petaluma Community Center, 320-North McDowell Boulevard,Petaluma. Special Meeting Council Chambers Monday, January 22, 2001 Speaker cards are available for those wishing to speak during public comment or to a specific agenda item. ROLL CALL- 7:00 p.m. • PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons wishing to speak on items not on the agenda may do so:under public comment. Depending on the number of persons wishing to address the Council, time will be allocated in equal shares of up to no more than fifteen minutes. if more than three persons:wish to address Council on the same topic,they am encouraged to select a spokesperson who will be allocated equal time of no more than five minutes and no less than any other individuals speaking. Council reserves theright to limit the'Public Comments to fifteen minutes. The`Mayor will call on individuals:whose navies appear onthe speaker cards. Speakers will be acknowledged by;the;Mayor or a.Council Memberarid maybe asked questions for clarification. The City.Council will hear public'comments only on Matters overWhich they have jurisdiction. No action can be taken by the Council on these items;however, the Council may'refer questions to City'Management for review. The Council would also request thatyou focus your comments to the issues only. No personal attacks or comments on any individual's integrity will tolerated. Your assistance in helping,to create open and civil public discussion and your participation in community issues is appreciated. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE' MOMENT OF SILENCE COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Comments, Questions and Announcements 1 Petaluma City Council Agenda-Special Meeting January 22,2001 • CITY'MANAGEMENT COMMENTS City Manager Comments, Questions and Announcements UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. .Discussion, Possible Direction and Possible Action Regarding Regional Water Supply and Transmission Issues with Sonoma County Water Agency Including Amendment 11 (Stouder/Hargis) i, • APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA No items will be added to the agenda after,this:approval,although some items may be removed at the request of one of the parties necessary to the discussion and approval of the'agenda.item. 2. Discussion and Possible Action to Approve Proposed Agenda. MOTION TO ADJOURN Respectful) bmitted this 18th day of January, 2001 0 B : • /L{ , a___ • • Fred Stouder, Cit Manaser By: 1-11&ast„0.,7 C�. Beverly J. Kline, Cit •Clerk 1 NOTICE IS,HEREBY'GIVEN: If you challenge;any item on this,agenda in court,,you may,beJirriited to raising only those issues you or someone 'else raised at the Public Hearing hereinr, described, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to, the Public Hearing - Government Code Section 65009(b)(2). In accordance.withthe American's,with Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Manager's Office 707 778 4345. Although, the Act requires 48-hour notification, a'72-hour notification will help to ensure that necessary arrangements are made. The City Clerk hereby certifies that this agenda has been posted in accordance with the'requirements of the Government Code: /s/Beverly J. Kline—City Clerk 2 Petaluma.City.Council Agenda-Special Meeting. January 22,2001. REMINDER - UPCOMING.SPECIAL MEETING DATES The following information is provided as a convenience to the public regarding upcoming City Council Special meeting dates and times. All meetings are located in the Council Chambers at.City Hall unless otherwise noted. Finalized Special Meeting agendas and Notices are posted at City Hall at least 24 hours and not more than 96 hours prior to the meeting data If you;should have any questions regarding proposed tentative agenda item(s)or Special Meetings,please contact the'Office of the City Manager 707 778 4345. Saturday, January,27,.2001- Special Meeting Workshop - 8:00 A. M. - 5:00 P.M. Petaluma Community Center 320 North McDowell Boulevard - Activity Room Council Goal Setting Workshop Monday, February 12, 2001 Special Meeting Evening Session - 7:00 P.M. City Hall, 11 English Street, Council Chambers Brown Act Seminar Presentation by Santa Rosa City Attorney Rene Chouteau, Terry Francke of the California First Amendment Coalition, Moderated by Petaluma City Attorney Richard Rudnansky NOTE: Monday, February 19th is Presidents'Day Holiday—Regular meeting will be held on Tuesday,. February 20, both 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM sessions. Saturday„February 24, 2001 - Special.Meeting Workshop - 8:00 A.M. = 5:00 P.M. Petaluma Community Center 320 North McDowell Boulevard -Activity Room Council / Management Team Goal Setting'Workshop 3 Petaluma City Council Agenda-Special Meeting January 22,2001 Monday, February 26, 2001 -Special Meeting Evening Session - 7:00 P.M. City'Hall, 11 English Street, Council Chambers Joint Petaluma City Council and Planning Commission Meeting • PUBLIC HEARING Lafferty Ranch Park: A. Adopt Resolution Certifying the Final EIR; B. Adopt Resolution Approving the .Project and Adopting .the Findings, Management Plan, and Any Amendments Thereto, Amending'tthe General Plan Text andAdopting a Mitigation Monitoring.Plan. • • • 4 PetalumaCity Council Agenda-.Special Meeting January 22,2001 • City of Petaluma, California, Table of Contents • 11/22/99 Department of Health Services.Letter - Transmission:Capacity • 8/22/00 Letter From Fred Stouder to Sonoma County Board of Supervisors—90 Day Extension • 8/24/00 Letter From Department of Health Services To Randy Poole Re: System Capacity • 9/13/00 Minute Order to Bring Amendment 11 Back to Agencies . • 9/13/00 Memo From Fred Stouder Re: Amendment 11 Discussions by Council • 9/15/00 Letter From Sonoma County Water Agency Requesting Letter of Intent to Participate • 9/25/00 Memo From Torn Hargis Re: WAC Meeting • 9/29/00 Letter From Fred Stouder to Council Re: Intent to Participate • 10/05/00 Certified Letter From Fred Stouder to SCWA Re: Intent to Participate • • 10/06/00 Memo From Fred Stouder Re: Water Issues • 10/12/00 Letter From SCWA Re: Wohler Collector No. 6 Project Funding • 10/25/00 Letter From City of Sonoma Re: Agenda For Water Task Force Meeting • 10/31/00 Letter From SCWA Re: Delivery Entitlements. • 11/02/00 Letter From SCWA Re: Response to Request For Information Letter Dated 4/17/00 • 11/13/00 Letter From Department of Health Services Re: Water Adequacy Evaluation • 11/16/00 Memo From Fred Stouder Re: MOU's and Modification to Amendment 11 • 12/14/00 Memo From Stouder/Hargis/Simmons Re: Amendment 11 and Water Transmission Capacity Allocation • 1/04/01 Letter From SCWA Re: California Public Records Act • Potential Questions For Randy Poole ▪ Questions and Facts on Water Contracts • Fact Sheet on SCWA Agreements • 6/19/00 Agenda Packet Re: Amendment 11 Water Issue Manual January 22, 2001 • CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor r � �. TMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES .AtNKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH -50 D;'STREET,SUITE 200 NOV 2 4 1999max? SANTA ROSA,;CA 95404 )'576-2145 FAX (707) 576-2722 CITY November 22, 1999 • Board of Directors Sonoma County Water Agency • P.O. Box 11628 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 • Dear Sirs: In a letter dated November 2, 1999, the Sonoma County Water Agency(Agency) notified - the Department that the maximum month daily demand on the Agency's water supply • system during 1999 wastwithin 10 percent of the Agency% total water supply capacity. This notification was.in accordance with requirements in the Agency's water supply permit. At this time it is our understanding that the Agency.has determined its reliable production and transmission capacity to be 84 million gallons per day (MGD) and that this limitation • will remain until additional source and transmission facilities are constructed and put on line. The Agency is actively working on the construction of a new collector well and • additional transmission pipelines that will resolve this capacity limitation. However, we also understand that litigation and resolution of environmental issues has delayed the construction of these facilities. The highest 30-day average demand recorded during the summer of 1999 was 81 MGD and the recent historical growth in demand has been approximately 2 MGD per year. From these figures it is apparent that the Agency will reach its supply limit in the next 24 months if no actions are taken to control peak period demand. In addition, operating this close to its practical supply limit,brings the reliability of the system into question. Failure of any production facility during peak demand periods could have a significant impact on water contractors and others being able to meet individual system demands. Steps must be taken to ensure that.all•public water systems supplied by'theAgency are provided with sufficient water to meet system demands during peak use months. The Department strongly supports the set of actions proposed by the Agency for your consideration on December7, 1999. These actions,include: • formally declaring that the reliable water production capacity of the water transmission system is currently limited to 84.MGD, • reaching a consensus among the water contractors on allocation of Agency supply, • implementation of water conservation measures by public water systems the Agency supplies, • putting local production facilities into operation, • changing service rules to ensure continued supply to current surplus water customers, Sonoma County Water Agency November 22, 1999 • allowing no new surplus water customers, and • maximizing Use of recycled water where possible. • If implemented, these actions should enable the Agency to control demand on its system until suchttime as the new production and transmission facilities are constructed and operational: As a result of the.Agency's temporary impairment, the Department will be workingwith the public water systems that receive water from the Agency to take whatever rtieasures are necessary to control demand during peak use period. We will strongly encourage. each system to take an active role in the process the Agency is proposing.'These actions should enable these public water systems to have sufficient water available from water sources and distribution reservoirs to supply adequately, dependably and safely the total of all users under maximum demand conditions as required by Section 64562, Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. If you have any questions about this letter please contact me at (707) 576-2729. Sincerely Bruce rton, P.E. District Engineer Santa Rosa District cc: Randy Poole, Sonoma County Water Agency Ken Blackman, City of Santa Rosa . Chris DeGabrielle, North Mann Water District Fred Stouder, City of Petaluma Pam Gibson, City of Sonoma John Nelson, Valley of the Moon Water District- Bill Massey, Forestville Water District Charles A. Brown, City`of.Cotati Joseph Netter, City of Rohnert Park Pam Nicolai, Mahn Municipal Water District Ron Thiesen, Mann Municipal Water District Paul Berfant, Town of Windsor Larkfield Water Company Penngrove/Kenwood Water Company Lawndale Mutual Water Company Fred Curry, California Public Utilities Commission 991122.../Permit 4910020/bhb 2 IF ��p�LU`Lt a` c4. �:1,: CITY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE Box 61 I85,$ PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 E.Clark Thompson Mayor August 22, 2000 Jani ce'fader-Thompso n Jane Hamilton Michael Healy . David Keller Matt Maguire Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Pamela Torliatt Attn: Chairman of the Board . Covncitmembers 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 By Facsimile: 565-3778 Dear Board of Supervisors: • Thank you for your interest in regional water issues. The Petaluma City Council, at the August 215t meeting, voted 5-1 to•reconsider its approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency's (SCWA) Amendment 11 water contract. In doing so,the Council respectivelyrequests an extension of the September 15 deadline and asks the Board for a 90 day extension in which to reach a decision. • • The ninety (90) days will allow time for a forum to be hosted by all or a few of the SCWA contractors and invite all of the SCWA contractors and Sonoma County elected officials, local, county, and state, to begin a discussion on a regional water policy, for the following reasons: 1. Since this project will take a minimum of seven (7) years to construct, the Council,believes this request is reasonable and timely because of the issues that the City of Petaluma, other elected officials and the public have raised regarding our regional water policy. 2. The Vice Mayor of the City of Sonoma raised the issue of a regional water policy at the last Mayors' and Councilmembers'. meeting. According to Sonoma City Manager, Pamela Gibson in her memorandum of August 4, 2000, they havehhoffered to be the lead agency on a task force to discuss the long-term impacts of water use in Sonoma County. 11 English Street Petaluma,CA 94952 3. The minutes of the other SCWA contractor's meetings regarding Amendment City Manager's Office . #11 reflect some of the same questions the Petaluma City Council has raised Phone(707) 778-4345 regarding rate payer cost and conservation, which have not been answered by Fax(707)778-4419 E-Mail the SCWA. ctlymgr@ct.petaluma.ca.us 4. A public discussion among elected officials and contractors has never taken • rah Administration place to discuss the vision of our county and the long-term ramifications of Phone one(707) 778-4345 Amendment 411. .- Fax(707) 778-4419 E-Mail generalplan@cipetaluma.ca.us • 5: The public should be allowed the opportunity to hear a discussion and have a better understanding of the issues of water supply and how it affects the Russian River habitat, and the impacts of the elimination of the Eel River flows. 6. The City of Petaluma believes that we, as the Water Agency's contractors, must make every effort to continue to work together and not exclude any contractor's sincere concerns about Amendment#11. 7. It is our duty to allow for an inclusive discussion among all of the contractor's elected bodies who are ultimately responsible to the rate payers. 8. The SCWA is basing its water use calculations on General Plan projections that are out of date and are -currently being: redrawn by the two largest contractors, the cities of Petaluma and Santa Rosa. 9. The water use calculations for the existing General Plan projections are for single-family dwellings and conversely, there is a desire in'Sonoma County to build higher density housing that embraces smart growth and more sustainable . principles which would require less water consumption. • 10. We have not extinguished all means of conservation and water efficiency to reduce the amount of water that is needed to be taken•from the Russian River. - •11. The ratepayer should have the information to understand who will be paying for the expansion of,the water:system, how much it will cost, and be aware of who is paying for growth in our communities. 12. It is going to cost the ratepayers more money to leave the City of Petaluma out of the contract because it will take more resources and time to draw up new contracts, reallocate the costs of the project, and prepare a new EIR. 13. The cost to each ratepayer is still not defined and the. public deserves an answer. 14. The Water'Agency needs to quantify the monetary costs, not just'the effects, of . the degradation of the natural ecosystem of the Russian and Eel Rivers: 15. Amendment#11 is an extractive resource policy that is fundamentally inconsistent with the values of sustainability adopted by City of Petaluma to guide the revision of its General Plan. • ,• • 16. The implementation of Amendment #11 will require the SCWA to apply for state and federal finding to mitigate environmental damages at the cost of the taxpayers. • 17. Water contractors need to prioritize the use of any surplus water that is taken out of the respective allocations. • 18. Public awareness of the detrimental impacts of gravel mining in the Russian River is threatening the long-term viability of our water quality and may require the public to foot the bill for a$450,000,000 water treatment facility. . Thank you for your consideration of the City of Petaluma's request for a 90 day extension. Sincerely, • • Frederick C. Stouder City Manager, for The Mayor and Members of the Petaluma City Council cc: Sonoma County Water Agency, Attn: Randy Poole, fax 544-6123 City of Cloverdale, Mayor&Council,Attn: City Manager Bob Perrault, fax 894-3451 City of Cotati;Mayor'& Council,Attn: City Manager Dale Shaddox, fax 795-7067 City of Healdsburg, Mayor& Council, Attn: City Manager Chet Wystepek, fax 431-3321 • City of Rohneit Park, Mayor&Council,Attn: City Manager Joe Netter, fax 588-2263 City of Santa Rosa, Mayor&Council,Attn: City Manager Jeff Kolin, fax 543-3030 City of Sebastopol,Mayor&Council,Attn: City Manager David Brennan,fax 823-1135 City of Sonoma, Mayor&Council,Attn': City Manager Pamela Gibson, fax 938-8775 North Marin Water District, fax 415-892-8043 Forestville Water District, fax 887-1552. Valley of the Moon Water District, fax 996-7615 Marin-Municipal Water District, fax 415-927-4953 • • Y 'STATE;OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES / DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH /2,u 50'D STREET; SUITE 200 .* ..Op SANTA,ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95404. 707) 576-2145 FAX (707) 576-2722 August 24, 2000 • System No. 4910020 Mr. Randy Poole, General Manager/Chief Engineer Sonoma County Water Agency P.O. Box 11628 2150 West College Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95406 Dear Mr. Poole: The Department of Health Services (Department) has completed a preliminary review of • the Sonoma County Water Agency's (Agency) water supply facilities' and their ability to supply system demands. The review primarily evaluates the production capacity of the Agency's sources, but also includes a preliminary analysis of the transmission facilities' ability to deliver water to the.Agency's various users. Since a source capacity evaluation of the individual water systems was not the purpose of - this review, the conclusions;only reflect the Agency's ability to provide system demands. The conclusions of the review.may be modified as more information becomes available during our annual review of the individual water systems. Especially in relation to the entitlements and use information from the Cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park, the North Marin Water District, and other water users. The report concludes that the Agency currently does not have the required source capacity to satisfy peak day demands placed on it by the contractors and other water users. Therefore, if the Agency's contractors and other users are going to continue relying on`the Agency's system to serve their existing and future water supply needs, the . Agency must immediately develop sufficient source'capacity to provide peak day demands on a continuous basis. Chapter 16 of the California Code of Regulations(CCR)requires that a system's source capacity be-capable of providing maximum day demands. Therefore, the Agency must be able to supply at least 94 million gallons per day(MGD) on a continuous basis. In order to be in compliance with the CCR, the Agency must develop an additional 10 • MGD. Mr. Randy Poole August 24, 2000 Page 2 • Until the capacity of the system is increased to meet existing peak day demands, the Agency should not increase delivery entitlements to system users. In addition to developing the required source capacity to meet existing system demands, the Agency must.begin now to develop additional sources of supply to provide for future use. The report also concludes that demands on the Sonoma and Petaluma Aqueducts currently exceed their delivery capacity, causing water pressure problems and delivery limitations'in certain areas. Although, our review was not intended to provide a detailed hydraulic analysis of the Agency's system, there seem to be,significant deficiencies within these,two transmission systems. Therefore, if the Agency's contractors are going • to continue,relying on the Agency's system, the Agency must increase the.delivery capacity of the Sonoma and Petaluma Aqueducts. If low pressures or lack of adequate water supplies continue to manifest themselves in areas served by the Sonoma and Petaluma,Aqueducts, connection moratoriums may be placed on the communities:'served thereby. Due to the;lack of telemetry and daily use records on individual metered turnouts to the various water users, the maximum day demands used',in our review were calculated by multiplying the'average day demand during the maximum month by a factor of 1.17. • Performing thisicalculation on records submitted to our Department, the Agency's maximum day demand has exceeded 84 MGD in seven out of the last,eight years. It should also be noted, that maximum day peaking factors usually vary between 1.2,and 1.7. This could potentially increase the Agency's maximum day demand requirements . between 96.1 MGD and 136.2 MGD. In addition to the above items, our Department requests that the following actions'be taken by the Agency: A. Provide a schedule of the proposed system improvements to be completed annually over the next 10 to 20 years to meet present and future system maximum day demands. B. Provide a schedule of local source,projects that may be used by the contractors and other water users to offset potable water deliveries from the Agency's water transmission system. C. To better monitor the actual demands of system, our Department recommends that the Agency either equip the turnouts with telemetry that can provide;daily use data, or read the meters daily. • Mr. Randy Poole August;24,.2000 Page 3 Finally, ourireview describes how,.;local^communities'are developing their own supplies and looking to recycled wastewater to augment Agency deliveries. However, until these sources of supply can be developed to reliably and safely supplement Agency water, the Agency needs to continue toi develop its own supplies. A copy of our final report is forthcoming following review by Agency's contractors. If you have any questions please contact our office at (707) 576-2145. Sincerely, a Robert C. Brownwood,RE. . Sonoma District Engineer Drinking Water Field Operations Branch cc: Sonoma County`Environmental Health Department Cotati Petaluma • Santa Rosa Valley of the Moon Water District Sonoma Forestville Water District Rohnert Park North Mann.Water District Town of Windsor Mann Municipal Water District Citizens.Utility—Larkfield Penngrove Water Conipany Kenwood Water Company LO0818S1820/ 2000.doc con GVlvp1UC:N11AL - IgiUU. THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT 1S A 4 7 5 a CORRECT COT%OF THE ORIGIN AL ON FILE IN;THIS OFFICE: MIN TI'E ORDER NO. 00-1113 • "" T: :SEP 13' 2(100 Administration Center Santa'Rosa,CA 95403 EEYE TI LEWIS.CountyCladc a ex-officio Clerk.of the Board of Diroerors ofr the: SONOMA COUNfY,WATER AGENCY BY rn° DEPU L ofv t` " Date: September 12, 2000 • MINUTE ORDER.onthe-Board of Supervisors of the,County'of Sonoma, State of California: directing the Water Agency to bring,any amendmen.s to Amendment 11 back to the Board and all other entities concerned before any agreeme is are,signed. Direct the Water Agency to.go••forward with negotiations with other cities as'of September 15,2000. Board reserves the iightto`approve,any amendments. • SUPERVISORS: Cale:Aye Kerns: Aye Smith: Aye Kelley:Aye .Reilly: Aye Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0. SO ORDERED C ....11,2-4.2_,- ARc 'c,imu:,.`.. // • 4) le'; W C/6D-C -7 v 1,sq o i'7irocie t.J2ti.&-44-14,,i cc 4-y4L.Ld .s. .n- City of .Petalu:ma, California Memorandum • • City Manager's Office, II;Englislt Street,Petaluma,CA 94952 (707) 778 4345 Fax(707) 778-4419 E-mail:citpmgr�a ct petalurna.ca.us DATE: September 13, 2000 . TO: Mayor and Members'of the City Council FROM: Frederick.C. Stouder,City Manager SUBJECT: Water Issues In response to several questions from Councilmembers, below are the dates when Amendment 11 or related water issues were on the Council agenda or commented on by Councilmembers, as noted by the City Council minutes,of those meetings (attached). We are also complete the City Coucil',agenda packet items that were part of these discussions and w p package available in our office for review by Friday. If you would like your own copy, please contact Katie (7784347). Attachments • CITY OF PETALUIVIA, CALIFORNIA • MEMORANDUM • City•Cleik.'s Office, II English Street,Petaluma, CA 94952 • (707) 778-4360 Fax(707)778-4420 Email:,cityclerkrra cipetaluma.ca.us DATE: September, 13, 2000 TO: Fred Stouder FROM Paulette Lyon, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: 11t Amended Amendment REVISED I received a request from a Council Person for dates of council meetings where the 11th Amended Agreement on the Water issue was discussed. Those dates are as follows: • May 18, 1998 Russian River'Eel River Diversion (discussed) June 1, 1998 Russian River Eel River Motion to Intervene(discussed) May 3, 1999 11th Amended Agreement (discussed) August 16, 199 Council Comment Torliatt? August 23, 1999 Council'Comment Healy? November 29, 1999 Council Comment"Torliatt ? • January 10, 2000Regional Watershed & Basin Planning (Impairement process & Petaluma Aqueduct delivery problems) April 24, 2000 I 1 "Amended Agreement (discussed) July 17, 2000 11h Amended Agreement (moved to 7/24) July 24, 2000 11th Amended Agreement (discussed) July 31, 2000 11th Amended Agreement (discussed) August 21, 2000 11th Amended Agreement (motion to reconsider/discuss) August 29, 2000. 11t.Amended Agreement (discuss) September 5, 2000 11th Amended Agreement (nothing to report) I am also including;minute excerpts from those meetings. • h:\nemoshel.doc • • • . Page 404 , Vol. 31 May 18, 1998 AiRUSSIAN AND EEL RIVER WATER:DIVERSION Discussion and possible Action Regarding City of Petaluma Intervention Into PG&E 3 License Amendment.of Russian'River and .Eel.River Water Diversion Projects. The 4 Sonoma County Water Agency-has asked the!cities in the,Agency's service area to officially 5 become involved in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process,regarding the 6 Pacific Gas and Electric;Company's proposal to reduce diversions from the Eel Rive to the 7 'Russian River by up-to,15%0. The stated purpose,of the,proposed diversion modifications is s to provide additional protection to fishery resources in the Eel River. The Sonoma County 9 Water Agency has raised questions,,regarding the social and economic impacts and the . to cities'water rights. The official process.to become involved would he to intervene and send 11 notice to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 12 The process of intervention by the City of Petaluma would allow the City to officially be 13 part of the review and comment-process. This would ensure the opportunity for the City to 14 present any testimony or evidence regarding this issue Jduring the application review time 15 and would officially provide th&City some standing. While the City would always have the 16 opportunity to comment during}the environmental review process without intervening, this 17 would ensure the City the ability to be party to the discussions in a,more official capacity. 1s. By intervening in the process, the City isn't necessarily now or in the future taking any 19 position on the PG&E proposal: • 20. This action would allow the City an opportunity to submit evidence in the future. It is a 21 sort of`place holder' and keeps the City of Petaluma in the information loop. This will be 22 brought back in final form at the first:meeting.in June. Moved by MM and seconded by PT. ? Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Hamilton,Read, Vice Mayor Maguire,Mayor Hilligoss 25 Noes: None ,26 Absent: Stompe 27 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 28 By motion of JH and second by MM, the Council authorized staff to send a letter to the 29 Board of Supervisors asking them to establish an advocate court facility for Domestic 30 Violence Counseling Sessions in the City of:Petaluma in fflei Court wing of City Hall. 31 Ananda Institute has corresponded with JH on the issue and it isrthis group'that is subject of 3z the motion. 73 Ayes: Keller, Torliatt,Hamilton,Read, Vice Mayor Maguire,Mayor Hilfigoss 34 Noes: Read(no other vendors are being considered) 35 Absent: Stompe 36 CLOSED SESSION 37 Council will recess,to Closed Session for a conference with legal counsel-<existing litigation 38 pursuant. to .Government Code §54956,>9(a) City of Petaluma vs. Beaman et al, Sonoma 39. County Superior Court 40 •ey;to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane.Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe • DK- Coundilinember'David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pam ela Torliatt A1M--Viee Mayor Matt Maguire • , Page. 424,Vol. 31 Eu1998 , • PT would -like the State to .divest; itself from investments in nuclear weapons, tobacco corporations, rain forest destruction, and nuclear energy. 3 The Finance Director is to make a..note on'the Treasurer's report when.'there is. deviation 4 from policy. Five years for a-banking.services contract is fine. 5 MM -the'concurs with the City of Santa.Monica which has written to the State of California 6 requesting the State to prohibit investment in companies involved in ;socially harmful 7 activities, such as the production'of tobacco or having a poor record on environmental issues. s That City restricts investment.in companies which conduct business with Burma, tobacco and 9 related products, weapons, military systems, and nuclear power. MM would like such a letter 10 from Petaluma to be addressed to the State. 1 i DK would support sending,such a letter to everyone who is holding office and to their '2 successors. Ask staff to look into mutuatlinds.and their purchase programs. Ask Calpers to 13 voluntarily divest from these businesses over period of time. 14 CITY'S BANKING SERVICES • 15 Councilmembers Hamilton and Read were not present. Finance Director David Spilman i6 noted the current banking services contract with the Bank of America was entered into in 17 1995. The size;of the City's accountsseverely limits account services by smaller banks. The 18 Finance Director noted that the bank.takes in $25,000 to $30,000 each year from the City. •19 PT is in favor of bidding out for service every five years. IlSO. 98-111 NCS 21 DEL RIVER/RUSSIAN RIVER MOTIONTO INTERVENE 12 Resolution.98-111 NCS authorizing submittal of a "Motion;,to Intervene• in Federal Energy '23 Regulatory Commission (FERC) Process regarding the City of Petaluma" This intervention '4 by the City of Petaluma onto the Eel River - Russian River PG&E Federal Energy 15 Regulatory Commission (FERC) Licensing Process is explained by the City Manager as 26 follows: "The Sonoma County Water Agency has asked the cities in:the Agency's service 27 area to officially become involved in, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process 18 regarding the pacific Gas and Electric;Company's proposal to reduce water diversions from 19 the Eel River to the Russian River by up to 15%p. The stated.purpose of the proposed 30 diversion modifications is to provide additional protection 'to fishery resources in the Eel ii River. The Sonoma County Water Agency has raised questions regarding the social and 12 economics impacts. and the potential impacts on the cities' water rights. The official process 33 to become involved 'would be to 'intervene' and send a notice to the Federal Energy 34 Regulatory Commission. is "The process of intervention by the City of Petaluma would allow-the City to officially be ,6 part of the review and comment process. This wouldiinsure the opportunity for the City to s7 present any testimony or evidence regarding this issue'during theapplication review time and 1s would officially provide the City some standing. While the City would always have the t9 opportunity to comment during the environmental review process without intervening, this to would insure.the City the ability to be party to the discussions in=amore official capacity. ii 0 to abbreviations: JH Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember.MaryStompe DK-Councilmember David Keller, PT-Couneilmeniber"Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire Maya, 1999 Vol. 33. Page 57 • i SONOMA COUNTYWATER.AGENCY'PRESENTATION • 2 Randy Poole and his staff from the County Water Agency presented an update of the fresh 3 water situation in Sonoma County: The City Council was advised that 17 Million Gallons of 4 water are used each day in Petaluma. It is estimated that amount will grow to 21.8 Million 5 Gallons per day. The Friends of the Eel River have a lawsuit working in an attempt to obtain 6 more water for the'Eel.River from the Potter Valley diversion area. 7 There is a need to construct a second'Russian River Aqueduct to South County. The s Sonoma County Water Agency (S.C.W.A.) will be working on early steps of environmental 9 documentation while'the,lawsuit is ongoing. Two tanks and a booster station are planned. It - 10 is estimated there will be a mandate of water reduction in the amount of 1,000 acre feet per . u year. 12 The Federal government has become active in protection of endangered species, such.as 13 steelhead and other fish. This, too, will affect water projects now and in the future. The 14 Sonoma County Water Agency is now performing their functions with the endangered is species in mind. Grass and other objects are now being left in the waterways to help protect 16 the `food chain.' 17 Recently they have been having problems with peak demands on the Petaluma Aqueduct. 18 The cities along the aqueduct have been relying on the Russian River Aqueduct to provide • i9 water and have not.included water storage tanks in their capital improvement programs as 20 their population has increased. • 21 Watershed Planning. is another relatively recent addition to the Sonoma County Water • 22 23 Agency's planning process. This has resulted, in the public entities working together on restoration projects. 24. Recycled water use is being encouraged as is reverse osmosis of recycled water for general 25 use. Randy.Poole,'said they feel they will be compliant with the Year 2000 transition(Y2K) 26 and water will continueflowing as needed. They have 7 days of fuel and 3 days of storage 27 for Y2K. Y2K. is that transition from year 1999 to year 2000 when a number of older 28 computer programs in which the year was written as a 2-digit item rather than a 4-digit item. 29 There is concern that some computers will revert to the year 1900 and that may cause a little 30 difficulty. 3' In response to Councilmember Michael Healy's queries about the peak demand at urban 32 growth buildout, Mr. Poole said all the calculations are in the Montgomery Watson analysis. 33 Councilmember Matt Maguire said he would like to see the-Sonoma County Water Agency 34 be more aggressively protective of our resource and reduce gravel mining. 35 No one knows what the result will be from the lawsuit about the Potter Valley water 36 diversion. That is where water is diverted into the Russian River. People living near the Eel 37 River feel less water should be diverted to the Russian River and more should be allowed to 38 stay'in.the Eel River. 39 John.Cheney, -55lRocca:Drive — asked that there be additional work on flood control by the 40 Sonoma County Water Agency in the Willow Brook Creek. That would include a `plug' 41 near the new Willow Brook bridge in Redwood Business Park. City Engineer Hargis said the • 42 intent is to put that plug in the creek at that location this summer. Randy Poole from the Water Agency and his staff were complimented on their presentation. ,go 2 Council Member Torliatt referred to a memo.submitted by Director of Engineering, Tom ® 3 Hargis, regarding the pipeline component from Cotati through Petaluma for the Water 4 Supply and Transmission System. She inquired whether this was something Council 5 wanted to agendize in order to consider the impacts it would have on the community. 6 She stated she had attended an Association of Bay, Area Governments (ABAG) 7 Regional Planning Committee; and Supervisor Kenzie of Marin County had brought s forward a resolution regarding Cal Fed and the Bay that dealt with the wetlands issue. 9 A sample resolution had been distributed at the ABAG meeting requesting support for io this resolution. Ms. Torliatt asked whether the Council wanted to support this effort. 11 She also wondered if the City of Petaluma, in its pursuit of building a new sewer 12 treatment facility, would •be able to qualify for some funding through Cal Fed if there 13 was a wetlands component built into it. Illi4 is Council Member Cader-Thompson stated the public would like a gate at the dog park 16 and that there were many volunteers who would help: She reported that a letter was 17 received from Gerald Hasser, a San Rafael police officer„ regarding support of the 18 Kenilworth pedestrian crossing and that the Bicycle Committee should contact him to 19 get him involved. She stated she was shocked at how dense the.housing was at Turtle 20 Creek. In addition, she stated that Casa Grande had a lot of land and suggested a 21 long-term lease with the City forball fields. 22 23 Council Member Maguire, reported that a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation 24 Commission had looked at various parcels for ball fields that were available for lease, 25 and Casa Grande was one of .them. He said he received a letter from the Local 26 Government Commission that asked the City's support to petition Congress to release 0 the nine hundred.million dollars ($900,000,000) Land.and Water Conservation Funds August 16, 1999 Page 4 rri- L3 . 99� 1 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed. 2 3 PUBLIC'COMMENTS 4 5 Paul Kilbride, homeless, spoke regarding the homeless community and the 6 Police Department. 7 8 Larry Jonas spoke regarding the Pamela Place Subdivision and (Site Plan and 9 Architectural Review Committee) SPARC. to 11 Council Member Cader-Thompson, acknowledged that Mr. Jonas didn't develop that 12 area and appreciated his comments about SPARC. 13 14 COUNCIL COMMENTS 15 16 Council Member Keller stated that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors were to 17 meet on August 24, 1.999 at 7:00 p.m. regarding the Sonoma County Outdoor 18 Recreation Plan and encouraged the.community-to attend. 19 zo Council Member Cader-Thompson encouraged,people:to!attend the meeting on August 21 24`h: She expressed appreciation for the hard work of the volunteers at the Animal 22 Shelter during its transition. 23 024 Council Member Healy spoke regarding an article in the Argus Courier about the 25 County Water Agency's plans for a new south county transmission project and that the o 26 period for written comments on this'initial soaping session for their EIR (Environmental 27 Impact Report) process closed August 25. He wanted a letter sent asking that they 28 cast their net more widely with respect to the portion of the project from the central part 29 of Petaluma to the south of town. There were alternative pipeline variations north of 30 town into the central part of town, once it gets to Petaluma,Boulevard and Oak Street, 31 He thought the Water Agency strongly preferred a single route that would go 32 underneath Keller Street, past the Keller Street Garage- and then the entire length of 33 5th Street, with a forty-two;T(42) to forty-eight (48) inch water pipe. He thought that 34 would be very disruptive. He commented that since the pointof:the•.EIR process was to 35 look at alternatives they needed to look at alternatives to have an adequate EIR. He 36 recommended and requested,'that they consider routes that didn't go through highly 37 developed residential or commercial neighborhoods, that they consider routes that 38 scope the outskirts of the City. Fie thought that the urban separator on the east side is 39 certainly one place that should be considered ao Council Member Torliatt hoped that the Council would have a discussion about that 41 She agreed a letter be sent:a letter, but wanted to agendize the topic for discussion by 42 Council 43 44 Council concurred. August 23, 1999 Page 2 Cf. . qv' ITD 1 2 Council Member'Torliatt was also concerned about the soccer fields and that the 3 School District would close the field and not look at other solutions. She hoped 4 City Management had been working on resolving the problems ,such as trash, 5 and noise, and not have closingte field be the solution. The field benefited the 6 community aslpart of its recreation infrastructure. 7 ? 8 She then noted information that Council had received regarding a water supply 9 transmission project that the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) was • 10 considering to put in place to providemore water to the South County and Marin 11 County. A couple of alternative locations for the pipeline went through the 12 Corona Reach area and she wanted City Management to obtain additional 13 information and investigate: coordination of,acquiring easements and'pedestrian 14 access in the area in conjunction withtSCWA timelines. 15 16 In addition, she had received notification about a San Francisco Bay Trail project 17 announcing a two million'five hundred thaw"sand dollar grant program available. 111 18 She wanted City Management to pursue funding if in fact the 'project scope 19 included'Sonoma County. • 20 21 Council Member Cader=Thompson wanted verification from City Management 22 that a letter had gone out in lieu of a conversation she had with Randy Poole 23 regarding the availability of funds for fish in Petaiuma. She also mentioned an 24 article in the Sunday edition Of theSE Exam/hef entitled 'Rafters Rule Over East 25 Bay Hills' regarding the return of bird habitat to the East Bay 'Hills. She 26 suggested the;article.be maintained with the Lafferty EIR file. 27 28 Mayor Thompson requested that. the City Clerk add Rick Savel to the public 29 outreach list for the Corona Reach Specific Plan. 30 • City Council Meeting November29, 1999 • C January 10,2000 Vol. Page • 1 MINUTES OF A.SPECIAL;MEETING • 2 PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL.AND 3' SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 4 JOINT WORKSHOP 5 Monday, January 10, 2000 6 7 8 The City Council met on this date at 7:10 p.m. at the Petaluma Community 9 Center; 320 North McDowell Boulevard in rooms A.- D. 10 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, 14 Torliatt 15 16 Absent: None 17 18 PUBLIC COMMENTS 19 20 Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive spoke regarding the history of flooding in 21 Petaluma. 22 23 Beth Meredith 104 - 5th Street spoke regarding City Council. Agendas posted at a 24 the City's website. ' 25 26 COUNCIL COMMENTS 27 28 Council Member Keller spoke regarding the Sonoma County Transportation 29 Agency's (SCTA) recent meeting and reported thaLSCTA had a split vote, five to 30 five with one abstention regarding its position on the upcoming Measures B and 31 C to be placed on the ballot. There was no formal stance on these Measures by 32 SCTA. 33 34 AGENDA CHANGES, DELETIONS, ADDITIONS 35 36 None 37 38 NEW BUSINESS 39 40 1. Joint.City Council/Sonoma County Water Agency, (SCWA) Workshop on 41 Regional Watershed and Basin Planning and Setting Future Agendas for 42 OtherRegional Water Issues. 43 44 Supervisor Mike Kern provided background information on the agency and 45 indicated that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors served as January 10, 2000 1 DRAFT January 10, 2000 Vol. Page • 1 Commissioners for the SCWA. He introduced the following members present 2 from the SCWA: 3 4 Division Manager of Environmental Resources and Public Affairs Renee Weber; 5 6 General Manager Randy Poole; 7 8 Principal Engineer Pamela Jeane; 9 10 Public Information Officer Shannon Wilson; 11 12 Ellen Dowling; Lynne Hulme, Ally Davidson, and Lee Kingsbury. 13 14 Sonoma County Water Agency Principal Engineer Pamela Jeane began the 15 presentation by providing a status update of activities of SCWA that have a 16 benefit/impact on Petaluma. 17 18 Watershed Activities that Ms. Jeane addressed included background, status, and 19 the future role of the Northbay Watershed Association, the Northbay Dischargers 20 Association, and a review of California's Toxic. Rule requirements. Funding 21 projects reviewed included the San Pablo Bay Project (US Army Corps of 22 Engineers), the Napa Salt Marsh, and general restoration projects in Petaluma. 23 She mentioned the Pacific Coast-:Salmon Conservation and Restoration Initiative 24 and provided information'about the State Water Bond and Parks Bond. 25 • 26 Relative to flood control funding, she indicated funding of Petaluma Flood Control, 27 Projects from Subvention Funds for the Trapezoidal Channel; the 'U-shaped'. 28 Channel; and the Payran Street Bridge. 29 30 Ms. Jeane continued by addressing Point/Non-Point Source Pollution relative^to 31 an urban baseline program, and the opportunity for a joint National Pollutant, 32 Discharge Elimination System. (NPEDS):.permit. She provided information' on 33 water supply issues, such as the impairment process and, the Petaluma. 34 Aqueduct delivery problems, recycled water and urban reuse and the technology 35 process for commercial and industrial entities. She noted that Senate Bill 709, 36 the Clean Water Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Act of 1.999, required 37 pollution prevention plans, and had mandatory fines. She finished by 38 summarizing Resolution 99-0868 approved on June 29, 1999. The Resolution 39 included eleven items of direction relative to an immediate potential for peak-day 40 water supply shortages and addressed potential significant delays in construction 41 of additional water supply facilities. 42 43 SCWA Division Manager Renee Weber talked about Industrial Water Efficiency 44 Programs. She recognized Mishi Apparel„ Inc. as the first, case study in 45 Petaluma, for a water reduction rate of forty-six,percent (46%), and Sole Optical 46 USA, Inc. for development of cost-effective water savings strategies. She January 10, 2000 2 DRAFT January 10, 2000 Vol. Page 1 identified benefits of a Nationwide Demonstration Program that included water 2 conservation, reductions in,water pollution, energy savings, general community • 3 and economic development; local job "creation and retention, and infrastructure 4. improvement. 5 6 Ms Weber introduced the Clean Water Innovation and Technology Transfer Act 7 of 2000 that aimed at providing financial incentives and assistance to publicly 8 owned treatment works. She noted that common areas of concern included 9 pollution prevention, regulatory compliance,water supply and water reuse, water 10 conservation, habitat restoration, flood control, public education and outreach, 11 and limited local resources: 12 13 Ms Weber concluded the Agency's presentation with a summary and request for 14 action by Petaluma to: 15 16 • Participate in the Northbay Watershed Management Association by 17 designating one Council member as.liaison. 18 19 . Requested support for urban reuse programs, begin discussion for joint 20 NPDES Agreement. 21 22 • Request support for, creating a nationwide demonstration program to promote 23 voluntary actions by commercial and industrial entities to increase water • 24 conservation, reduce water discharge, and improve the quality of wastewater 25 requiring treatment at'a publicly owned treatment works. 26 27 PUBLIC COMMENTS 28 29 Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive spoke regarding storm water and flood control • 30 and provided statistics relative to water shortages. 31 32 Richard Brawn141 Grevillia Drive spoke regarding the quality of life, water issues 33 today and in the future, and asked if the City's growth was limited by its water 34 supply. 35 36 Terence Garvey.83 Maria Drive spoke regarding zeriscape practices and thought 37 the City and the County should have a reservoir or ponds. 38 39 COUNCIL COMMENTS. 40 .. - 41 Council n short-term er 'Keller edid not remarked that heignificpolicies and procedures'focused significant efforts to reduce the overall 43 demand of water resources. 44 • January 10, 2000 3 DRAFT January 10, 2000 Vol. Page • 1 General Manager and Chief Engineer Randy Poole replied that conservation was 2 an ethic; there was a.recyele water•plan and inclining tier block rates locally. He 3 asked Council Member Keller for clarification about'effort..' 4 5 Council Member Maguire asked how water was measured. 6 7 Mr. Poole replied,that three hundred twenty-six thousand (326,000) gallons was 8 equal to one acre foot. 9 - 10 Council.Member Maguire asked how many gallons.of water could be saved. 11 12 Mr. Poole, replied between ten (10) to twelve (12) million gallons per day on a 13 regional basis. He explained that itw as regional effort. 14 15 Council Member Keller asked for an accounting of the yield Mr. Poole had 16 referenced. He wanted to know if there existed a long-term 'solution for the 17 County's water resources.concerns. 18 19 Mr..Poole replied that SCWA continued to encourage cutbacks. 20 21 Council Member Keller emphasized the corporate customers using less water 22 used fewer chemicals as, well. He was in support, of legislative,,dhanges and 23 asked Mr. Poole to:present a proposal. He addressed Aquifer and the need to 24 develop an Aquifer Management Plan. 25 26 Mr. Poole questioned prioritization. 27 28 Council.Member Torliatt stated the Agency decided the priorities. 29 30 Mr. Poole clarified that it was a Commission decision. 31 32 Mayor Thompson had questions about the availability of funds: 33 34 Council. Member Cader-Thompson stressed the need for overall county planning 35 and'cities working together. 36 37 'Mr. Poole added that Marin and Mendocino Counties needed to be included. 38 There were questions on how to make sure there was adequate allocation. 39 40 Council Member .Maguire asked. what Petaluma peak daily usage was and 41 whether the City had gone over its limits: He asked what independent water 42 supplies added, if anything. 43 44 Mr. Poole, stating, it was complicated, noted the shortage provision of the 45 contract and/that recycled water did not count. 46 O January 10, 2000 4 - DRAFT • January 104000 • Vol. Page 1 • Council Member Maguire asked'where=the net benefit was and for an update on 2 the Water Mitigation litigation. • 3 5 Mr. Poole indormad an action was filed in January of 1999 and provided background information, concluding that he was not sure how the courts would 6 rule. 7 • 8 Council Member Maguire what would results would the City achieve by joining 9 the Northbay Watershed Association. 10 11 Mr. Poole replied the impact was assistance with funding from the federal and 12 state governments. 13 14 Council Member Maguire concluded there might be more money than there was 15 water. 16 17 Council Member Healy asked if current litigation held up Collector Six. 18 19 Mr. Poole replied that Collector Six was exempt. Collector Six was on hold. 20 because of environmental hazards to the fish. He then noted impairment as an 21 issue relative to the parallel pipeline. 22 23 Council Member Healy asked about the time constraint for capacity restraints. • 24 25 Mr. Poole replied that it was three to four years. 26 27 Council Member Healy referred to rate designs, in particularly tier-based rates, 28 and inquired how Rohnert Park could be convinced`to initiate water metering. 29 30 Mr. Poole suggested the development of a Memorandum of Understanding with 31 various programs to encourage savings, review allocations, and rate paid. 32 33 Council Member Hamilton asked how to receive more funding for a more 34 aggressive water program. 35 36 Mr. Poole suggested a rate increase. 37 38 Council Member Hamilton clarified that SCWA could'not'help. 39 40 Mr. Poole confirmed that they nothelp. 41 42 Council Member Hamilton noticed SC WA's.billboard on U.S. Hwy 101 and asked 43 . why the agency was advertising. 44 45 Mr. Poole explained that'the.goal was to help restore fisheries. • 46 January 10, 2000 5 DRAFT January 10, 2000 Vol. Page 1 Council Member Hamilton queried if the ad built awareness. 2 3 Mr. Poole replied that,itdidand added education;as a benefit. 4 5 Council Member Hamilton wanted to know, in conjunction with SB 709, if the 6 Joint Power's Authority's (JPA) purpose was to lobby for milder fines. 7 8 Mr. Poole responded that the JPA was advocating getting funds back to Region. 9 10 Council Member Hamilton stated she was in favor of tying water supply;issues to 11 development. 12 13 Mayor Thompson asked what the percentage was of residential use to 14 commercial use. 15 16 Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis responded that the. 17 sewer indicated eighty percent residential use,and twenty percent commercial 18 use. He offered to create a record based on utility billings. 19 20 Council Member Keller asked for information to better understand the allocation 21 methodology. 22 23 Mr. Poole explained that for ten years, Petaluma's allotment that was;not used 24 was given to North Malin Water District; who in turn gave to Rohnert Park;what 25 they did not use. 26 27 Council`Member Keller expressed concern about Petaluma's entitlement 28 29 Mr. Poole responded that the problem was clouded title. 30 31 Council Member Keller stated that Rohnert Park was not metered and the City 32 paid for development cost. 33 34 Mr. Poole replied that all cities get-together to discuss this type of issue. 35 36 Council Member Torliatt had questions about'the 'capacity of the watershed, the 37 current supply, and indicated her desire for the water agency to move faster with 38 their improvement programs She thought it was critical"to have information about 39 the water supply in order to make_knowledgeable-decisions about housing and 40 development plans for the community. She requested a copy of the'staff report` - 41 from the SCWA.meetihd of June 25, 1999. 42 43 Mr. Poole replied it was key for cities to work with one another; it wasn't.a matter 44 of how much water there was in the watershed. • 45 O January 10, 2000 6 DRAFT January 10, 2000 Vol. Page 1 Council Member Maguire concurred With Council Member Torliatt and stated he • 2 preferred knowing sooner what Petaluma's capacity Was He encouraged SCWA 3 to educate the public and take ystrides in reducing the capacity now rather than 4 taking water from the river: Conservation was the least expensive direction for 5 the community to take. He asked'`that the Phase I impairment be better defined 6 so the Council could make better decisions. 7 8 Discussion ensued about concerns for the South County's watershed, impact of 9 growth and development, participation and authority of a watershed association 10 and the need for more background information regarding regional water rights, 11 reclamation programs, and conservation. 12 13 Beth Meredith 104 - Fifth Street spoke in favor of establishing conservation goals 14 rather than spending resources for the lack of conservation such as restoration 15 and reuse. 16 17 Council summarized their requests and concerns as: 18 19 . Regional focus of the impact of growth and development; 20 . Sustainability and conservation legislation; 21 . Commencement of groundwater study as soon as possible; and 22 . Development ofnew, substantive water conservation goals. 23 24 ADJOURN 25 26 The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. 27 28 29 30 31 32 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor 33 34 35 ATTEST: 36 37 38 39 Beverly J. Kline, 'City Clerk 40 41 42 43 January 10, 2000 7 DRAFT l ``r; 00O Attorney Nicole Tutt cautioned the Council that the discussion that had begun was developing into more than a Staff reportt. Council concurred thattthis subject be scheduled for discussion as soon as possible. •AGENDA CHANGES;.ADDITIONS;'AND. DELETIONS None UN FINISH EDBUSINESS 1. Joint City Council/Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWAyWorkshop on Regional Watershed and Basin Planning; Discussion and Possible-Direction to Management on 11th Amended Agreement for Water Supply and Draft Memorandum,(*Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment. (Hargis/Stouder) Director of Water Resources and Conservation Torn Hargis presented the City Management's report and pointed to various information resources for education!:about water conservation displayed in the Chambers and noted that education was a good starting point for discussions regarding eleventh amendment to the agreement for water supply and.'recommended an additional workshop prior to making a decision. He noted that the City of Petaluma was the only city in the county that had not signed the amendment to the agreement. 'forliatt asked The Water Agency to clarify the voting; and provide an update on the basin setting. Poole-The allocation for voting was set forth in Section 5 in the Master Agreement - entitlement and each individual. Maguire asked what was used Poole replied both Torliatt wanted a detailed list for each contractor in the county. SCWA Ericka Hendricks-Phelps introduced Pamela Jean?.. outlined the presentation and provided background information about the Water Supply and Transmission System Project with a review of the historical timeline, theobject of the project, the components, that is, water conservation, increased use of Russian River. Project, and expansion/revised operation of Transmission System, and implementation. SCWA Pamela.Jean provided background information and.a review of the tenth amended agreement and the proposedeleventh amended agreement that includes: authorization for production, transmission, and storage facilities for increased entitlements/existing ',nand; and includes the South Transmission System Project; 3 Petaluma City Council Agenda—Monday;April 24,2000 Petaluma's Deliver Entitlement from 17.0 mgd to 21.8 mgd; Annual limit 13;400 acre-feet per year based on Petaluma's General Plan projections. Ms. Jean then reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Temporary Impairment and addressed the,declaration of Temporary Impairment; status of the draft MOU that was being developed with a consensus for allocation of available water supply and set forth cooperative actions. The goal was to achieve adoption of the MOU by June 2000. She noted that'Petaluma and Sonoma Adueduct'MOU's would follow.. She°then outlined future items for Council to address Keller had questions on the MOU draft.-he was curious about,section 6 page.7-16 items (b)/c amendment to could:insteadof should. • Ms. Jean. Keller re Rohnert Park Ms. Jean it has moved to.section 4 Keller section 7 mandatory? Ms. Jean -- yes Keifer why the change in.the language Ms. Jean clarified that item`b under section 6 for instance...they did not want to begforced .1) Randy.Poole;-4he first draft was what the agency wanted;the truth of the matter was that not all of the contractors needs were the same. Keller was disappointed apppPointe that th mtome of the addressed the agreement did not want to implement mandatory water eement and read page three of the executive summary...what was unsatisfactory conservation... Poole Keller does that progress over the Poole • Keller understood the position of the water agency but wanted heavier conservation measures to be expressed; benchmarks for water conservation Poole the environmental„document addressed water conservation for each entity: "Keller offered assistance to accomplish the goal. 4 I, Petaluma City Council Agenda—Monday,April 24,2000 Hamilton questioned why the Water agency had no leverage,to impose water conservation. Poole it,was going:to,evolve;. Hamilton specific requirements Poole on page 10 of 17 - on.the,copy tie.had. Maguire regarding evolution why not get a jump on it• put the language in the amendment and the MOU now Poole- did not disagree and asked that the Council contact counterparts Maguire discuss at the Mayors and Council Members meeting Cader-Thompson re the.Eel River diversion; why haven't we expedited conservation in anticipation of this. Poole geting all cities on board,had been:difficult. Trying to make sure the County was ahead of the curve; he thought others would follow and reviewed projects he had hoped would have been resolved but had not. Cader-Thompsre the pyramid (i.e. tiered rates) problem for the City; alot so much water to Mann County how does the City manage its water in case it needs it? oole stressed the importance thatall of the contractors needed to come to an agreement so that o one would run out of water. Cader-Thompson asked about the rural areas; if the water-agency,had jurisdiction. Poole said no, they had no jurisdiction over ruraL-Sonoma County: Cader-Thompson wanted to emphasize that it was biggerproblem. Healy amendment 11 page 10 Poole asked Council to recognize that SCWA had done almost all ..: A substantial amount had been done. Healy wanted a clear document, and that each document stand on its own not refer to other documents... • • Poole agreed: Torliatt re Para Keller brought up ie who was subject to water conservation and that it was up to the contractors to decide ... expressed.her concerns that other cities may not have to do more because the City had done such a great job. 0 5 Petaluma City Council Agenda—Monday,April.24,2000 Keller thought:it was grossly inequitable. r Poole reiterated thateveryone had to work together. It was important that within the next two - three years complete all the requirements. Torliatt re amendment 11 required cities to dig new wells. 4 Poole looking for a definition from State.Supply... and explained emergency was what, days, weeks, hours.. He didn't know if the City had wells to update it was up to us. • Torliatt Maguire asked Poole increase in supply from Lake Sonoma; the issues about the.Eel... waiting,°for FERC to come to,a.decision. He was;optimistic that resolution would come within the next six months. He anticipated theflowfrom the Eel would continue at a reduced amount. Minimal supply • Maguire,re aMendment1.0 authorization of Potter Valley Dam Poole if you Wanted to. • Maguire Poole • Maguire did the City have leverage with the decision about what went to Mahn 4 Poole•leveraging was not the issue; it was,a treaty • Maguire what was'the maximum potential for rsaving water. Poole Maguire Poole 6600 achievable; water saved by`neplacing toilets wasn't what they had hoped for as a reduction in . There was no hard fast number. Maguire Poole was not in favor of using a figure greater than 6600 Maguire Poole Maguire was in favor of reducing as much as possible. 4 6 Petaluma City Council Agenda-Monday,.Apn124,2000 Poole, Ma( uire,asked'whafpoole"wouid recommend/ exile he thoughfthe,figure.was 13,000 Maguire Poole Keller section 7 consultation Poole thought that would be part of the active discussion. Keller Poole that was you as a leader that needed to do that Keller continued that he did not see a message in the documents a requirement to ... Poole please understand that this°was a process; let's get this process done and continue ... Keller asked when amendment 7 was done pole about two years ago. iii Cader-Thompson wanted SCWA to take.a more aggressive,stand and how to work with the wate agency to Hamilton had a question about Poole - Maguire it was unlikely ' Hamilton if Petaluma did not sign Poole.- The city would'not.havethe,abilitytotap into the'infrastructure builtby the rest of the agreed contractors. Hamilton asked City Management what they wanted to see in amendment 11 'included or excluded Simmons wanted the operational agreement done; , Hargis the operating agreement was critical if all the agencies could=agree it was;better to divide among each other; .he'did not know if the city should participate iin amendment 11 or not - maybe city did not need to be a part bf amend 11; concerns of the unknown were the perceived Petaluma.City Council Agenda—Monday,April 24,2000 benefit: He thought more workshops were necessary to make a determination.. It was not so much • the wording; participation was the key. Healy agreed with Mr.`Poole that this was an evolving process; His take was parallefwith Tom not a capacity but to enhance what we have; amendment 11 would augment ... he was not in favor of going that route. He had asked Poole it was about $75 -the average.was,$35 Healy encouraged staff to come to closure on the MOU-and was ready to take action. Torliatt public input as the result of public hearings would .... that was when the attention of the public would come to the council ie when they get their water bills. Keller re the 11th amendment agreement; Poole each city/contractor has a representative from Petaluma it Hargis/Simmons. Keller Was it a majority of the Poole Keller there was three factors Poole explained' Keller e Cader-Thompson Simmons the contractors Would work together - the allocation table in the,MOU; theioperational MOU'was a part of that. Hargis re future list; water reduction.. one of Petaluma's programs re commercial water reductions. Ned Orrett was looking,for EPA to ... Comments from the Public on this agenda item. Diane Reilly-Torres presented an article printed by the Novato Chamber of Commerce,Apri12000 issue and°read portions of the article that editorialized Petaluma's position on water sharing issues. Torliattread an additional quote of the article.. Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive spoke regarding thetoperational mou and suggested and referred to the article°that Ms. Torres - stop building in the floodplain=so you don't have to supply water there. Frank Egger 13'Meadow[Way Mayor of Fairfax - spoke regarding the litigation involving theiEel' River diversion. a Petaluma City Council Agenda—Monday,April 24,2000 • • DRAFT DRAFlett 241 DRAFT •:PUBLIC,HEARING, • • 1. Discussion and Possible Action on 11tkAmended.Agreement for Impaired Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding 'Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and Operating Procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum:of Understanding:(Continued from Council Meeting of April 24, 2000). Begin Discussions of Possible Acquisition,by Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) of Potter Valley.Project:and Presentation bythe SCWA Regarding 6.6% Water Rate Increase to City and Discussion of a 10% City Rate lncreasefor Water. Water Resources and Conservation. Director Tom Hargis provided background information on the meetings and workshops that had;been held since the beginning of the year He explained there were three major components to this item;; 1) The 11th Amended Agreement that had been adopted for the short term for the expansion of the water supply and delivery system servicing the contractors off the Russian River Water Supply; 2) A Memorandum of Understanding :developed by the contractors serviced off the Russian River Aqueduct. Looking at a pipeline that did not supply allcof the City's needs with a source of delivery that did not meet all the demands, the document addressed'how the resource was to be shared over the next five to,ten years. 11/The pipeline. serving Petaluma,and North Marin Municipal WaterAgency (NMWWA) was one of the most severely constrained elements of the water delivery system. Work with SCWA led to the. development of operating criterion applicable during the summer months and other short periods of time whereby the resource would be allocated with the assurance of`rriaintaining'Petaluma's was not run dry. • 3) SCWA had proposed a 6.6% rate increase'to.the.City and vary"ing rates to,each of the contractors that became effective this month. The City proposed raising its rates to its customers by 18%; this amount was determined by past rate increases to the City^since 1995 that had not been prorated back to the consumer. He referenced Council's understanding that a similar situation existed with the sewer rates; in order to fund.'the General Plan, staffing, and to discontinue taking monies out of reserves, rates for both water and sewer had to be;raised. Council Member Hamilton askedfor,clarification of the format by which Council would proceed with.the, item. She noted that the City of Petaluma was the only remaining contractor needed to approve Amendment 11. Mr. Hargis replied yes,and added that another item•to'begin discussing was the Potter Valley project; it had been a long time,since'the Council had discussed the project. He provided a handout that he 4 Petaluma City Council Draft Minutes—Monday,July 24 2000 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT received at SCWA Contractors meeting that morning. The priorities for this meeting were the discussions on Amendment 11, the pipeline and water system expansion, the Memorandum' Understanding for impaired water supply. Less critical was Council's direction to City Management o regarding operating,;procedures and rate increases. Council Member Hamilton noted that at each meeting Council had about Amendment.I ishe heard a "between the lines" threat:to the community that should Council not approve Amendment 11 there would be negative.repercussions and that the Council should just approve it She wanted it clarified that there wereother choices: Mr. Hargis replied that the was correct and added that the other contracting agencies had approved Amendment 11 by the latter part of 1999. The City had options. He did want anyone left the perception that,Petaluma would turn into .a dust bowl end blow,away if Council did not sign the agreement. Petaluma, by participating in the aquedubt expansion, would receive Russian River water to meet its existing General Plan population;projections. The City currently lad an entitlement of 17 million gallons per day. At General Plan:build out, without having goneinto°anew General`Plan effort, City Management wanted to.increase that to 21.8 million gallons per day. That,would come off the aqueduct supply, The Cityhad alternatives and he believed City Management would continue"to pursue some alternatives; water conservation elements included water recycling, improved)ground water utilization, water efficiency, and storage and recovery of winter flows from the 'Russian River to supplement that:ground water, salt,water desalinization, would contribute to the availability of more water resources: There°were uncertainties with these elements just as.there was with the Russian River water supply. Council Member Hamilton again questionedwhetherthe choice was limitedao•take'it or leave it., Mr. Hargis replied that there would be a pointin time that he suspected'it would come to that The other contracting agencies and SCWA were:anxious to proceed with the pipeline project. They may decide to rewrite the,agreement without Petaluma's=agreement and continue the project'on'their own or at least'enter into that type of discussion. Council Member.Hamilton7asked whether the Council,could recommend,changee they wentedincluded. Mr. Hargis replied yes. He added that there wassorneflexibility with the Citys allotment:in thefuture with increases or decreases,reflected in the General Plan. Should Council norsign'the agreement' now, it did not necessarily permanently preclude the;Cit from 'oining at sometime in thefuture. He explained that for Cityto join in later a vote by the rest of the contractors to agree was Tguired. Council Member Hamilton did not want to have a public hearing ayes or no,-resolution and she wanted the opportunity for the Council to interact with Amendment i l's composition' and provide input;that would improve the agreement. Council Member "Maguire ,inquired whether Santa Rosa had signed the:-agreement`or "not. He understood that as of a.couple of weeksi ago they had not as they were concerned thatwells'they 5 Petaluma Council;Draft!Minutes-Monday;.Julys 24,2000 • DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT might be counted against their allocation. • • Mr.Hargis believed that issue was addressed in the Memorandum of Understanding for the impaired water supply. He then deferred to Mr. Poole to respond. Mr. Poole replied that was correct, Santa Rosa had not signed the Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Hargis clarified that Santa Rosa had signed Amendment 11. Council Member Maguire agreed with Council Member Hamilton. He wanted the Council to approach this issue in a comprehensive manner. A number of momentous issues were at stake. Those included: 1. redundancy in the water supply allocation; 2. how much water this Council agreed should go south; 3. the City's part and the City's'cost in that; 4. the lawsuit against SCWA regarding the Potter Valley project; 5. the huge increase in take from-the Russian River; and 6. implementation of conservation practices to avoid further exploitation of resources. Vice Mayor Torliatt stated her understanding was that the Council could approve Amendment 11 with, changes. SCWA would then present the other contractors with changes to see if they would agree to abide by those changes. qtr. Hargis believed that to be correct. Sonoma County Water Agency General Manager Randy Poole stated at this time SCWA was not prepared to accept changes to.Amendment 11. SCWA wanted Council's vote that night or within the week or the agency would proceed with another document. He continued that the process for this document began in 1991 and afair amount of time expended on its development; it was not something that SCWA could go back and ask the eight other entities to changeover night. Amendment 11 would not change. • • 6 Petaluma City Council Draft Minutes—Monday,July 24,2000 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Public Comment 1. John King 8617 Petaluma Hill Road, Penngrove 1,055 Adobe Road, Petaluma.presented a map with locations of wells Mat had lost water, the Rohnert Park EIR that identified'the water table had decreased and Hewlett,Packard/Agilent made a statement thatthey,.had to stop relying on their well 500 feet as switched to 100 percent reliance to outside ... Is the County giving consideration to a move to create a protection by the ; What wasgoing on with the • proposed groundwater study. 2. Nick Arguimbau 697 Cascade Drive, Fairfax 94930,spoke in opposition to the City approving Amendment 11. 3. Jeff Hellman 676 Cascade Drive, :Fairfax'94930 spoke in opposition to the City'approving Amendment 11, 4. Josh Knox 35 Ridge.Road, San Anselmo 949. 60 spoke in opposition to the City approving Amendment:11 without amendments. Council Member Keller Mr. Knox regulated by the state wate(quality control board Q Council Member Keller asked Mr: Knox added,it!Was difficult for him to say... 5. Don Weisenfluh 1092 Wren spoke in opposition to the City approving.Amendment 11. 6. Louis Nuyens III 40 Forest Drive P.O. Bo. 287 Forest Knolls, 94933 spoke in oppositionto the City Amendment 11. growth; increased rates, potter valley suit, `pipeline to. nowhere capacity... 7. Elena Belsky P.O.- Box 377 San Geronimo, Marin County spoke in opposition to the City approving,Amendment 11: Eel River Lawsuit; Potter Valley Dam; Sonoma County's EIR not complete; Mahn Municipal embarking on an EIR now nine years old. 8. Tom Yarish, Tamales Bay Association 23 Nelson Avenue Mill Valley spoke in opposition to the City approving Amendment 11. RE Lagunitas Creek went toe to toe with MMWD got the approval of recovered natural ..., 9. Nadananda: Executive Director of the Friends of the Eel,River, POB,2305.Redway95560 spokeiin opposition°to the City approving Amendment 11. Petition/earthquakes, 'new fault, 7 Petaluma City Council Draft Minutes—Monday,July 24,2000 • DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT • published Eel River Reporter to follow the developments; FERC re Potter Valley Project not a crone deal like Edwards Dam Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if there was a"possibility of closing the Potter Valley dam. Nadananda replied yes 10. Chris DeGabriele North Main Water District,44 Monte Vista Novato spoke in favor of the City adopting Amendment 11. Vice Mayor Torliatt asked what the City of'Novato had identified for Blackpoint and Hamilton developments as water sources. Mr. DeGabriele Vice Mayor Torliatt Mr. DeGabriele Vice Mayor Torliatt 1, J.T. Wick, President, Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce, Baywood Drive spoke in favor of the City adopting Amendment 11 and signing the MOU. 12 Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive:spoke in opposition of supporting development without the funds how much would it cost the City. 13. Kay Russo 837 Rancho Way spoke in support of the Council adopting Amendment 11 and the MOU; the water delivery system needed to be improved. 14. Dan Libaro 1319 "I"Street spoke in support'of the Council adopting Amendment 11 and the MOU; the City needed more water. • 8 Petaluma City Council Draft Minutes—Monday,July.24,2000 -- 3Ia 1., • z PUBLICMEARING (continued'from July 17 and 24) 3 4 1. Discussion and Possible rAction on 11th. Amended Agreement for Impaired 5 Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water 6 Transmission System.Capacity.Allocation During'Temporary,Impairment and 7 Operating Procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum s of Understanding. (Continued from Council Meeting of April 24, 2000). Begin 9 Discussions of Possible Acquisition by.Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) of 10 Potter Valley Project and(Presentation by SCWA Regarding 6.6% Water Rate 11• Increase to City and Discussion of an 18% City Rate Increase for Water. (Hargis) 12 13 14 Directorof Water Resources and Conservation`Tom Hargis presented a.memorandum to 15 Council that addressed requests received by from the Council for information on this . 16 item. The report included 17 18 1) A message from Dana Roxon, Marin Municipal Water District, that stated 19 that Amendment 11 did,not provide Marin with additional water; 20 2) A list of the best;management practices that all agencies approving the 21 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would have to agree to undertake 22 as apart:of water conservation efforts; 63 3) An excerpt from Amendment 11 regarding water conservation practices 4 that all contractors would have to agree to in order to approve 25 Amendment 11; and 26 4) A spreadsheet from a November 1998 .meeting of the SCWA that 27 outlined water deliveries, water demand population projections, and 28 expected water savings from conservation. 29 3o Council Member Maguire expressed that he was confused about the water allotment to 31 Mahn County. He had heard conflicting.comments.about a "more firm commitment" and 32 "less firm commitment:" 33 34 Mr. Hargis responded that Amendment 11 did not provide Mahn County with additional 35 water. 36 37 Council Member Maguire asked if the=amendment changed Mahn County's contractual 3s legal entitlement. 39 4o Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Council Member Maguire for clarification that he questioned 41 whether there was a "use it or lose it" provision,attached to Mahn County's allotment. 42 43 Council Member Maguire replied yes. 44 • City Council Meeting July 31, 2000 Page 3 1 Sonoma County Water Agency Director Randy Poole replied that the contractual 2 relationship would not change, and explained that the intent, of the language in the 3 agreement with Mann County was to ensure that Mahn did not demand their full allotment 4 during a drought; but kept their reservoir high. He confirmed the allotmentwas based on 5 prior use.. 6 7 Council.Member Maguire asked what'Marin County was paying to SCWA and how that 8 affected City of Petaluma rates. 9 10 Mr. Poole explained that the NorthMarin Municipal?Water District;(NMMWD) had already 11 paid their capital costs and were paying only for output and management.costs. 12 13 Council Member Maguire asked if that was the'same for all water contractors. 14 15 Mr. Poolelreplied:that what:NMMWD paid was equitable to what Sonoma County paid. 16 17 Council Member Maguire asked if contractors in Sonoma County would be contributing to 18 • the pipeline Mahn County wanted to build from.Kastania. 19 20 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if the NMMWD was proposing to pay all costs of the pipeline 21 from.Kastania 22 23 Mr. Poole replied yes. 24 25 PUBLIC COMMENT 26 27 Mayor Thompson reminded speakers to limit their presentations to two minutes, and asked 28 for comments only from those who had not addressed this issue at the two earlier 29 meetings. 30 31 Scott Hess; 100 Union Street, stated'.that he,was proud of Council for pausing to'ask 32 questions regarding Amendment 11, and asked them to look at the whole system, 33 including both the Eel and Russian Rivers, when considering water conservation and 34 efficiency. 35 36 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke against the City of Petaluma signing the 37 agreement with SCWA. 38 39 'Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke against the City of Petaluma signing the 4o agreement with SCWA. 41 42 Richard. ;Brawn, 141 Grevillia Drive, spoke against the City of Petaluma signing the 43 agreement with SCWA. ' 44 CityCounciliMeeting; O July 31, 2000 Page 4 • 1. Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma B'oul'evard South;'Was proud of Council's taking a • 2 stand against signing the agreement without�adding mandated conservation language with 3 "teeth." 4 5 Sam Salmon, a Council Member from the Town of Windsor, came to thank Council for 6 asking questions about water transmission to Marin County. • 7 8 Eric Storm, Sebastopol, stated that building the infrastructure:.for future development was 9 irresponsible and provided Council with a written statement: 10 11 Bill Kortum, 180';Ely Boulevard;stated that he was glad`Councihwas discussing this issue 12 adding that peak summertime flow was what he considered the biggest problem. He 13 suggested that City Management explore using recycled wastewater for outdoor irrigation, 14 and added that he knew of a vendor had a program available for delivery of treated 15 wastewater for outdoor irrigation at cents per gallon. 16 17 Nancy Henry, 708 H Street, a new resident of Petaluma, was pleased to live in a City that 18 lived within its means and questioned why the Council would consider paying to bring 19 more water into the City when she thought it was currently living within its means. 20 21 PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED 22 a3 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked City Management to answer Mrs..Henry's question. 4 25 Mr. Hargis explained that Petaluma was entitled to a certain amount of water off the 26 aqueduct system. The City's General Plan supported a certain amount of growth, and 27 would eventually require:more water than"currentlyused. Ineaddition, the Current delivery 28 system could not handle the amount of water to which'the City was currently entitled and 29 added that it must be replaced. 30 31 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked'if the General Plah.dutlined'riiethod for water conservation. 32 33 Mr. Hargis replied that the General Plan contained:a1000'^.acrefeet/year savings target, 34 based on SCWA water/wastewater efficiency studies and best management practices, and 35 that water recycling was included as a potential conservation method. 36 37 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if there was a difference per capita among different.cities. 38 39 Mr. Hargis did not know. 40 41 Former General Manager of the NWMMD and Chairman of the Water Contractors 42 Committee John Nelson explained that per capita allocations varied because of outside 43 irrigation requirements, with hotter areas and areas not metered higher. 44 I City Council Meeting July 3'1, Page 5 1 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if there was documentation to support data. 2 3 Mr. Nelson replied that a SCWA study contained'a;detailed analysis breaking down water 4 use. 5 6 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked for clarification if water use would depend on the type of 7 residential development the City encouraged. 8 9 Mr. Nelson replied yes. 10 • 11 Council Member Maguire asked if the cost per gallon to users was consistent with other 12 agencies. 13 14 Mr. Hargis believed each agency set costs. 15 16 Council Member Maguire asked if the unit costs to contractors were equitable. 17 18 Mr. Nelson responded that contractors paid based on their take from the system, and only 19 for water they withdrew. 20 21 Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Hargis about the timing involved with respect,to State 22 health agencies' intervention should the City not come to agreement on Amendment 11. 23 24 Mr. Hargis replied that all contracting agencies except Petaluma had approved 25 Amendment 11 last year Regarding the MOU, a little more than half of the agencies had 26 agreed to the.allocation. He thought the'State,would be more lenient regarding the MOU. 27 than the Amendment. 28 29 Council Member Hamilton stated that Mr. Nelson's c n comments demonstrated the importance 30 of all contractors having consistent policies, consistent goals, and a very serious program 31 of conservation mandates applied everywhere, rather than just an incentive-program.,'She 32 asked if people using groundwater now would be able to tie into system later.. 33 • 34 Mr. Poole replied that SCWA hoped to have Rohnert Park diminish their groundwater use.. 35 36 Council Member Hamilton asked if that included rural residents. 37 38 Mr. Poole replied;that they were not considered partrof system. 39 40 Mr. Hamilton asked if rural residents would be able to join in the future. 41 42 Mr. Poole replied that it would up to the individual City. 43 City Council Meeting. July 31, 2000 Page 6 • • a. Council Member.Maguire' asked' Mr Poole to confirm that the Agency's EIR was not • 2 - 'completed with respect to"water transmission. 3 4 Mr. Poole confirmed. 5 s Council Member Maguire asked if it would be completed once they had agreement on 7 Amendment 11 and if the City of. Petaluma was holding him up. 8 9 Mr. Poole replied that they could not proceed much further because they could not 1 o determine how the pipeline would be aligned until they knew whether Petaluma was going 11 to sign the Amendment. 12 13 Council Member Maguire asked if the Amendment contained a structure to encourage 14 water conservation. 15 16 Mr. Poole replied no and added that a part of the MOU encouraged cities to develop tiered 17 water rates. 18 19 Council Member Maguire asked:how the Eel River lawsuit would affect rates. 20 21 Mr. Poole replied that SCWA had already planned for possibilities in their rate structure. 22 . r• 23 Council Member.Maguire asked if money was set aside to study environmental impacts, 24 but not to pay for mitigations. 25 26 Mr. Poole confirmed that this was correct. 27 28 Council Member Maguire asked if.wells drilled would be'counted as part of the City's 29 allocation. 30 31 Mr. Poole replied that they would not. 32 33 Council Member Healy,asked what the timeframe for Amendment 12 would be, and what 34 scope of issues it would address. 35 36 Mr. Poole explained that completion was expected within the next 18-24 months, and 37 added that there were forty to sixty issues to be addressed forthe Amendment. 38 • 39 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked what required the completion of Amendment 12 if Amendment 40 11 was passed. 41 42 Mr. Poole responded that there were sufficient issues and interest to warrant the 12`h 43 Amendment. 44 • City Council Meeting July 31, 2000 Page 7 1 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Mr. Poole why SCWA needed a decision., from Petaluma 2 regarding Amendment 11 before the EIR could be completed as the EIR would need to 3 explore alignment alternatives regardless of Petaluma's decision. 4 5 Mr. Poole agreed and added that Petaluma might want to have the pipeline located close 6 to certain facilities. If Petaluma were to decline to sign the amendment, SCWA might align 7 the pipeline in ways beneficial to other.cities., 8 9 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if Petaluma would,be=;asked`where theywanted-the pipeline. 10 11 Mr. Poole confirmed this. 12 13 Vice Mayor Tartlet asked who made the final decision on the pipeline alignment. 14 15 Mr. Poole replied that SCWA's board of directors made the final decision. 16 17 Mr. Hargis noted that discussions including Council had taken place about alignment.of 18 pipeline. 19 20 Mr. Poole continued that knowing Petaluma's decision would limit the number of 21 alternatives they needed to consider. 22 23 Vice Mayor Torliatt wondered why the MOU was not included as part of Amendment 11 or 24 12. 25 26 Mr. Poole said that the MOU,allocates existing supplies in an equitable pro cess, and it was 27 easier to do,as a separate document. He added thatthere were two areas not included in 2s the Master Agreement that were included in the MOU. 29 3o Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if consideration was given to denying voting privileges for those 31 two areas. 32 33 Mr Poole responded that all the players;wanted to have,the same say and same authority:; 34 35 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that Petaluma's decision on Amendment 11 had ramifications for 36 not only Petalumans butto the entire county,as a whole. Petaluma was the last contractor 37 tolconsider approval of the amendment,and as the last contractor, there was a^tremendous. 38 amount of political pressure applied to not ask questions and to approve it for fear of the 39 threat of being left out of a future water source for the community. 40 41 This was,the time political leadership needed to step forward, ask the questions, and 42 receive answers to the larger consequences'of actions taken. 43 44 Since the issue had come to light-in the public's eyes, she have received a tremendous O City Council Meeting July31, 2000 Page,8 1 amount.of emaii and'phone,calls encouraging this City'Council"to really take the time to • a think through the long term impacts of the decision before'them and how they could make '3 it a better decision. - 4' 5 She stated Council must recognize certain realities: 6 - 7 1. The water supply is finite. The community was dealing with,a limited resource. Just 8 because it was convenient to take water out of the Russian.and Eel Rivers did not 9 mean it was'right. Just because the Section 7 analysis may say it is okay to put out 10 101,000,000 gallons per day did not mean it was the right thing to do. 11 12 2. Communities that make a large capital investment to bring in more water without 13 first implementing aggressive conservation measures;may find themselves unable 14 to turn back. Prolonging the inevitable put:future,generations at risk by depleting 15 water resources and deferring the long-term cost of providing water to citizens. If 16 the proposal goes forward, it would change the economics of future decisions. 17 18 3. The City must look at other.options: No alternatives were provided to the Council 19 before asking for a vote; this was making public policy in a vacuum. The citizens 20 deserved:better, and the Council was capable of much better so they must set their 21 goals higher and not be complacent. There was a ;need to pursue including 22 language in Amendment 11 that mandated looking at the analysis of the • 4 3 cost/benefit ratio for restoration of resources, notdepletion: There also needed to be an analysis of a model that based water allotment per capita and provided 25 significant financial incentives for cities to use their water more efficiently and 26 financial penalties to those who did not Other factors, such as industry use/needs 27 and climate conditions, would also need to be factored into the'analysis. 28 29 4. The Board of Supervisors as the Board for SCWA should be taking an aggressive 30 leadership role In conservation and water'efficiency. 31 32 5. Growth inducing, ground water studies, storage, reliability of water source and 33 safety —fire protection were additional,issues she wanted to discuss. 34 35 She thought Council's leadership in acknowledgment of the fact that water was a valuable 36 resource should not taken for granted'. She wanted to find a way to,better address the 37 issue. 38 39 Council:Member Hamilton pointed out that Amendment 11 took nine years to complete, 4o and said she was not confident about Amendment 12 being completed any soon. She 41 thought it was possible to make changes to Amendment 11 and+reroute it through the other 42 contractors in a fairly timely manner. She added that Amendment 11 should contain the 43 following: 44 City Council Meeting July 31,2000 Page 9 • • 1 . Water Ethic::As consumers the community had the obligation to ensure that this 2 resource remained available: 3 2. Charter of Stewardship: SCWA should act as steward of this resource, rather 4 than as a"utility.. 5 3. Water Conservation Plan: Mandated conservation with percentages that. 6 increased over the next ten years. 7 a Mayor Thompson agreed with Council Member Hamilton's ideas, and added that he 9 thought they should'be included in Amendment 12: He wanted the City to agree to 10 Amendrrient'11. He was concerned thatit would take years for all the contractors to agree 11 if changes were made to Am endment 11. 12 13 Vice Mayor Torliatt worried that Amendment°11.did not mandate responsible water use 14 15 Council Member Healy thought that what Council Member Hamilton proposed sounded like 16 a preamble not mandated conservation. 17 la Council Member Hamilton pointed out that the water conservation component didcontain 19 specific'conservation;:mandates. • 20 21 Vice. Mayor Torliatt thought the City needed to give SCWA the mandate, with other 22 contractors agreeing,, to look at how to use water as a restoration of resources, not 23 depletion She stated the need to start earlier',rather than later with a new philosophy. 24 25 Council Member Healy described:the water issues,as,:multifaceted, with lots of information 26 to synthesize; it was the most important vote he faced in his time on this Council. He 27 added that it.was importantto remember the;existing pipeline could.nothandle Petaluma's. 2a current water entitlement, and the City needed additional capacity just to;serve its existing 29 population. He noted that in a treaty, each party gets what is most important to it For 30 Petaluma, this was reliability enhancement and redundancy of the existing pipeline. He 31 stated that even if Amendment 11 went forward, it would.probably be seven years before a 32 parallel aqueduct was completed: He worried that if Petaluma did not participate in . 33 Amendment 11, the new"aqueduct would bypass Petaluma, and the City would not have. 34 the opportunity to access it':later. He pointed out that the City only had two days supply of 35 emergency water. He added :that Amendment 11 and the MOU obligated Petaluma to 36 implement best management practices. He`concededithatthis reflected slow progress, but 37 progress nonetheless and noted that the City would soon be'conducting'a rate study that 38 would mvcloser totiere w ter rates. He'reminded tellow'Council membershat they 39 all supported g r refill g e density,_ jobs/housing balance, transit 40 development- but not "no.growth." He was in favor of the Council approving Amendment 41 11 and.the MOU,:and beginning work"oh Amendment 12, 42 43 Council Member Maguire agreed that this was a very complex issue and required time to 44 understand. He was in agreement with all the other Council Members' comments. He City CouncitMeeting July31, 20'00 Page 10 • 1 thoughLPetalumegota "bum rap" for stalling and;foof dragging, and added that Council 2 had'been proceeding as forthrightly as possible. Hewes concerned with committing to an 3 open-ended agreement. He worried because;conservation measures,were not mandated in 4 Amendment 11. He wanted to wait a month and poll 'other`City Councils about their 5 willingness to agree to such mandates, should Petaluma add them. He noted that if the 6 City signed Amendment 11 at this time, it was doing so under duress. If Petaluma agreed 7 to Amendment 11, it would need Randy'Poole's agreement that work begin immediately on s Amendment 12, that Amendment 12 include mandated conservation measures, 9 development of decentralized alternatives, and that Amendment 12 receive ongoing input to from City Councils during its development. He wondered if it would be possible to include li the option for"rethinking" the decision'to sign-Amendment11, should the financial impacts 12 of the Eel River lawsuit or Section 7 consultation exceed five percent of existing or 13 proposed rates in mandated mitigations. 14 is Mayor Thompson replied that he had a conversation with Supervisor Mike Kerns who 16 indicated Amendment 12 was ialready being developed, Regarding polling other City 17 Councils, he thought it would require six to seven months to receive their responses, as is the matter would have to be'established on each Councils' agenda. 19 20 Council Member Healy asked what SCWA would do if mitigation costs of the Eel River 21 Lawsuit or Section 7 consultation costs were higher than anticipated. 22 W3 Mr. Poole replied that SCWA would come back to the contractors. He discounted the idea 4 that Petaluma would be ''signing a blank check" by approving Amendment 11. 25 26 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky pointed out that it would not be possible to reconsider 27 Amendment 11 once it had been signed. The option would be to authorize the City 28 Manager to sign Amendrnent11 conditioned:on certain things occurring, or when Council 29 was confident that sufficient progress had been made in that direction. 30 31 Mayor Thompson noted that ifthe mitigation costs were very high, they would affect the 32 City even if Petaluma did`notsign'the Amendment. 33 34 Council Member Hamilton had serious reservations about going ahead with Amendment 35 11, because there was no language that mandated a reduction or halt to sending water 36 from the Eel River to Marin. She also thought it would "solidify" Mann's right to the water. 37 38 Mayor Thompson voiced concern that if.Petaluma did not agree to Amendment 11, the 39 aqueduct would bypass the City and carry water to Mann anyway. 40 41 Vice Mayor Torliattmentioned,that she had spoken with council members from other cities, 42 and they had expressed definite support to consider these issues. She wanted a larger 43 discussion with political leaders on the amendments impact:on Eel and Russian Rivers. I City Council Meeting July 31, 2000 Page 11 1 . Mayor Thompson expressed that changes could not be made to Amendment 11. He 2 stressed the need for the parallel aqueduct. He noted that the tank on Kastania had 3 already gone: dry on one occasion this summer and added that the City was moving 4 backwards by not signing Amendment 11. 5 6 Council Member Hamilton read a letter from Council Member Keller enumerating his 7 concerns and'detailing conditions under which he would be willing to approve Amendment 11. These included mandated water conservation and endangered species protection 9 components. The letter was given to the City Clerk for entry into the record. 10 11 Vice Mayor Torliatt wondered if elected officials were ever asked what they wanted to see 12 in Amendment 11. 13 14 Mr. Hargis replied that they had not specifically been consulted; the amendment was 15 brought to the Council as a package. 16 17 Vice Mayor Torliatt noted that Council'wanted a number of questions answered, but the 18 only opportunity theyhad been provided was=to endorse or oppose the amendment. 19 20 Council Member Hamilton,stated that in her eight Years on this Council, there had been no 21 discussion of this type regarding water. 22 s fem ber Healy. pointed out that it was hard to say if that was SCWA's,fault or 24 Council's 25 26 Council Member Maguire saw two possibilities: Draft'a letter ito all City Councils asking if 27 they would supportanother look at Amendment 11 with respect to mandated conservation, 28 or signthe amendment,tonight if Randy Poole could guarantee that the issues'about which 29 Council was concerned would be addressed. 30 31 Mr. Poole replied that he;intended to take those concerns:and the concerns•ofthe other 32 contractors and have an active discussion about them with the Board. 33 . 34 Council Member Maguire asked Mr Poole if there could be a commitment by SCWA that 35 Amendment 12 would include mandated conservation: 36 37 Mr. Poole responded that he could gain commitment,to "look at mandated conservation" 38 but could not guarantee that Amendment 12 would contain such mandates. 39 40 Council Member Hamilton stated that she had a problem`with voting on this without a full 41 Council. • 42 43 Mayor Thompson wanted to sign the.amendment tonight 44 • City Council Meeting July 31, 2000 Page 12 • 1 Council Member Hamilton added that-waiting for all the Council Members to be present it 2 would give Mr. Poole time to find out what he could do:; IR 3 4 Mayor Thompson pointed out that Petaluma could not impose'its values on other cities. 5 6 Council Member Hamilton repeated that she did not want to vote tonight. 7 s Council Member Healy stated that he felt Petaluma was"past the 13th hour"on this matter. 9 He noted that other agencies signed off on Amendment 11 over a year ago. He again 10 compared the amendment to a.treaty, and said there was a danger in wanting to have 11 perfect information before making a decision. If the City waited for issues to be resolved, 12 by that time, there would be other issues, The Council could not continue to drag its feet. 13 14 MOTION: Council Member,Healymoved, seconded by Thompson to authorize the Mayor is to sign the 11th Amended Agreement for Impaired'Water Supply without conditions, but 16 with a request that the SCWA move forward aggressively with mandated conservation 17 measures in Amendment 12. 18 19 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Mr. Rudnansky about rules regulating a request for 20 reconsideration. 21 22 Mr. Rudnansky replied that after decision by Council, any member who voted with the 3 majority could move for reconsideration of the issue at the next City Council meeting, not 4 less than one week later. 25 26 Council Member Maguire expressed that Council had been "painted into a corner on the 27 issue and that he would not vote to approve signing of the amendment. 28 29 Council Member Hamilton stated that she would vote against signing the amendment, as 30 the Council had only had six hours to discuss the issue with all members present. 31 32 MOTION PASSED: 3-2-2 (Healy, Torliatt, Thompson Ayes) (Hamilton, Maguire Noes) 33 (Cader-Thompson and Keller Absent) 34 35 Vice-Mayor Torliatt announced that she would move for reconsideration of this action in 36 two weeks. 37 3 s Mayor Thompson asked Council Member Healy if his motion included approving the MOU. 39 40 Council Member Healy replied that it did not. 41 42 Council Member'Maguire'inquired what could be done differently if the issue was brought 43 back for reconsideration. He asked whether City Management could'send letters to other • City Council"Meeting July 31, 2000 Page 13 • 1 City Councils polling them on their willingness to consider adding language to Amendment 2 11 , with a request for response within one month. 3 O 4 Council Member Hamilton thought that was premature because the Council had not 5 decided-what`to ask. 6 7 Mayor Thompson believed such an action would take many months. 8 9 Council Member.Hamilton disagreed: • 10 11 MOTION: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Maguire, to authorize Mayor Clark 12 Thompson to sign.the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission 13 System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and Operating Procedure for 14 South Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of Understanding. 15 16 MOTION PASSED: 5-0-2 (Cader-Thompson and Keller absent) 17 18 ADJOURN 19 2 0 The meeting was adjourned at 9.55 p.m. 21 22 23 e 24 E. CIarKThompson, Mayor 25 26 27 28 ATTEST: 29 30 31 3.2 Claire Cooper, Administrative Secretary 33 And Clerk Pro Tem City Council Meeting July 31, 2000 Page 14 7 31• vn . ;1i We- as the Petaluma City Council- sit here. today not to just approve an • amendment to a water contracer,butftos,conSider en amendment to a contract that will have ramifications to not only Petalumans but'to"the entire county as a whole. Petaluma is the last: contractor to consider;approval of this amendment and because we are the last contractor,;."there is a tremendous amount of political pressure upon us to not questions and just'approve it for fear of thethreat of being left out of a future water source for our community. This is exactly the time where political leaders need to step forward and ask the questions and receive answers to the larger consequences of our actions. Since this issue has come to light in the public; eye, I have received a tremendous amount of email and phone calls encouraging the Petaluma City Council to really take the time to think through the long term impacts of the decision before us and how we can make it a BETTER'decision. We must recognize certain realities: 1. Our water supply is finite. We are dealing with a limited resource. Just because it is convenient°to take water out of the.Russian and Eel Rivers doesn't mean it is right Just because the Section 7 analysis may say it is OK to put out 101,000,000 gallons per day doesn't mean it is the right thing to do . • 2. The longer we wait to implement aggressive conservation measures the more we put our•communities in a position of not being able to turn back because we have such a large capital investment in providing MORE water not being more EFFICIENT with our water: By prolonging the inevitable we put future generations at risk by depleting water resources and deferring the:long term cost of providing water to our citizens. If this proposal goes.forward we change the economics of future'decisions. 3. We have not looked at other options. What this council has before it is a yeh or ney on a project. NO ALTERNATIVES are given. This is making public policy in a vacuum. Our citizens deserve better. We are capable of much better so we must set our goals higher and not be complacent. We need to pursue including language in. Amendment 11 that mandates looking:at the analysis of cost/benefit ratio for restoration of our resources not depletion. We also need to analyze °a model that bases a water allotment per capita.and provide:significant,financial incentives.for cities to use their watermore efficiently and financial disincentives for those who do not. Obviously other factors such as industry use/needs and climate conditions will have to be factored into the analysis. '1- .3 t - o 4. Board of Sups as the Board for SCWA should be taking an aggressive leadership role:in CONSERVATION and WATER EFFECIENCY. 5. Growth inducing, Ground water studies, Storage,,, Reliability of Water Source and Safety'-Fire Protection are additional issues that I am willing to discuss. For these reasons, we use our leadership to move in a new direction that^will acknowledge the fact that water is a valuable resource that cannot be taken for granted. It seems asthough we always have an excuse to move forward, but we need to use our intelligence to'find a way to better address this issue. O • Draft Draft Draft 2. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding MotionforReconsideration of Council's Action Taken on July031,2000, Adopting Resolution,No. 142-A N C'S. Approving the 11th Amended Agreernent for Impaired Water Supply, and Resolution No 142-B N.C.S. Approving the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment of Operating Procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of Understanding. • Motion: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Hamilton, to Reconsider the Council's Action Taken on July 31, 2000, Adopting“Resolution`No. 142-A N.C.S. Approving the 11th Amended Agreement for Impaired.Water Supply, and Resolution No 142-B N.C.S. Approving the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding.Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment of Operating Procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of Understanding. Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Council's indulgence while she read a statement prepared.(and offered for distribution to the public), that included a request for Council°to send a letter to the SCWA requesting the City of Petaluma bagiven ninety days to make a decision about Amendment 11. The ninety days would allow time fora forum by all or number of the SCWA contractors and County elected officials. •If the Council decides to reconsider the motion to approve Amendment #11 and the MOU, I would like the council to send a letter to the SCWA board requesting that the City of Petaluma be given ninety (90) days to make a decision on Amendment #11. It is important to submit this request to SCWA prior to its meeting tomorrow morning. The reasonteing is that the SCWA is being asked by their there staff to give'the°City of Petaluma until September 15 to approve Amendment #11 as is or they will direct County Counsel to establish separate agreements for each contractor. The ninety (90) days will allow time fora forum to be hosted by all or a few of the. SCWA contractors and invite all of the SCWA contractors and Sonoma County Elected officials, local, county, and state to begin to.discuss a regional water policy: I also want a,copy of this request sent to all of the SCWA contractors and All Sonoma County Elected officials. The letter should also include the following information for their consideration. 1. Since this project will take aminimum of seven (7) years to construct, I believe this`request is •sonable and timely because of the.issues that the City of Petaluma, other elected officials and the s Petaluma City Council Draft Agenda.Recap—Monday,August 21,2000 4. Draft - Draft Draft public have raised regarding our regional water policy. 2. The Vice Mayor of the City.of Sonoma raised the issue, of regional water policy at the last. 41 Mayors and Councilmembers' Meeting and according to their City Manager, Pamela Gibson, they have offered, in her memorandum of August 4, 2000, to be,lead agency on a task force to discuss the long term impacts of water usein our county, and 3. The minutes of the other SCWA contractor's meetings regarding Amendment#11 reflect some of the same questions,the Petaluma City Council has raised regarding rate payer cost and conservation and have not been answered by the.SCWA, and 4, A public discussionamong elected officials and contractors has never;taken place to discuss the vision of our county and the long term ramifications of Amendment #11, and 5. The public should be allowed the :opportunity to hear a discussion and have a better understanding of the issues of water supply and how it effects the Russian River habitat impacts of the elimination of the Eel River flows, and 6. The City.of Petaluma believes that we, as the•Water Agencies contractor's, mustjmake every effort to continue to work together and not exclude any contractor's sincere concerns about Amendment #11, and 7. It is our duty to allow for an inclusive discussion among of all the contractor's elected bodies who, are ultimately responsible to the rate payers,. 8. The'SCVVA isbasir g its water use calculations,on General:Plan projections thatare out of date and are.currently being redrawn by the two largest contractors, the City of Petaluma and Santa,Rosa, and 9. The water use calculations for the existing General Plan projections are for single family dwellings and conversely, there is a desire in Sonoma County to.build higher density housing that embraces;smart growth and more sustainable'principles which would require less waterconsumptiori, and 10. We have;not extinguished all meansof conservation and'water efficiency to reduce the amount of water thatis needed to.be taken from the Russian River, and 11. The ratepayer should:have;the information toiunderstand who will be paying forte expansion of the water system, and how much it will cost and be aware of who is paying for growth in our communities, and 12. It is'going to cost the ratepayers, more money to leave the City of Petaluma out-of the contract because it will take more resources and time to draw up new contracts, reallocate the costs of the project and prepare a new EIR, and o 7 Petaluma City Council Draft Agenda Recap—Monday,August 21,2000 . • Draft Draft • Draft 1i3. The cost to each ratepayer is still.notdefined and thepublic deserves an answer, and �14. The Water Agency needs totquantify'the monetary costs, not just the effects, of the degradation of the natural ecosystem of the Russian and Eel Rivers, and 15. Amendment #11 is an extractive resource policy that is fundamentally inconsistent with the values of sustainability adopted by City of Petaluma to.guide the revision of its General Plan; and 16. The implementation of Amendment #11 will.require the SCWA to•apply for state and federal funding to mitigate environmental damages at the cost of the taxpayers, and 17. We need to prioritize uses o{,any surplus water that is used out of our allocations;and 18. Public awareness of the.detriinental impacts of gravel mining in the Russian River is threatening the long term viability of our water quality and may require the public to foot the bill for a $450,000,000 water treatment facility. 19. Groundwater issues. ...Gravel mining industry. SJouncil Member Hamilton Vice Mayor Torliatt clarified. She thought'that asking for ninety day extension in order to have an in depth conversation Council Member Hamilton asked that it be mentioned that the sedimentation caused flooding. RE 17 - change. Vice Mayor Torliatt Council Member Hamilton supported . Mayor Thompson suggested interested members of Council attend the SCWA meeting taking place on the following day. Council Member Maguire supported the motion and would support a motion to send a letter to SCWA with the points Vice Mayor Torliatt raised. Article sent by Beth Meredith and shared among Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Vice Mayor Torliatt for her efforts in moving this motion forward and noted that the amendment started seven years ago had increased in cost and that amount was not known: tion: Torliatt, seconded,by Maguire re letter... 8 • Petaluma City Council Draft Agenda Recap—Monday,August 21,2000- Draft Draft Draft Council Member Keller reviewed notes-and comments taken ata meeting that took place the previous Friday with SCWA, Stouder, Beatty... etc. :: Supported the motion Scott Vouri 1557 MauraPietro, supported reconsideration of the Council's adoption of,Resolutions 142 A and B and of building a responsible..: and made recommendations that included ... He . • provided Council with the textof his comments:, Vince;Landoff'12 Cordelia Drive supported the motion to reconsider and expressed his opinions about giving water to Mahn Andy Rodgers 1151 Debbie Hill Road,explained hissexisting relationship with the SCWA and many of its contractors;he supported;reconsideration of the`Council's adoption of Resolutions 142-A and B N.C.S. • Geoff Cartwright:56 Rocca Drive spoke:regarding the EIR done.bySCWA.impact &3-14 reading text on page of the report:and supported reconsideration Council's adoption of Resolutions 142-A and B N.C.S. Bruce Hagen 145 Grevillia Drive supported reconsideration of Council's adoption of Resolutions 142-A and B N.C.S. and highlighted comments he wrote in his recent Argus Courier column. John Cheney 55 Rocca Drive supported the Council's reconsideration of the adoption of Resolutions 142-A and B N.C.S. • Terrence Garvey 1$3• Maria Drive supported the Council's reconsideration of the adoption of Resolutions 142-A and B N.C.S. and read comments he prepared. Elena Belsky,,San Geronimo, Mahn County supported the Council's reconsideration of..:and provided an update of the Marin pipeline and;advised the Council of a Environmental.Summit comprised of 22 groups throughout Marin, Sonoma, and San Francisco and addressed a number of environmental Bryant Moynihan 102 Dawn Place spoke in opposition to Council's reconsideration'of the adoption of Resolutions 142-A and B N.C.S. noting the necessity of the City to work together with group. Mayor Thompson reviewed the motions on the floor. The letter. Vice Mayor Toriiatt responded to comments that.the,spirit of her motion was focused on relationship. Mayor Thompson disagreed. Council member Keller added that in a conversation with Mr. Poole Amendment 12 Mayor Thompson I, s Petaluma'City Council Draft Agenda Recap-Monday;August 21,2000 Draft Draft Draft *Council Member Maguire Motion passed 5/1/1 Motion: Maguire moved to hear seconded by Keller Motion Passed 5/1/1 to add itto the agenda Motion Torliatt Motion Passed: 5/1/1 S . • 10 Petaluma city Council Draft Agenda Recap—Monday,August 21,2000 (Pi as leap 1. Continued Discussion and Possible Action brill"' Amended Agreement for Impaired Water Supply and of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and Operating Procedure for South Petaluma 1110 • Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of Understanding: (Hargis/Simmons) Marc Greene Sonoma County Conservation.Action 540'Pacific Avenue Santa Rosa spoke in support of the Council asking the hard questions,about Amendment 11:. Vince Landoff 12 Cordelia Drive spoke in support of the Council asking the hard questions about Amendment 11. Larry Robinson, Sebastopol City Council Member, 460 Eleanor, Sebastopol spoke in support of the Council's position on Amendment 11. Terence Garvey 83 Maria Drive spoke in support.of the Council's position regarding Amendment 11. Jake Mackenzie Rohnert Park. City Council 1536 Gladstone Way Rohnert Park spoke regarding bringing the item forward with his Council to support',the.Council's request for a ninety day extension. He believed there was a need for all`to•discuss all aspects of water Council Member Healy, thanked him for voting yes,on water meters, and recalled that he voted yes on Amendment 11 when it came before the Rohnert Park City Council and asked... r. Mackenzie Vice Mayor Torliatt noted that in reviewing the minutes of the Rohnert Park Council, Frank Egger, Mayor of Fairfax; 13 Meadow Way, Fairfax spoke against Amendment 11. Council Member Keller thanked him and asked for a copy,of Fairfax Pia Jensen City Council Cotati 8156•Olaf'Cotati.spoke against Amendment 11. Council Member Keller asked for copies of the minutes that ,.. Council Member Hamilton requested a list of all the contractors. Geoff Cartwright,56,Rocca Drive spoke against Amendment 11 where, why, what, when and how much its going to cost. Council Member .fader-Thompson. thanked Geoff Cartwright for his efforts to attend the Sonoma County Water Agency meetings. Rob Rowson P. O. Box 157 Sebastopol, Forestville Citizens for Sensible Growth spoke!in opposition of pendment 11. 3 Petaluma City Council Agenda-Tuesday,August 29,2000 • s . J.T. Wick, Petaluma`Area Chamber of Commerce 799 Baywood Drive spoke in support of Amendment ' 11. Dayle Lipman Citizens of the City-ofPetaluma spoke regarding askedforthe resignation of four council members Laurel Hagen 145 Grevillia Drive spoke against Amendment 11. Bruce Hagen 145 Grevillia Drive spoke against Amend'ment-11 if hot us"wh'o, if'not':now,when... Council Member Keller David Glass 41 Oxford Court spoke in support ofthe Council bringing this issue'into:the light. Kurt Erickson, Occidental California spoke'in•support of the.Council having`the courage to bring this matter to the public by their questions. Guy Gullion, M.D. 9'Eddie Court spoke in opposition to Amendment 11. Don Weisenfluh ¶092 Wren Drive spoke in oppositidn'to Amendment 11. DianerReilly Torres Rainier Avenue spoke in supporf=of,Amendment 11 and agreed with Randy Poole's comments regarding holding the other contractors hostage and the Board of Supervisors. •Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Ms. Torres for her hard work in the community. John Rosenblum 900 Dorthel Street Sebastopol spoke in opposition to Amendment 11 Council Member Keller asked for his comments in writing. . Larry Minkes 230 Coleman Drive.San Rafael expressed his interest in the current council consideration of this topic and in favor of surrounding agenciesworking together. Marilyn Goode 2303 Grove:Streetspoke;in opposition to Amendment 11 would approach,the Sonoma Valleyof the Moon District to supporithe City's 90 day extension and were upset the board of sups had not done a complete Reuven Wabler, Woodacre, San Geronimo Valley, Mahn County, spoke against Amendment 11 also he had heard.about a proposed wastewater plant above Jenner that would increase the impact to the • Russian,River's ecosystem. Scott Vouri 1557 Mauro Pietro spoke in support of Amendment 11 and offered modifications submitted in writing to the Council. Steve Block 19 Warrich Court spoke in opposition to Amendment 11 and referenced the Board of supervisors calling'out Council's irrespoiisibilWy regarding fireflow. 4 Petaluma.CityCouncil Agenda-Tuesday,August 29,2000 (8.20 Recess) (8:55 p.m. Reconvene) Wept" Clark Thompson noted that he and Mr:Stouderhad met-on Monday with.Supervisor Kerns • Council Member Hamilton expressed that she wanted to talk to the elected board members of the contractors about the unarticulated provisions of Amendment 11. Mayor Thompson Council Member Hamilton Mayor Thompson favored a countywide-forum. Council Member Hamilton Council Member Cader-Thompson Council Member Keller agreed there:needed'to be regional discussion:.. Council Member Cader-Thompson asked to hear from Fire Chief Terry Krout. Fire Chief Terry Krout tiouncil Member Hamilton was there an implied future threat. Chief Krout Council Member Hamilton Chief Krout Mayor Thompson Chief Krout Vice Mayor Torliatt Chief Krout Chris De Gabrielle clarified comments that Mr. Keller made regarding April 2000 - financial plan to come by the end of the year. Mayor Torliatt financial information. ice Mayor Torliatt supported a subcommittee together that included members of the council the jective was to allow the cp and other contractors to sift through the information. 5 Petaluma City Council Agenda•Tuesday;August 29,2000 Mayor Thompson clarified • Vice Mayor Torliatt Mayor Thompson Vice Mayor Torliatt city management put together a forum in mid-October to get the elected officials together... Council Member Healy:Press Democrat Tobias Young,--.Steve Simmons peak was.19:2 million=above allotment; supported the Mayor's suggestion to have-a sub committee bring it back as an action;item., Council MemberMaguiresimultaneous pumping.of NMMIND.:led to the allotment problem;what was the most effective method, get a consensus froth contractors to go with conservation prior to draining more; Kerns/Cale was receptive and conciliatory was- read email from Cale. He supported a subcommittee to put together a forum Vice Mayor Torliatt demand how the demand is met, do we need more storage, bigger p Simmons average day for a maximum month 19.2 - average 15 - 15-1/2 million gallons Council Member Keller clarified Simmons 1.5 million per day. Council:Member Keller IV Simmons Vice Mayor Torliatt Simmons the figure used was from last year. Council Member Healy Simmons Council Member Healy - coincident peaks Council Member Hamilton Vice Mayor Torliatt was it prudent to build additional storage. Simmons liked storage. Vice Mayor Torliatt, how much°storage was necessary to • 6 Petaluma City Council Agenda-Tuesday,.August.29,2000 Council Member Keller Council Member Healy expressed that the City had a representative sitting at the table during the construction of Amendment 11 I IF Council[Member Maguire Council Member Cader-Thompson favored a moratorium Mayor Thompson do you want a sub committee or not. Council Member Keller agreed there needed to be a process, agreed with the subcommittee and simultaneously meet with elected officials and contractors. Council Member Hamilton favored a subcommittee - but did not want to Mayor Thompson Council Member Hamilton Mayor Thompson committee to be comprised of Keller, Torliatt and Thompson Council Member Healy cautioned again about the September15 date and voiced he did not want the City place in any risk and wanted to have a date for discussion and:action of ayor Thompson Council Member Keller Council Member Healy disagreed distinction without a difference. Council Member Maguire agreed that.the City was in a position of strength Council Member Cader-Thompson announced that Vice Mayor Torliatt and she were going to Washington. D.C. Mayor Thompson expressed his concerns City Manager Stouder noted the meeting; closed session on Thursday; there was direction to proceed with a sub committee to meet with reps from the county and recommended ending the meeting. Vice Mayor Torliatt clarified the seventeen items #6 was to continue to work together. The agenda needed to be worked out; give the City Manager to have a forum, local state and county by mid October. Mayor Thompson wanted to give the Supervisors the benefit of meeting *until Member Hamilton 7 Petaluma City Council Agenda=Tuesday,August 29,2000 Council Member Maguire Vice Mayor Torliatt Council Member Keller Council Member Hamilton Council Member Healy morphing into... Mayor Thompson Council Member Cader-Thompson Council Member Maguire Council Member Hamilton disagreed. Council Member Maguire Mayor Thompson thought the County would accept responsibility for the forum. Council Member Hamilton • Mayor Thompson • Council Member Hamilton Mayor Thompson Council Member Hamilton Mayor Thompson Council Member Healy suggested a public meeting with the Board of Supervisors Council Member Maguire Vice Mayor Torliatt Council Member Cader-Thompson Council•Merimber Maguire ADJOURN 10:20 P.M. 8 Petaluma City Council Agenda-Tuesday,August 29,2000 6) allow the city on his property: Council Member Maguire Vice MayorTorliatt Council Member Cader=Thompson NO ACTION Necessary Council Adjourned to CLOSED 15. (ADDED) Status Report, Discussion and Possible Action on 11th Amended Agreement for Impaired Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission ' System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and Operating.Procedure for South, Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of Understanding: (Hargis/Simmons) - REMOVED - NO UPDATE TO PROVIDE: ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. /s/ Beverly J. Kline—City Clerk ID 16 Petaluma City Council Agenda—Tuesday,September 5, 2000 Revision One,Friday, September 1,2000 at 1:00,p.m. er;• . SONOMA • C O U N T Y,. WATER RECEIVED SEP 1, 2000 • MAYOR A G.. E -N C:Y` FILE:WC/60-0-7 PRIME WATER CONTRACTORS September 15, 2000 - • • Mayor Clark Thompson City of Petaluma 11 English Street ' Petaluma CA 94952 Dear Mayor Thompson: , The Sonoma County Water Agency's Board of Directors has directed me to begin to prepare the agreements that are needed to develop future water,supplies for the Agency customers that request such supplies. As you know, the Agency originally proposed to provide the future water supplies requested_by our contractors by expanding the Agency's existing Transmission Systetr. The institutional mechanism for completing the expansion w , to be 0 through an amendment to the Tenth Amended Agreement for Water Supply and Construction of the Russian River-Cotati Interttie Project(Tenth Amended Agreement). However;.at this time, it appears that all parties to the Tenth Amended Agreement may not be willing to enter into the amendment to that agreement that was necessary to carry out such an expansion. Accordingly, the Tenth Amended Agreement will remain in place and the Agency will continue to complete development of the 92 million gallon per day (mgd) plus 20 mgd standby water production and transmission';facilities and will operate and maintain theTransmission System as required by that agreement. . Other institutional arrangements will be necessary if the Agency is to provide additional water supplies to serve the increased populations authonzed'by existing local general plans: The enclosed Russian River — I-astania Water Project term sheet proposes a mechanism that wouidmeet the currently identified future needs of certain • Agency water contractors (the cities- of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma and North Marin Water District), through development of new water production and conveyance facilities. Marin Municipal Water District could also be served, although the total amount ofwater to which MMWD is entitled would not change. Although the term sheet does not:identify specific entitlements for Valley of the Moon Water District and the City of Sonoma, these two entities have the option to participate in constructing facilities now or could defer participation and address their future waterneeds either by future amendments to the Tenth Amended Agreement, or by separate agreements. Forestville Water District's future,needs are projected to be satisfied under the Tenth Amended Agreement. The new system Would be separate'.fr'cr. the existing Transmission System but could be interconnec+.d to the existing system to provide reliability :.nd economy to both systems, to the extent authorized by the Tenth Amended Agreement or any subsequent amendments to that agreement. Participants in the Russian River — • Kastania Water Project will have specified monthly and annual entitlements. The capital costs of project facilities (funded by revenue bonds, state grants or loans, or cash contributions) will be.allocated in proportion to the entitlements and paid twice,a year as needed to service the debt. Operation and maintenance costs will be based on each participant's actual use and charged at rates set annually by the Board of Directors to cover reasonable , P.O. Box I I6'8 - Santa Rosa. CA 95406 -'2150 W. Culls qe Avenue -Santa Rosa. CA 93401 - (707) 326-5370 - Fax(707) 544-6125 Page Two - service costs. The Agency will enter into separate contracts with each customs, but the contracts will not become operative until sufficient agreements are in place to constitute.a viable project. The attached term sheet;proposes specific'entitlements based on the needs identified in the 1998"Water Supply and Transmission System Project Final Environmental Impact Report (1998 FIR) and the two existing MMWD contracts, However, .design,capacities and costs of the final project components, will depend upon which customers elect to participate in development of the system. The 1998 ER will provide the basis for environmental;analysis of facilities which will be constructed,to implement the Russian River — Kastania Water Project, because•the growth and cumulative impacts of serving growth under existing general plans' have been analyzed in that document.. Site specific analyses for project components, and any necessary updates'tdthe 1998 EIR, will,be prepared'.as needed_ In order to move,forward with timely development of the•Russian River — Kastania Water Project, the Agency needs to know which potential customers wish to be served'by theiproject. We request a letter of intent from your agency indicating;your intention to participate,in the,proposed Russian River—Kastania Water.Project: Receipt of this letter of intent by October 13, 2000 will allow the Agency to formulate, in a timely manner,the project to be constructed. Pamela Jeane, Water Agency Deputy Chief Engineer (521-1864), is available`to discuss this project with your staff. • Some of you have raised issues of regional significance during the course of discussing the;proposed amendment to the Tenth Amendcd Agreement, including the importance of increasing; our •water conservation 'efforts. Development of separate agreements will not preclude discussion of these issues n, appropriate forums This week, the Agency's Doard of Directors created a subcommittee consisting.of Supervisors Mike Cale and:Mike Kerns to meet with local representatives to discuss these issues. We recognize that our regional water supply, depends not only on development of infrastructure necessary to deliver potable water to customers, but also on increased conservation and reuse of treated'wastewater„by both municipal and industrial customers. Although many of these issues have:been discussed at the=Agency's Water Advisory Committee meetings, generally each local agency has been represented at these':meetings'only by their respective staffs. To increase the potential for reaching;a consensus for future activities,it,may be useful for each of you to create a subcommittee of elected'officials, or designate one of your,members; to conferwitliSupervisors Cale and Kerns or other local officials. If you'do so, please let Tim Anderson, Water Agency Governnie ntal Affairs Coordinator 521-6208 know who ou designate. " ( ), y, grate: We .will be to work with you and.Supervisors . Cale and Kerns to facilitate discussions among.Sonoma and Marin COUnty elected officials on regional water supply issues. We look forward to hearing from each of you regarding your interest in participating in the Russian River Kastania Water Project. Very Truly Yours; Randy D. Poole General Manager/Chi!f Engineer Enc. • c Water.Agency Board of Directors `Water Advisory.Committee Members Dana Roxen,Chief Engineer,Marin,Municipal Water District • RECEIVED• • SEP 18 2000 • Russian Rivet - Kastania Water Pro i ectupyoR Agreement. Term Sheet • 1 . Potential customers of the Russian River - Kastania Water Project are : Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, - Cotati, Petaluma, North Marin and Marin Municipal . The design capacities of the final project component's will be determined by which potential customers decide to participate in the project . 2 . Valley of the Moon and Sonoma ' s long-term supplemental water needs will be addressed in the future as their needs develop. Forestville' s future needs are satisfied by service under the existing Tenth Amended Agreement for Water Supply. 3 . All capital costs of the Russian River - Kastania Water Project will be financed either by revenue bonds or, at the option of 'customers, cash payments . Each customer' s share of the • capital costs will be based on specific capital cost allocations as described in this term sheet, regardless of the amount of water. taken by that customer from the Russian River - Kastania Water Project during any time period. • 4 . Each customer will have the option of paying its share of the capital costs with a cash payment, in lieu of making debt service payments. 5 . Allocated debt service will be paid semiannually by customers to Agency. 6 . Agency' s Board of Directors will annually establish a uniform acre-foot water chargé for the operation and maintenance costs of the Russian River - Kastania Water Project . This charge Will be applicable to all customers of the Russian River - Kastania Water Project, based on the Board' s determination of the reasonable cost of providing the service, and will be assessed on all water taken from the project. 7 . The Agency will execute a separate agreement with each customer . These agreements will not be operative until sufficient agreements are in place to provide for the financing of the capital cost of the entire Russian River - Kastania Water Project . 8 . Existing agreements with Marin Municipal will be superseded by the Agency' s hew agreement with Marin Municipal and.,MMWD will have capacity in the project dedicated to it . 9 . Each customer' s new agreement will contain annual acre foot • limits with the Agency will apply to total deliveries to that customer from the existing transmission system and the Russian River - Kastania Water Project . • • . 1C . Customers will be required to take delivery of AgenCyl water • first from the Russian River - Kastania Water Project to the ' maximum extent possible, and theft from the existing transmission system. 11 . If all potential customers participate in the Russian River - Kastania, Water Project, then entitlements and cost allocations will be per the following tables . If only some of the potential customers participate in the project, then these tables will be adjusted appropriately: 12 . The capital costs of the project will be allocated per the following: Entitlements (average per. month) Customer " Entitlement Santa .Rosa 6 . 6 mgd • Rohnert Park 14 . 0 mgd Cot--ti 2 . 1 mgd O Petaluma 4 . 8 mgd North- Marin 8 . 7 mgd • Marin Municipal 12 . 8 mgd . Total 49 . 0 mgd Aqueduct Capacity by Reach Reach Capacity Russian River to Occidental Road 49 . 0 mgd Occidental Road to Cotati 42 . 4 mgd Cotati to Kastania and pumping plant 26 . 3 mgd Russian River to Occidental Road Aqueduct Capital Cost Allocation Customer Allocation Ratio Percentage. • Santa Rosa 6,. 6/49 . 0 Rohnert Park 14 . 0/49. 0 28 . 6% CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Water Resources and:Conservation Department, 100 English St,Petaluma CA 94952 (707) 778-4304 Fax(707) 776-3635 E-mail:divrc@clpetaluma.ca.us DATE: September 25, 2000 TO: Fred Stouder, City Manager FROM: Tom.Hargis;.Director %� t1 Department of Water Resource and Consery ion SUBJECT: Water Advisory Committee (WAC) Meeting at Monday; September 25, 2000 At the WAC meeting, discussions centered on: Item One • • How to finance Amendment 12 if it is a series of individual agency agreements with the County Water Agency, i.e. how to determine what share of pipelines and/or storage facilities if financed individually what source of revenue:since small agencies may not able to get State loan funds. Item Two What form of governance would be created among the ex-water contractors if any? Item Three There is consensus among contractors that there is a preference. for an either new master. agreement or Amendment 12'without those who wish not to participate rather than individual contracts.with the Water Agency. Itern Four Randy Poole indicated that the Board of Supervisors had rescinded his ability to sign Amendment 11 on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Water Agency. Item Five • A subcommittee was formed of some of the water'contractors managers(Santa Rosa, Valley of Moon, North Marin Water District with a request to. include elected officials) to develop a S/SB/TSH/WAC 9-25-00 Memo S proposal for proposed forms of governance; i.e. San Francisco or Contra Costa that have leadership provided by members of the County Board as well as elected ofcials from each • jurisdiction'somewhatanalogous?to a joint powers agreement. Item Six The individual contracting agencies, according to the County Water'Agency; should become more actively involved in the other significant water issues besides the pipeline re Endangered Species, Section 7 Consultation; involvement with Washington, D:C:; as far as funding and salmon restoration; i.e. those issues impacting'water,quantity and quality,as well as-transmission facilities and water conservation. Item.Seven" If there were a future master agreement for water supply, the existing Board of.Sapefvisors would-not agree to any individual contractor havingveto power. Item Eight If a new master agreement is to be considered, discussion included having future participation on an equal basis for Marin Municipal Water District as well as exploration with Healdsburg and other Russian River water communities:-as to their interest in participation. Item Nine •' • Last month, the Petaluma aqueduct was averaging greater water consumption, >i.e: 38 million gallons per day-than its design capacity of 35 million,gallons per day. Item Ten Work is essentially complete on the model-rationing ordinance and should be `taken to each agency's board so it can be included in the Water Agency's adoption of the Urban Water Management Plan. Likewise, the drafts of the Urban Water Management Plan should be complete by the end of this week by the Water Agency again for approval by the individual agencies so it can be included in the 'County's Urban Water Management,Plan scheduled for adoption in,December,2000. If the individual agencies do not adopt the proposed,Urban Water Management Plan, old data from the '95 report or the most current of information available to the Water.Agency will be utilized for reporting purposes. Item Eleven Discussion took place regarding, the :need for reserves in order to cover, water cost increases during drought' conditions. Significant rate impacts will occur under the various rationing scenarios discussed as part of the rationing ordinance. • S/SB/TSH/WAC 9-25-00 Memo Item Twelve • The Sonoma County Water Agency will be setting up an informational meeting for elected officials on the Section 7 Consultation Process, as it effects water supply. • TSH/sb Xc: Steve Simmons Tom Hargis file • • • S/SB/TSH/WAC 9-25-00 Memo DRAFT • City of Petaluma, California. Memorandum CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, 11 ENGLISH STREET,PETALUMA, CA 94952 (707) 778-4345, Fax(707) 778-4419 E-mail:cittungtfa)ci.petaluma.ca.us DATE: September 29, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Frederick C. Stouder, City Manager Tom Hargis, Director; Water Resources,and Conservation Department Steve Simmons, Utility Manager, Water Resources and Conservation.Department - SUBJECT: Letter of Intent • The City has received a letter dated September 15, 2000, regarding the City's intention to • participate in the proposed Russian River/Kastania Water Project. The Sonona County Water Agency (SCWA) has requested that it receive a letter of intent by October 13, 2000, in order to allow the SCWA to formulate, in a timely matter, the project to be constructed in the future. It is our understanding that the request;is for issues to be discussed and for hearing formally the City's intent to proceed in the'.future with additional water projects. Therefore, while there may be particular alternatives the City may consider for the future, it is our recommendation that we initially propose a general subjedf matter for discussion. This would allow for further analysis and preparation of particular alternatives and the cost to the City for the alternatives. Our suggestions for inclusion in the letter of intent are as follows: Suggestions For Inclusion in Letter of Intent: Petaluma is interested in participating in future water projects. Topics for inclusion could include: • Explore a`master agreement with all parties included as the preferred regional approach. • A proposed master agreement which would encompass all users of the regional system and which-would replace any separate agreements now in place. • Joint Powers Agreement formed to govern the agreement, composed of elected officials. • • Future water projects defined with costs allocations. 1 DRAFT • Future projects;and environmental work not defined by the new master agreement would not be funded without amendments. These future;projects would include Such projects as a treatment facility at Lake Sonoma and replacement of existing facilities. • Cost allocation for the system and future projects would be based on actual water use, with a`take-or-pay clause based on total entitlement. • Operational issues such as storage utilization would be addressed in the new master agreement. • Participants in the new master agreement would all have equal opportunity to cash-out-:on new project components, as well as to provide local storage in-lieu or system storage participation. • Future facilities would be inter-tied to the existing facilities to maximize the overall reliability and efficiency of the system regardless of how much br how'little capacity is requested. • No two-party agreements should be made in the future without approval of all parties in the master agreement. 2 4ALU4 CTTY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE Box 61 j,8 6$ PETALUMA,CA 94953-0061 E.Clark Thompson Mayor October 5, 2000 Janice Cader-Thompson Jane Hamilton Michael Healy David Keller CERTIFIED —RETURN,.RECEIPT REQUESTED Matt Maguire Pamela Torliatt Z 248 138-805 Councilmembers Mr. Randy D. Poole General Manager/.Chief Engineer Sonoma County Water Agency P.O. Box 11628 Santa Rosa, CA 95406-2150 Dear Mr. Poole: • The City of Petaluma, at the Monday,October.2nd, 2000 City Council meeting, on a motion approved by unanimous vote, has indicated an intent to participate in O future discussions with the Sonoma County Water Agency and other water contractors to address water needs and the Russian River—Kastania Water Project. The City Council also expressed interest in the formation of a governance body possibly comprised with elected officials appointed from represented water userentities.to create regional waterpolicies. The City Council • also stated that it did not support separate or two-party agreements between the Sonoma County Water Agency and water contractors. Please accept this letter.as the City's official response to your letter of September 15, 2000,to Mayor Clark Thompson. The City looks forward to continuing the relationship regarding water conservation, supply, transmission, storage and other related issues. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your support. 11 English Street Sincerely, Petaluma,CA 94952 City e Manager's 707) 7 Office .. /(1:, Phone(707J 778-4345 �- ( Fax(707)778-4419 - E-Mail . crtymgrr(Jci.pemluma.ca.us Frederick.C. Stouder • City Manager • • ral Plan Administration d:/manager/stouder/fr1000/kc Phone(707)778-4345 Fax•(707)778-4419 I E-Mail generalpfan(ilci.peraluma,ca.us City of Petaluma, California Memorandum City Manager's Office, 11 English Street)Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4345 Fax(707) 778-4419 E-mail:citymgrAcipetalunm.ca.us DATE: October 6, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Frederick C. Stouder, City Manager SUBJECT: Water Issues • The Sonoma County City Managers, at the regular first Fiiday of the month breakfast meeting, , discussed at length this morning Amendment 11 questions and regional water issues. All the managers agreed that it might be helpful if the City and.County managers and-their water engineers and administrators hold a thorough discussion session to share information, review technical questions and identify policy issues. Among the many potential objectives of a O discussion would be to better underscore or separate larger regional questions and the local infrastructure needs or technical questions to better allow!componerits of Amendment 11 to proceed. This meeting will not occur until November, and likely be continued with others. At a minimum, these discussions will.help insure a more accurate understanding of the various communities' needs, and to clarify information(quell rumors). I will keep you informed. ddmanager/stouder/rs 1 000/kc • • it S ? ONOMA p pp++. rr s C O U N T Y RECER, : WAT E Ri rill OCT 16 2000 CITY MANAGER A G E N C Y FILE:wc/60-5-20 SAFE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND FINANCING OF WOHLER COLLECTOR NO.6 • October 12, 2000 . Fred Stouder City of Petaluma PO Box 61 Petaluma, CA 94953 • RE: WOHLER COLLECTOR NO. 6 PROJECT FUNDING Dear Mr. Stouder: . Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Application Acceptance indicating that the Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) is eligible for funding from the Department of Health Services State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan , Program for construction of the first two,phases of the Collector.No.'6 Project(Project). IIIIt is currently estimated that the Collector No 6 Caisson and Pump-house phases will cost approximately $7.3 million to construct. The third phasekof the;Project(the Wohler-Forestville Pipeline) is not currently eligible for SRF loan funding due its lower category "0"ranking+on the priority list. Itis estimated that the third phase will cost approximately $3.6 million. The Agency is currently exploring bond financing for this phase and will notify you of any developments in this area. If I can be of further assistance,.please call me at (707) 521-1860. Sincerely, ' a Krishna Kumar Division Manager Administrative Services • • Enc rs2/u/ci/evep/water contractors noaa letter 0 P.O. Box 11628 -Santa Rosa, CA 95406- 2150''W. College Avenue - Santa Rosa, CA 95401 - (707) 526.5370 - Fax (707) 544-6123 • ." STATE OF.CALIFORNIA`-THE.RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 NINTH STREET; P.O. BOX 942836 , '•' °a" SACRAMENTO, CA 94236-0007. 5 RIG N A,L.. DOCUMENT •- SONOMA COUNTY 653-5797 NTY WATER AGENCY� SEP282J OCT - 1 200 _ _ G Fr r ; c- To Filets ir.frt irr? n JCF1 Fa ai a ,y,q tOeilf y; Attachmeni(s)No_Yes Lc// tC< Mr. Randy D. Poole;,General Manager III Sonoma County Water Agency Post:Office.Box 11628 Santa Rosa, California 95406 Dear Mr. Poole: • State Revolving Fund Project Funding for Sonoma County Water•Aciencv Your application for funding under the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund has been reviewed by the Department of Health Services and.the Department Water Resources: It has been determined that project number 49.10020-04, as proposed by the Sonoma CWA is eligible for construction,loan in the amount�of $7,368;812. In addition, for your information, the proposed funding is provided in parrfron a Federal Capitalization Grantfor Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (California) fiscal'year 1998, CFDA number 66.468, award number FS989349-99-0. This letter serves as our Notice of Application Acceptance. Funds in the amount stated above have been encumbered in the SRF account and'will be reserved for this project provided the terms and conditions as set forth herein are met: The contract, when issued and executed, will provide for a 20-year repayment period at a.2.7934 percent interest rate. Based on these factors and the,current estimated eligible cost of the project, your semiannual principal and interest payments will be approximately $241,69$: In additions an accumulation.of approximately $24,170 semiannually during the first ten years of the loan repayment period is required in order to build a loan repayment reserve fund equal to two semiannual payments. Once your agency has drawn loan funds the Department of Water Resources will invoice your agency semiannually for interest accrued during construction: (Section 116761.65 of the Health and Safety�Code prohibits deferral of interest on loans.) The>interest;rate on;loan funds disbursed will accrue at the 2.7934 percent interestrate. Your agency will be invoiced semiannually until the project is completed. This preliminary funding offer is contingent upon your compliance with the following conditions: • • • Mr. .Ran. '- Poole, General Manager • SEP 2 8 i t � • Page 2 • DHS-Requirements 1. The SCWA shall submit an application to the District Office of the Department of Health Services for an amended domestic water supply permit for this project prior to contract execution. 2. The SCWA shall submit plans and specifications for the first phase of the • proposed project to the District Office of the Department of Health Services no. later than February 28, 2001. 3. The SCWA shall submit plans and specifications for the second phase of'the proposed project to°the,District Office of the Department of Health Services no later than September 30, 2001. 4. The SCWA shall not begin construction on the second phase of the proposed • project until plans and specifications forthis phase have been reviewed and approved by the Department. 5. The SCWA shall submit the required TMF capacity documents (described in Section H of the technical report submitted by DHS District staff on September 15, 2000) no later than October 1, 2001. 6. The SCWA shall complete construction of the proposed project no later than December 31, 2002. DWR-Requirements 1. Prior to execution of the contract, the following items shall be submitted to the Department of Water Resources: a. A resolution must be adopted by water system's governing body that designates an officer to sign the SRF contract, a person to approve the Claims for Reimbursement, and a person to sign the Budget and Expenditure Summary (DWR form 4277, enclosed) and the certification of project • completion. The person signing the Budget and Expenditure Summary and certification of project completion must be a Registered Engineer or person • approved by the Department of Health Services. • Mr. Randy D. Poole, General Manager SEP 2 8 EMI Page 5 • In order to maintain the reservation of funds in the SRF account for yourproject, it is,essential that you sign this Notice of Application Acceptance at the space provided and return it within 30 days of receipt to: Department of Water Resources Attn: Jean;Green 1416 Ninth Street, Room 804 P.O..Box=942836 Sacramento, California 94236-0001 This signature will signify your acceptance of the terms of this preliminary offer and your intention to proceed with the project. It does-not constitute any obligation on your part to execute the loan contract: Failure to sign and return this Notice within the time period, however, will result in the withdrawal of the Notice and the bypassing-of your project. The State±commends.the Sonoma County'Water Agency:for taking,AstePs to • correct theideficiencies that will beaddressed by this project in order to continue to provide safe drinking water to your consumers. If you have any questions, regarding this notice, please contact Jean Green at (916)653-9277. Sincerely, trefacu Perla Netto-Brown, Chief Division of Fiscal Services The terms and conditions set forth in this Notice of Application Acceptance are acceptable to the Sonoma County Water Agency and it is our intention to continue with this project as pro osed. /� ./e( Signature:' l/ . Date:. /O /4 /mac ° Print Name: kipsdo J ; 0 Poo GC. Title;+, Ceib -zAL //Ad+Aac /CH/eF' ctV G/,-Jct. Address: 2/SD CJ Col/ef e A,!e • • Enclosures SEP 2.8'. 2000 cc: Honorable Virginia Strom-Martin Member of the Assembly State,Capitol, Room 3146 Sacramento, California 95814 Honorable Wesley Chesbro Member of the Senate State Capitol, Room 3070 Sacramento, California 95814 Bruce Burton, District Engineer Santa Rosa, District Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management Department ofHealth Services 50 D Street, Suite 200 Santa Rosa, Califomia 95404-4752 Kiergan R. Pegg„Administrative Services of Sonoma County Water Agency Post Office Box 11628 • Santa Rosa, California 95406 Robin Hook, SRF Program Manager Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management Department.of Health Services 601 North Seventh Street_ Post Office Box 942732 . Sacramento, California 94234-7320 • • / OCr2 2000 fir of Sonoma mnm aistsr pities: c�Tr Chambolle-Musi n , France Administration „ o.6 s Y No. 1 The Plaza or �o Greve in Chianti, Italy IF; Kaniv, Ukraine Sonoma, California 95476-9000 * Patzcuaro, Michoacan, Mexico October 25, 2000 sEcErkl Fred Stouder, City Manager our 27 2000 City of Petaluma P. O. Box 61 �!3�N` `TB•_r,-' Petaluma, CA 94953-0061 • Enclosed is the Agenda for the Water Task Force meeting and"directions to the Cotati City Hall. I have also enclosed the matrix developed forSonoma County Water Agency contractors which I hope you will update and bring to the meeting. I know that conservation will be one of the priorities of the group, so we may as well get a head start in collecting information. If you have handouts, brochures, decals—anything related tb conservation which you are willing to share with Other cities, bring those along. • Thank you in advance for your participation. I look forward to making this a meaningful use of your time. • • Sincerely, Al Mazza Vice Mayor • • • • PHONE (707) 938-3681 E-MAIL:cityhall @sonomacity.org FAX (707) 938-8775 • SONOMA COUNTY MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS' ASSOCIATION • WATER TASKFORCE November 2, 2000 at 7p.m. Cotati City Hall 201 W. Sierra, Ave., Cotati AGENDA 1. Call to Order -- 7 p.m. 2. Roll Call of Appointed Members 3. Comments from the public on items not on the agenda 4. Discussion of dates, time, and place for meetings, ground rules, and other • administrative details 5. Priority Setting Exercise 6. General Discussion of Conservation Efforts to Date 7. Assignments for Next Meeting • SONOMA C O U N T Y• WATER NOV 0 1 2000 • /// CITY Ninth.(i . A G E N C Y "--_---""- ' , F1LE:WC/60-2-7 PRIMES -CITY OF ROHNERT PARK -CITY OF PETALUM.A • -NORTH MARIN WATER DIST October 31, 2000 Fred Stouder, City Manager City of Petaluma PO Box 61 Petaluma CA 94953 RE: DELIVERY ENTITLEMENTS Dear Mr. Stouder: • Pursuant to Section 3.3 (b) of the•Tenth Amended Agreement for Water Supply and Construction of the Russian River-Cotati Interne Project (Tenth Amended Agreement), the Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) must, under specified circumstances, assess an additional_charge against any water contractor taking water in excess of its contract entitlements. Both Rohnert Park and North Marin Water District are, in some months, taking water in excess of their delivery entitlements under Section 3.1 (a) of the Tenth Amended Agreement. The purpose of this letter is to review the current entitlements of the cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park and the North Marin Water District:and notify you of the circumstances under which the Agency must assess the additional charge. The Section 3.1 (a) delivery entitlements of the three parties are as follows: Petaluma --17 million gallons per day (mgd); North.Marin-- 1L2 mgd; Rohnert Park-- 1 mgd. As you know, Section 3.3 of the Agreement provides that the water'contractors may not take delivery of water in excess of their entitlements except under identified conditions. For purposes of this letter,;the relevant condition is the requirement that the contractor whose entitlement is being used notifies the Agency in writing of its consent. 1. North Marin's Use of Petalurna's Entitlement The Agency has previously been provided with a November 15, 1990 contract between Petaluma and North Marin. Under Section 9 of this contract, Petaluma consented to delivery of its unused entitlement to North Marin, during such:periods as Petaluma is not using its full entitlement. Thus, to the extent that North Marin is taking>water in excess of its 11.2 mgd entitlement, no additional charges should be � / assessed against M h arin if North Marin's excess use is less than Petaluma's unused entitIEn ent. Although North Marin hasu sed water in excess of its 11.2 mgd delivery entitlement, at this time, it does ( ' not appear that there were any months since December 1997 (the effective date of the Tenth Amended P.O.Box 11628 - Santa Rosa, CA 95406 - 2150 W. College Avenue - Santa Rosa, CA 95401 - (707) 526-5370- Fax(707) 544-6123 Page Two Agreement), in which North Marin's excess use was greater than Petaluma's unused entitlement and therefore, no additional charges will be owed by North Marin 2. Rohnert Park's Use of North Marin's Entitlement The Agency has previously been provided with a May 20, 1992 letter from John O: Nelson, General Manager of the North Mann Water District to Joseph Netter, Rohnert Park City Manager. By this letter, North_Mann consented to delivery of any of its unused entitlement to the City of Rohnert Park. Thus, to the extent that Rohnert Park;is taking water in excess of its 1 mgd delivery entitlement, no additional charges would be assessed against Rohnert Park.if Rohnert Park's excess use is less than the ,sum of Petaluma and North Marin's unused entitlements. It appears tha� t Rohn& Park.regulaFly uses water substantially, in excess of its 1.0 mgd entitlement and that Rohnert Park's excess use has been greater than the available unused entitlements during the,month of August 1998. Accordingly, the 'Agency must assess Rohnert Park the additional charges of$2,325.94 required by-Section 3.3 (b) of the Tenth Amended Agreement. Please see the enclosed spreadsheets showing the actual deliveries against the-entitlements for FY 96-97 thru FY 99-00: Although both NorthMarin and Rohnert Park used water in excess of their:respective entitlements on four occasions before December 1997, neither of them are assessed any additional charges since these occurrences were before the effective date of the Tenth Amended Agreement.. The Agency will continue to assess appropriate'charges, if any, on an on-going basis. If you have any questions or would like further information, please call me at 707-521-1860 • Sincerely, LA114./e7V1A-Co. Krishna Kumar Division Manager—Administrative Services Enc. • rs2/u/admgt/janep./lOkk additional assessment hr • • • LL r . � � 1 1 N I N a q r N 08 2 x o f • w N N W M w O Q _ Z Z Z 'N M r N O 101'0 O O l0 N Q)'O'O NO O n O M u) N 0 0 C) O (0 tf N O n M M M N'N'N O) N 0 )0 0) 0 O.O LL) M O N- N r Q M N O O O a O) 0 a M O Q O_ b oi'n (ei co a co Oi a 0 N N M N a N M e O a co 6 Q M M N a O 0 r N N W T O N n O r O O O W)r O O c M N r O r O Q a N M N N N .v O O) O O N O r O N r r O co n(r O N O N v N N r O O) m m m r N r 04 ,- ).- ..- .•- v. .- j M r n Q M O 0 0 0 CO 0 M Q 0 0 (0 r 0 0) 0 M M O C ❑ ¢ 0 r a t0 N Q N t0 O Q O M M O-M t0 Y) O Q O O) t0 O) e O .a N O O a O O O M O r M O 10 r Q ¢) n N- O Q 'C U) [] c01.6.- M 'P In o LL) m O m r O a Q O O M N N r W a p D l r M o O r Q 0 2 Q:O.O.0 a O LL) N O LL) O r M 0 0 O N O M Q O O r m Li-r a C) M N r r r r r N N M a (n th r r r r r r r r N 0 K twin Q a n 0 co o m a O n O Q M �p Q O 0 _v LL1 r a 0) 0 O M.O N Q n 0 0 10 0 0 ' 0 C() ' 0 0 0) m Q N O r O O N O r n N ' W M O O N N CO Q Q Q' a N M .a- VC 0�,.Nm O r O t L M N- Ni r O O N O r 1O. t0' C LL V. 0LO r O m 0 O r.O:r a O LL) O M O tO LL) M r O O N O r p CO O N m Ny r N O) N C"O tp r 0 0 0 m O) N o r r r r-N r NN N r r r r Y T A a LL 0)) LL o c , a . I . . ' . ' ' . I ' m , . , , , , , . . , . i V1 `m Y d v and x ;, a w t m zw .a rz Z � � ° z Z c o a O 10 a' a�N:0. 0,m O V^ pr a m.N.O a M Q a m C O r Q O O m't0 m N a r N ' 00 .0 0 c010 O N t.m m O) d e N 'n' O'O..N'i0 r N 10 0.r M O'O r N N 'O Q Q .L d y,0 m O al . O r N O b O n N co r 0 .Q N co M O C) Q M O. V O'O N O n b N O Q O r n an a O r O 10 Y r (O O O'n,O r a O N O O M O MO M O O N O 5, a e m m N 0 O O Z a r a M O n M N. N r O r V rr r N r N rr II ii C j N O O 0'e'm M O O O m N O M M b N O m N O O co d m 0 0 y G CO Q t e O O'.r' O M a O m r n N a N a tON O.W 0 0 00 0 0 e. O r.'0 r Q Q Q O e r 22 N M OO.m 10 r 0 O M O S E N 0 NN N Oi O e O)O.a C''i CO O y Q L CO Mir' Q O x 0) 0 0 N O 0 m M 0 0 O O N M .N ,C N 00 a>O M N.O N O LL) M N O Q O Q M O N N (O O'10 >�C o NO r:r Q'.M Q r M 0 0 O ... .... TT r r O M N M M C. M n A c Z r — TT r U d y O - M N 0 0 0 O a.N.O O LL) Q N N O M O N N M M m 0 0 M 0 0 0 O n .0 0 0 0 0 N M a r M O O O O O a 0 0 E 1+1 ? '> O r Ir O O 0) e r r N Q O a O N.O O O M.N O O O > to co.t;r 0) O N n 0)V) M O'0-a'a O al m 0 Q < 0 N a'M co O co O O O co n N O N O n m M'O O O O m O.N..O.:M 'O r M O r Q m a NO r r O O n O r O O O m C 0 r a-Tth- r'O r r O O LL)N N t0 Q N O O'r' r r O O wy rrrr r N C ` 0 E 2 N ' ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , , , , , , , , . . . , co awz Z z m o O u O Z Z N M ■ M N m O O) O) a N m O O Q N N O M.O N N M M O 0 X O O r n 0 O) 0 0 0 )a M a n Ct) m (0 0) O m Q.O'O lm O.rr0.101-.. ar_ NNC OtONm (C.OMN10:mO R).m N O)O) N n 0 LLl r (n O O a C O e 0 > 0 0),N/'Q M 0 O 0.0 0 0 M N N O N O N O M 0 O 0 0)) 0 1 O'N'O M O n M.O a O e O r O'O.r..O 0 O O O Z c r t. a r ' O r r O O LLJ N N O a r 0.0'',r_ N r . 0)O ❑ N r r Q 0 0) V C A co A r O Q 0 O m N a O m m m O r n.a m m r r N N L O CI- 1- zoncOm00..car O m Q, m 0 0) N 0) 'M O O Cr). "O O O U co a.M'•N O O 0 NO.NO O N O O 0 0 0) r'<r.M.O O r 0 r 0 a 0. V' m O Ou0 R6,61.6 Q A W (O O) O)"N O C) 1b 1n O of O N U 0a NOOO.M OO,O ON C rMr co.N MO MOOT 0 O r 0 (O O NO .- co n MLL) O aOOMOLU r 0 N 1n N N O 1O O id Lc) co O r a 9 I r ^ O co-O O 1. Q h O r 0 ❑ r r r r Q r Q 0 10 2 r . . co . . . (O;n r n n r r w n N N n r r 0 O.m m 0 0 rn m'O) rn m O'rn.rn m rn rn rn rn 9) 9) 9999 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 y ' COi - m � i -2 C Z -) 2 < 23 < z O -2i M ¢ g LL Q O Q .. 0 co LEI N D. 8 d co c^,i W 1 = Q • w w Z N C.N r 0 co O i n- Q. A Q Jul cO CO N 0.'Q n O O',A.O co N A CO'0 t. CO M O A-0 0 N 00 CD O,A M tD 0,N CO CO Q co c o CO r A CO N CO CO CD CO w V Q U) Q O fD C) 6O Q O) a 't+1 O N 1A T R 0 to [O't7 N O) N N A A CO CO A Or 0 A r A 0 10 CO O) A N N V' .c r Q N 0 0 0 Q CO Q Q A Q A CO CD r O CO CD C) CD 0 O C) = N 10 N V O) c cS0 N'A r N N O) Q N O) N tO O) n 05 • Y jl O O N Q C) O N O c A.r co N A A 0 CO O.C) Q co c A co L..O) co c c'Q tO 0) O) ID N O O) N O C) c O c N C) iX) C') C) a o c A A O Q:r 0 Or c 0 A c O 0) N 0 C) CO 0'C) N- 0 O r •t 0 06 N 0 0 N C) CO C)-. CON N c A N Q A:Q'Q 0 to C') e7 O N.N Q N C) O•O A O Q CO CO.,c Q 0 CD'et co O rL ID r O'r O) 0 Q N O O M C) 0 Q C1 A A CO 0 O cO-Q Q • .0 < < t[) cl CO- N r r r N N C) C '0 R C) N N r n r r•cV o 0 CC m Tv a Q 0 0).Q A 0 CO N CD r 0 Q N c O.C) 0 0 0 0 Q c o m.0 t7 0 CD 0 0 (O N C) 10 In.CD O O N'N O 0 O) Q'r. CD coc- m.Q r OD ti O O Q CO A O) O CO Q'CN N O) O A O O c 0'Q Q?< O N C) O OA) ? O O'N t00 N�pO LL6 r N OO) V n O M 0 0 N tp'O O) 000 N A.OD N C•r O 0 CO E0 r CO O A OO O co CD c V CO tf) C O V D O) D A cD O) 0)CO M Y1 0 r O) 6.6 n 0 O) to.I() Y >. r 6 CO 6 EL 7 ` t o 0 W m C `u 'x v W W 003 ZIL ., Z 2 Et o = Z Z p t 4- VV'� 0 O Q A C D N tO c 0 Q N c O C) 0 0 0 t' Q CO CO O ^ 0 00 0 CO c,N CO 0 A N O O N N O) O O Q c M C Q . �r N O O Q 0) 0 O) O C) Q N N CO O n-. O 0) CO 0'Cr .0 E . 0,00 0 0) O 0 0 �'r O) O7 C) co'c 0`co-C) n 0 O A,C) 0 0) Q 0 O+N'c Q IO N'm Q N- O tO CO C N- tO'.O O 0 c c c N A.0),N Co ,-.711':O) co C) O OYO r IA [D La N CI CO Q: C) -L O O 0 C) c ,- CO-W c ` r O O CO Id N o r ! co:0 n N O c to EQ r r r r r r • • co c C j N O O Q O O O 0).N C) N o Q LO LO RR N CO:CD 0 N 0 Q O d 0 ' 'O 'a 0-r_.A'N 0,0 Q A LO O CO 0 Q CO O co C) c•r¢A 0 0 .0 0 a E m ( Q.C) .7 CV:c'C) 0 0 0 N CO- CD A CD c V r N co CO 0 N A Co r f' f N 66 N r C) in co A co co r N.Q n,tD tO"N CO.CJ O)'C) c0'.CN . y a CO r''.c N CO N O) A OY O)'� Q O O c.r A Q. CO O) •y 5 N A N 0 0 0 Nt0 0 CDD LO 0 CO c O') N 0 O N 0 N 0 0 O, c 0 O O 0 Q O) Q co O 0 N 0 r 0 0 o n 0 N 0'0 0 W O O Ch• a- Zr r Q a m m Cr' O t O,L O'ONO) Q 0 tO ON OO A OC) t0'ID',O C.N CPA 0 • O _o N- A N O d0 N O Q co.CD 010 e- CO O Q 0 CO 0'c 0) 0 A CO E ri .p CO 0 CO O C) A O Q el' ED tD O 0 O N N O 0 0 C) CD y G Q Q 0 O) Q'0 M tD m c N M Q N.c c 0'0 t6 A 0 N A'. N co 00 N c c N A m N 0 c C O M O c O N O c Q O -Z .- r r Net O Q 0 N C) C) C) O N.r c a C N.O) OJ co- N r r•O'A Q Q N t7 n O r 0 r CJ tD n 6 W r r r r r r r r N ci < o . m.u�• m Z Z 0 D ' 0 0 tD a o Z Z cNn .Q 0 0 0 0 N;:Ia O 0'C0,0 N 0) CO N-0 O c c'0 0 N C) A X A Q N'O'0'N•CO CO t0`O 0 r tO O Q 0 CO 0 CO'CD.0O n C) '0 C) 0 c O C) A O .Q Q 0 CO O CO O.N 0 O 0 0 C) 0 2 v co" O Q c C) 0 D-c N M Q- N 0 0 c c co A 0,N A'Q"N C . 0 0 0 0 c N N'0 N Oc) O N O tO 0) cD O N O c Q O > N Q O Q CO_CV C) CO CO OS r 5 O Q N 0 oO O of ' r r O A V Q 0 MT.O r'O r 0 co 1A 0 'c cO O LL 2 L. r )^ Q1 c 0 N- n 0.O 0 0 CO 0 CO O Q"r CO LL' L - C) o n Q. Q 0 cO N C) CO O D. D N.CD QAM.0NC) OQQ OCO0.Q ONOQNO a CO Y CO O 0 N O'0 0 C) co O c U CO CO C) Co A 0 0 Q c'Q CD CO V _m • a W r 0 0 r 0 C)•r,C) A tD,O) CO E A C) r7 Q.C) C)N Q ArN 0 A jp Cr co A A.O 0 C)-.n N, c O c c 0 C'O A 0,C :'O 0 O O m CD CO A CO r c O'r n 0 CO CD t c n On O 0" r CO tD c O;A CO 0 'V ON:'r'c 0 Ni N 6. 6.6 O N to C r CO CD I---.LLD CO ID co''.O"O)'r '� O ar r 00 9 0 Q Q 2 • an d CO 0) C) m m m w 0 0 0 0 m �000) 0000000000 .. c CO rn Co m O O m a rn rn rn 0 g rn rn O rn C O o 0 0 0 9 do 05 0) a_j • • CO, >, c O — o) a� >'0 C a i, c • } < COOZOnti 2 Q2 >. -' Q h O0 Z''O u- 2:Q m -c) LL LL • • SONOMA REQE ' - - C O U N T'-Y WAT E R. ' NOV 0 ? 2000 CITY MANrA "a A G E N C Y. - - _ --- FILE:WC/60-2-7 PRIMES -CITY OF ROHNERT PARK -CITY OF PETALUMA -NORTH MARIN WATER DIST October 31, 2000 0 .,E © [ 0 d I i, NOV 600 Fred Stouder, City Manager WATER RESOURCES City of Petaluma AND CONSERVATION PO Box 61 Petaluma CA 94953 RE: DELIVERY ENTITLEMENTS Dear Mr. Stouder: • Pursuant to.Section 3.3 (b) of the Tenth Amended Agreement for Water Supply and Construction of the Russian River-Cotati Interne Project (Tenth Amended Agreement), the Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) must, under specified circumstances, assess an additional charge against any water contractor • taking water in excess of its contract-entitlements. Both Rohnert-Park and North Marin Water District are, in some months, taking water in excess of their delivery entitlements under Section 3.1 (a) of the Tenth Amended Agreement. The;purpose of this letter is to review the current entitlements of the cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park and the North Marin Water District and notify you of the circumstances under which the Agency must assess the additional charge. • The Section 3.1 (a) delivery entitlements of the three parties are as follows: Petaluma --17 million gallons per day(mgd); North Marin-- 11.2 mgd; Rohnert Park--. 1. mgd. As you know, Section 3.3 of the Agreement provides that the water contractors may not take delivery of water in excess of their entitlements except under identified conditions. For purposes of this letter, the relevant condition is the requirement that the contractor whose entitlement is being used notifies the Agency in writing of its consent. 1. North Marin's Use•of Petaluma's Entitlement The Agency has previously been provided with"a November 15, 1990 contract between Petaluma and North Marin. Under Section 9 of this contract, Petaluma consented to delivery of its unused entitlement to North Marin, during such periods as Petaluma is not using its full entitlement. Thus, to the extent that North Marin is taking water in excess of its 11,2 mgd entitlement,_ .no additional charges should be assessed against North Marin if North Marie's excess use is less,than Petaluma's unused entitlement. Although North Marin has used water in excess of its 11.2 mgd delivery entitlement, at this time, it does not appear that there were any months since December 1997 (the effective date of the Tenth Amended P.O. Box 1 1628- Santa Rosa, CA 95406-2150 V. College Avenue - Santa Rosa,CA 95401 - (707) 526-5370 - Fax (707) 544-6123 Page Two iJ Agreement) in which North Marin's excess use was greater than Petaluma's unused entitlement and • therefore, no additional charges will be owed by North Marin. 2., Rohnert Park's Use of NorthMarin's Entitlement The Agency has previously been provided with a May 20, 1992 letter from John O. Nelson, General Manager of the North Marin Water District to Joseph Netter, Rohnert Park City Manager: By this letter, North Marin consented to delivery of any of its unused entitlement to the City of Rohnert Thus, to the extent that Rohnert Park is taking water in excess of its 1 mgd delivery entitlement, no additional charges would,be assessed against Rohnert Park if Rohnert Park's excess use is less than the sum of Petaluma and.North'Marin's unused entitlements. It appears that Rohnert Park regularly uses water substantially in excess of its 1:0 mgd entitlement and that Rohnert Park's excess use has been greater than the available unused entitlements during the month of August 1998. Accordingly, the Agency must assess Rohnert Park the additional charges of$2,325.94 required by Section 33 (b),of the Tenth Amended Agreement. Please see the enclosed:spreadsheets showing the actual deliveries against the entitlements"for FY 96-97 thru FY 99-00. Although`both North Marinand`Rohnert Park used water in excess of their respective entitlements on four occasions. before December 1997, neither of them are assessed any additional charges since these occurrences were before the effective date of the Tenth Amended Agreement.. The Agency will continue to assess appropriate charges,;if any,on an on-going basis. • If you have any questions:or would like further information, please call me at 707-521-1860 Sincerely, Krishna Kumar Division Manager Administrative Services Enc. rs2/u/admgt/janeg/lOkk additional a«sntn•Itr . M 101 Q yNy q r d U a O N O: w Z NW M w O 0 O' Z = N O O M W r.A�n N O OA (OH , N 0 W N 10 0 to O M O M M N N A 0 0 O N a '- (00 )n M O N N A Q.M N Ol 0 0 P Ot W Q Q M O Q O b M N'M 0 P m N V' O'O N O,C; N O'r O 0 0) CO r O 0 c CC')) r .N- 0 .—0 N V V 1%. 0. M'N N N r 1D 0"0 O N O A J fV r r 0 'W- - m A Yf v M lV tV t` r.m 0 m W r m pN p �pp N M L.0 N P`CPO.N VN )0 O V O 10� 'M (QO M''.N'r N O V o Oa 1M0 W O. O <I r C 0 Q,A 0 0 P. {M O W M O r M O N r p W A A O p P r c� (D O M ul 0 t0 O 04 0, 10 NW r M 0 0 0 N 000_ N .0 Or) 000 r M C P 0'10 t r V M,M-N' r r r r N N,M V M M r r r r r r N 0 r r M 0 m r Q W In01O N,° NQN- 0.O N 0000 v), C00.U) Q W 1000 o r- 0 0 cm V N I0 A.pOp O N:O r.A N ' W:prp M..O 0 r N.Nr 0 Q Q - N.M r P b V IO) m r r M I V •0 r 0. V O V (NON r 00100 < r 100_ 0 0 0 A 0'A Q O O O M O O N M r 0 O N 0 . 'Q M O r m r r O' A O Q m N m N N m m r C ' r N .1C2' I. O. M M J c 0) Q . . . . . i 1 1 , m 0 N a 0 .c A Z W .z - = w 0 3 Z u G C Z Z c `o p y 20 PN10rW.GNt0,- N- NIN 000r N.1W0TrNNrOm0 < P E M0) OOQPOm N O tO Oh MQ MW.NOOfVOONO . N M' N Q N W M O P. O A A P O A 0 0 pd � r0.W00A0AQO'N0 OMOO').0M OONO • q w. J r Q'M r r. m r N r 0 A V'. P W.N,r N N r r r r .r E 'o m • d 0 a 9C C �I N 000 Qi0-QAM 00'00 NO) M M?,O QN0 p0 N 0 Q0A d S E R o < N OQ N N'100'�O 0 0 O0) O0 0 N o'N 100 M O N O r_OO N 0 E m O O P 0 0 0 0`O , r e N - rz a s Q O O O A N M ;i < M r.P P O r A 0 0 0 A 0-0 0 0) 0 0 r 'at .Cc4 O00V. O-ONONOOMN WV_ OAPNONN00O E` C O N O 1C-or-M Q r M W m' a -- 0 M N M M M co"A C H Z r r r Q m pp N M 5 .0 O 0 r A 0 0 0 W..O r O M N A M 0 0 0"r O 0 M. O O ? O En v s 0 t--pr O O A r-Q.r A N Q OQ O 10 Np W'1QWp O M {Q Np O WO Q < ONOMONM.00r < 1MOO 0r N CO:N )� Ofr Olinnmo C n rV V A r OrrOm1N NiNQ t• OCrrrmN 11, 0 W r - - - - - - ^ t0 M • E of ' , ' ' ' ' ' . � s. z w x Z t 0. o 0 0 N Z M ■ M N 0 0 0 0 P N 0 O 0 Q NN 0 M 0 N N M M 0 0 x 0 (0 A 0 0 0 0 O 0 M V A M 0 0 0 0 W Q 0 0 V 0 A r O'.0 A Q=r A N Q On.Q O N W O ;M N O W'..O d Vir "07 Nr^r 0'0 N`r n mN 'M000ppm. Qm 0) NI 0) 0 P M O O O O O O M A N'0 O A t0 M W 10 O O) Op O N O O M O A M W Q 0 Q. O W W A W r O W W W j r V' P t` r C r r G 0 N N N.0 P A L O r r r m m O A .- r - - - - - - tl J o 0 Q pp M r . 0 M.0 M 0.0 0 co r 0 W Q 0 Q W N Oar M O 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 jj0 < M N 0 0 . N-O O W N A O 0 O'0 A r M 0 0 N P r 0 U■ P. ' '00 0 0-O)` O N O'P t0 W m mm N O Mi W 0'O m W C O'Q O 0 0'O M 0 0.0 O N C A M A CO N M O .0 0 0 O:A 0 0 0 N 0 W 0 M 0 O Q W W M Q N W O Q r 0 0 lO Si 1V m Y1 m O N m O, V C V r 'Oi O N N V N N t` O V r v O Q Q U A N-0 W W 0 0 W A A A A A'A CO 0.0 A N- A A.W O 0 W CO W W O-m 0 0<0°0 rn rn 0 0 0 m 0 W rn,0 0 0 0 Orn O rn 0 0'0 .n 0 aa5 > u c3 gi, c s - to d =' > cA >. e n -' = fi) OZO ti Q o -= 0 , J 4) `) o `m y Q N 0'.Z'.p ti f a m V 0 .0 I A vx 0 = o Di ui CI. 5 Y A W 0i M i`i • o Z 4 w QQ _ • N O) N r )D C r f0 O 0 0.C co M O) A N CD N NN N CO ,"M tir A A A CO CO'N A IO W Q 0 N N 0 CO DI- M,CDA 03 r A MMO) 00M 0 V V r In V CO,'O OM H V A r,0 N N 0 CO D CO N N A Ny0) A CO 0 A M N- 0 0,CO r'01 A 0 N M.N c'. n N 0 0d0•V 0 .tt V A A 0 0 M A A N N C"r I-- 0 CO A O!C 0 M CO 0.0"M O Ni`..N .N- ^.co-0 16 0 co- N .- cV IV A V N N N N A N'c.i L. j 00 N C M O l0 O 0 A. 0 N N. A:0 0'O M C, M .O.N. ID jj A M 0 0 DI 0.0) 0) N O 0) N O M 0 CO CO N M'U) McM 0. 0 < A A O V' .O.0 r CO 0 A CO O CO N O CO M O M N- 0 Avr r N or N N:O N M "ii 0 OM) N 0 N. N A V VV� )D O-cTO C �' (O r O r CO CO N N O'0 O M 00 0 V n CO a0 0 CO M.:.� CO .0 "' V )O VV c'f N r r r N N CM V V V M N N .- M .- r N M 5. 00) M000 c0 o- 0NMr0 `NDCO00NN00)) 0'00))0 V CO v.0 V r'CO CO 0 0 V 0 N. 0) 0) M 0 a.> c0'O - :N'N O N Oi 0 O N.N • N N 0 0 A r O..A,( O:V Q O 0N..NMNO 0NO) � m N 0) A N M co- 0.0'M!00 N 0 C A O M O CO-A 0 O Li"; CO-60 N A O '0 T W-M c A 0 r A CO 0 M cp.0 V O N 00 ' .- - .- .A- Oi al Id .1. _T. CO... CL O. 7 c. to t N d` n t ii Z w _ z w _�° 3 0 O c ° z ft V In A V A 0 0 CO 0'r : A'-It N O N CO CO.O 0 0 V CO 0 CO E vm;'COmo0 V COA0) rnn QQ { �'t0 co N A O N A CO 0 A N DV N A O A r.0 A CO 0'.V L d u�I 0 A M O O) V O O N 0 y 0 A Di A M CI CO- 0 0 M A O O ` CO 0 N A M N A C N 0 0 .N A C A O M c0 0 A 0:O 0 CO 0 r A 0 0 M 0 c V'0 0Q > 0.C'i'cO ' OO 0 'N 0 OiM 0'.NN ^ 0iDA � A.0:)D Ar r r 3 CU 0 co C 0 �I N O O O O co p 0 O N M.N O P 0 0 pp N M 0 0 N 0 V O Cl.CD 4) d d,.0 < Or N CO M 0'0 N A n'cp OA 0 O co M 0 N. O O CD.0 E - 2 m N O-0 N M c0 40 A 0:in-.- CO V r N 0 N A GO' N Q O A 0 N 0.N'A N V N. N CO-)N 0'O O vi.co fV d L L N A N r 0 CO 0'N 0 0 CO 0 CO. 'O A ' ('A 0 0 r A'V'CO 0) T C 0 r O1 0 0 V tD V 0 tD 0 N'.CO-r CO 0 N 0 A N O N OT 0 • R d Z r r r O A A 0 N itl)ri b'm Ol'O Q` ~ L v O V O.0A N O) 0 A 0 M 0 0 0.O N O A M O co A V N OO)) 0..N CO V 0 0 Cu) r ' 0 V iD 0 0 0 0"0 A M E c a >.M m'Qi QmQ O OI 0 0 )p:N vi V 0 O N 0 co 0'r'0 M 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` N O V CO CO N • N 0 cO N 0 co A b-.a.i N V N •� i7 M 0,N O 'A 0 N20),r M N Q''O,V cc0 NON ca cn cr p .- ILU C N 0 0 O N r r r.0 N V A N c d CONINAr O rO ONvi 0 r r E 0 M c g w 0 w • z = m 0.° 0 0 N O. V O In 0'A N )O V 0 CO A'N A A A O M 0 0(p 0 0 N O A X A V N_O) 0 N 0 V 0'0 0 0 -' 0 V 0 c 0 0 A N A M V M 0 co o-A M A O V Cr 0 0 0 .0 O N 0.0 CO 0 M 0 d a r co" ci;V O M 0 05J.6 N M V N.fD CO V) 0.0'A IO N A -r-,c4 d , O) 0'O O N N O V 0 0 N MO. N' CO AON'A CO O M CO O'O'.NA {p V.A N V...O V CO N'0 CO CO A CV c V N )D 0 0 c. r O N V Q rrr VNC7A A � OrO (pNui .. CO O r LL 7 U N Co Q CI o n m 2 d m 0 0 LO.(O r CO 0 CO 0 V •r CO u L r M O.A'V O N O NiM L 0 C .u N 0 A C A M 0 N M A C Q O. V'M O O N A 0 0 CO CO A U 0 V Cr) 0 V N O U N 0 jp Q cG r O N cD r) Ci N 0 Yi )0') co co co co. A V A V CO N CO M V 00 CO N C. N N, 0 0 cr)O A O A A A O .M.A N 0 OA) IC 0 r A A O M%0.b0 0 CO M'A CO CO O A 0 CO•0 •.,0 A 0 A ���000000 A 0 CO.O'O'A'O d N C:.- 0 0 C'0 0 0 0 O ' i1 r O V y- r r O r A'A 0 0 0 0 0 Q7 r 0 ° °a r °a 2 A 0-00000 0.A 0 A 0A A -O-A A 0 A A A o 0:060 O O -- Or dA A A A A A.03.CD 0) 07(01 A W O) A O) A O,0 0 co 0 4 444 co ' J W'O 0W, m`0 `dnN J o Of Gj, 00 ce C LL Qw zO'-) U, a Q2 y ar%1 ° z o - li2 ¢ • C it .. . l•• tel it% i _..-_ .,._ .� SONOMA• r .c •O U r1 T Y E R WATER NOV 0 6 2000 '• i � ✓lTY M iii Ri 717- A::G E'N')C_-Y `s. __._-----•^ FILE:WC)60-0-7 PRIME CONTRACTORS-WATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS November 2, 2000 Fred Stouder City of Petaluma PO Box 61 Petaluma, CA 94953 RE: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION LETTER DATED APRIL 17,2000 Dear Chairman of the Board: • This letter is in response to your requests for information contained in the enclosed letter to Randy Poole of April 17, 2000. Some of the information you requested has been provided at Water Advisory Committee meetings but I apologize for the lengthy delay in providing a written response. • Many of your questions relate to schedules for work on various components of the Water Supply and Transmission System Project (WSTSP). As you know planning, environmental processing, designing, and constructing facilities for the WSTSP is currently on hold because the water contractors have not reached agreement on contract terms amending the 10th Amendment Agreement for Water Supply to carry out that project or any alternate project. The responses below correspond to the requests made in the April 17 letter. Attachments are included with many of the responses identified with a'label coinciding with the request number. Response to Requests: IA. Attached is the current estimated schedule and financial information relating to financing Collector No. 6. As you know,the Agency intends to'finance.a majority of the construction of Collector No..6 using a low-interest state loan obtained through the California Department of Health Services State Revolving Fund Loan Program. The Agency`will ask the water contractors to support an increase in the Operations and Maintenance Fund, pursuant to Sections 4:9(a) and 4.2(b) of the Tenth Amended Agreement, to generate revenue sufficient to repay the state loan. The Agency has not yet calculated the estimated financial impact on individual regular-customers. The Agency will perform such a calculation as soon as the final loan amount has been identified. The contract to construct the caisson and conventional and pilot laterals for Collector No 6 is scheduled to be awarded early next year and construction is expected to be completed on Collector No 6 in 0 operation by approximately Spring 2003. As to the Eldridge-Madronet pipeline;the Agency contracted with the Valley of the Moon Water District(VOMWD) to prepare an environmental analysis and design work for this project. Due primarily to the untimely passing of Art Bolli, we expect that this-contract will be terminated and responsibility for the'projectwill return to the Agency. We are waiting for VOMWD to take this issue to its 1 P.O. Box 11628- Sanca Rosa, CA 95406 - 2150 W. College Avenue -Santa Rosa, CA 95401 - (707) 526-5370- Fax(707) 544-6123 • L f Board. Although.the Agency has no currentschedule or estimate for this project, we will develop.one after VOMWD agrees to jointly terminate the existing':contract, .Finally,the South Transmission System Project is a component of the WSTSP and work on it (except for some of the biological surveys) has,been suspended until the water contractors reach agreement on a contract to carry out the WSTSP. 1,B. The Agency is currently involved in a Section 7 consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act. It'is expected that biological assessments will be completed by the fall of 2001, and,hopefully the National Marine.Fisheries Service will expedite its process to?issue its biological opinion;by spring of 2002. To date, the Agency's total Section 7 costs, including staff time and consultants, is approximately $5.6 million, which has been,funded'through three separate Agency funds, Water Transmission System O&M fund, Russian_ River Projects fund, and Flood Control Zone IA funds. As we have discussed at Water Advisory Committee. meetings, completing the ESA consultation is only part of the picture. It is safe to assume that:significant additional funds willibe necessary to implements recovery plan that is likely to result from,the consultation. 1.C. Attached_'is a July 2000 analysis by Bob Beach entitled The Potter Valley.Project, and the Importance of its Continued Operation to the Russian River Water Supply of the Water Transmission System. This document contains information regarding the,-impact of:the Potter Valley Project (PVP) on Russian River water supply and information regarding the economic implications of acquiring the PVP. As you may recall, PG&E applied to the California Public Utilities.Commission,(CPUC) to divest itself of,its hydropower facilities, including Potter Valley. The Agency entered into a settlemen agreement with PG&E which, if approvedby the • t CPUC, gives the Agency an option to purchase the PVP if PG&E or a later owner decides to decommission it Under the current schedule, parties must file responses to the proposed settlement within 45 days after the issuance of the Draft Environmental-Impact'Report (DEIR) by CPUC staff. The DEIR is scheduled to be released prior to the.end of this calendar year A,number of parties in the CPUC proceeding oppose settlement; and approval of the settlement by the CPUC is uncertain. 1.D. Attached is the.requested.listof legislative contacts. 2.A. Attached is an excerpt from the Capital Project Plan for FY 2000/01 through FY.2004/05. The starred projects identified in this,plan have beemput on hold pending an agreement among the water contractors in consultation with the Agency. The onlyremaining'projects'of significant size to be constructed that are not already in progress are the Kawana East Pipeline and Eldridge-Madrone Pipeline projects, The Kawana East Pipeline is projected to be advertised for bids with in the next',few months and will connect the Petaluma Aqueduct near Hearn Avenue and South Dutton Avenue'to the Kawana storage tank. This is the last phase in connecting the,Cotati-Intertie to the Petaluma Aqueduct and the'Kawana tanks. The Eldridge-Madrone Pipeline - is a pipe parallel to the'existing Sonoma Aqueduct beginning at the Eldridge tanks and running'southeast to approximately Madrone Road. 2.B. The Agency currently has standby power'sufficient to produce approximately'30 to 40 MGD. After completion of the standby generator project, currently expected by June 2001, the Agency will have standby capacity sufficient to produce between 35,and 60,MGD. The extent of standby delivery capability within these ranges is primarily a function of the other water production factors (e.g., time of year, amount of flows in river,whether the inflatable dam is up or down, etc.) 2 1 , i ■ • 3.A. The status of the structural remedial alternatives identified in the "Analysis of the • Adequacy of the Petalunia Aqueduct Water Delivery Capacity", page 13, is as follows. The Kawana Transmission! main, pumping plant and storage tank are nearing completion from the construction standpoint. To date the storage tank is constructed and coated. The 36" transmission main pipeline connecting the Cotati-Intertie..to the Petaluma aqueduct is complete and currently in service. The'pump station is currently under construction with an expected completion date of Spring 2001. The final leg of the 36" pipeline connecting the Petaluma aqueduct to the Kawana tank is in design and scheduled for construction in the summer of 2001. The whole system should be operational by summer of 2002. As explained in the modeling simulations on page 15 of the report, the addition of a third pump at the Ely booster would not-increase capacity in the Petaluma aqueduct. Consequently the Agency has no plans to add,a third pump at the Ely booster station. As for the two parallel pipeline alternatives the Agency-has suspended planning and environmental activities on these alternatives until the Agency has the authority to proceed with this work. On page 16 of the Capacity report there are several recommendations regarding non- structural issues. These non-structural issues focus on a variety of issues; e.g. Treatment plant operations, water reuse, and reclamation that,are not within the Agency's control. All of the recommendations presented in this section of the report require the cooperation of the water • contractors in the lower reach of the Petaluma aqueduct. 3.B. The Agency does not have test data from a specific test performed on the Petaluma Aqueduct. However; billing records from the last four years indicate that the Agency has • delivered an average of almost 32 MGD for two summer months and 31 MGD for another month in that time period in the reaches of the Petaluma aqueduct below the Ely booster station. Deliveries in this range are greater than the entitlements of 28.7 MUD. A flow of 32 MGD in a 33-inch line, South of the Ely booster; translates to a line velocity of almost 8.3 ft/s. Below the McNear meter the pipeline size reduces to 30" with entitlement of 11.2 MGD. Flows in this reach below McNear meter'have been measured at 16.2 MGD with a line velocity of 5.1 ft/s. • Sincer , Mark Lawler, P.E. Deputy Chief Engineer Encs c Prime Water.Contractors Randy Poole jt:m3w\dydnm,mwicrVimmwd2 • 3 e, ,'23/00 15:22 $415 892 8043 N. 1ARIN gAIER oil UU : UUJ • sel `; i • April 17, 2000 Mr. Randy D. Poole, General Manager/ChiefEngineer Sonoma County Water Agency - 2150 West College Avenue . P.O. Box 11628 • Santa Rosa, CA 95406 Subject: Water Contractor Information Request • Dear Mr. Poole: The signatories to this letter make the following requests to itnprove communications between the Sonoma County Water-Agency, the Water Contractors, other agency customers and Marin • Municipal, and to ultimately enable a coordinated and prioritized effort by the SCWA customers to assist the Agency in meeting its contractual obligations and future goals. We collectively request that the Agency present a timeline at the next Water Advisory Committee meeting to identify when the below listed information will be-available. 1. The information requests include: 1. A. A compreherjsiye major milestone schedule and financial plan for Collector 6 and the Water Supply and Transmission System Project Facilities (include litiga- tion). While the schedule and financial plan should address all WSTSP facilities. emphasis should be placed on near term completion of Collector6, the South Transmission System Project and the Annadel-Sonoma.Pipeline project. (It is • understood that until the-Petaluma City Council acts on Amendment No. 11, schedule dates for the South Transmission System Project would be tentative.) 1. B. A comprehensive major milestone schedule and projected financial obligations to complete the Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. 1. C. Preparation of an alternatives analysis for the Potter Valley Project including potential schedule and cost implications for each alternative. 1. D. Preparation of a legislative contactlist to allow customers to support Sonoma County Water Agency political outreach (identification of locally elected officials within the contractors service areas who have established relationships with state and.federal legislators). 2. Additionally the Contractors request that the Agency prepare: • • 2. A. Detailed descriptions of the Water Supply and Water Transmission System proj- ects.included in the-Capital Projects-Plan FY 2000/01 to 2004/05 received at the March 13, 2000 Water Advisory Committee meeting. • 7;uU 15:__ t415 692 bU43 N.. TER ;jUUJ• UU) Mr-Poole,SCWA April 17, 2000 • Page 2 2. B. A status report of standby,generator.capacity at the Mirabel and Wohler produc- tion facilities and at:pump station facilities along the transmission system. 3. Finally, Petaluma Aqueduct Contractors request: 3.A. An update on the implementation status of recommendations made in the March 1998 report"Analysis of Adequacy of Petaluma AqueductWater'Delivery Ca- pacity." 3.B. A capacity confirmation test on the Petaluma Aqueduct. • We appreciate your attention to this•request and expect to review an availability timeline at the Water Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for May 15, 2000. Sincerely, Chris DeGab"riele, General Manager • North Marin Water District • Art,Bolli, General Manager Valley'of the'Moon Water District • • Dana Roxon Marin Municipal Water District AI,Bandur City of Sonoma • • Tony Bertalero City of'Cotati , Tom Hargis 'City of Petaluma • cc: Signatories and : Miles Ferris, City of Santa Rosa • George Roberts, Forestville County Water District Joe Gaffney, City of Rohnert Park re • (la • .:'s,N a �• jG � • O a 1111 rn i',. co O ..JJ a r c: a O N 1111 U o c? a U F f 1 V I. tE - I P - E • • G o � Q o rn -E • • o W .2 . ❑ U n • _4■4 11111:111111111: r $ s Collector No. 6 • Debt Service Estimates Caisson, Laterals & Pumphouse SRF Loan Cost Term of Loan 'Interest ';Annual DebtiService, $8,674;884:00 20 years 2/9% $284,448.51 Wohler-Forestville Pipeline Cash Funding Cost; . • ' :Term of Bonds Interest ,Annual Debt Service' $3,611,651.00 N/A N/A N/A Total Project Debt Service Cost >' :Term of Loan : Interest ,Annual'Detit Service $12;286;535.00 20 year 2.79% $284,448.51 Prepared by kpegg 11/1/00 J 2/ O w b Y; co N` • ... —m it r 'm C O J Q U= !r E . re . r 0 o o . �., co, 4� ,6' 4 rrs It i . . • a .iii i LL , r' sl m Y C u fir! 7 o �t E ; rt,. it 0 . .. qAN . to rlg • -r• I_ . _ Tpt __ — — ITrla • a • • • • Sonoma County Water Agency • ID The Potter Valley Project , and the Importance. of its Continued Operation to the Russian River Water Supply :of the Water Transmission System July 2000 • I T • This report was prepared in response to the Water Advisory Committee' s request for background information regarding the value of continued Potter Valley Project operation to water • transmission system customers . Summary The Sonoma. County Water Agency (SCWA) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) have carried on an intermittent dialog regarding the acquisition by SCWA of PG&E' s Potter Valley Project for several decades . In connection with the current proceedings pending before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on PG&E ' s Application 99-09-053 to auction off its hydroelectric • assets, one of several options presented to the CPUC Would give public water supply entities a first option to acquire,.. hydroelectric facilities . This memorandum describes the Potter Valley Project and the importance of the continued operation of the project to the water supply of Sonoma and Marin Counties . SCWA recently performed studies to evaluate the water supply benefits to SCWA' s water transmission system customers from the continued operation of the Potter Valley 'Project . The Potter Valley Project provides a large water supply benefit to SCWA' s customers . Based upon 67 years of historic records, without Potter' Valley Project 'diversions, curtailments in water use would be seven times greater than' they would be with continued Potter Valley Project. diversions (an annual average of over 10, 000 acre- feet without diversions, compared to an average of 1, 40.0 acre- . feet with diversions . ) Without Potter Valley Project diversions, Lake Mendocino storage, would drop below 3, 000 acre-feet for 5, 469 days in the 67 years -modeled, compared to 212 days with the diversions . Lake Sonoma storage would drop below 2'0, 000 acre- feet for 950 days without the diversions, compared to 43 days with the diversions . • The Potter Valley Project has a positive after-tax net cash flow and a significant market value. That value, however, is far less than PG&E's book value, which was reported to be $23, 441, 550 on December 31, 1998 , The income approach is the. most appropriate method for valuing the Potter Valley Project. The estimated current before-tax net cash flow from the Potter Valley Project is approximately $250, 000 per year.. After-tax cash flow without the tax benefit of depreciation, at the corporate tax rate of 40%, is estimated to be approximately $150, 000 .1 1 The tax benefit of depreciation depends upon the market value (purchase price) being depreciated, the cumulative effect on depreciation of the annual capital expenditures, and the depreciation schedule followed. The tax benefit of depreciation would add 40% of the annual depreciation to the after-tax cash flow (up to the $100,000 tax) and could well result in no tax being "due, or even a • depreciation expense that could be applied to other earnings. 1 • Because electrical energy prices in California are substantially determined by natural gas prices; forecasts of future natural gas price trends ate indicative of the future electrical energy price trends . Based upon the California Energy Commission natural gas price forecast, the recent average monthly California Energy Exchange unconstrained market clearing prices, • escalated at 1 . 9 percent per year, is a good estimate of future electrical energy prices in constant dollars . In May 1994, PG&E initiated a drilling program at Scott Dam to recover samples of the abutment rock for laboratory testing and development of a geotechnical model of the foundation shear strength parameters . Based on the results of this program, the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety, and the Federal Energy- Regulatory Commission (FERC) concluded that concerns about the safety of Scott Dam had been resolved. Lake Pillsbury has lost more than 20% of its initial capacity due to sedimentation. It will continue to lose about 250 acre-feet a year- until the entire reservoir is full of silt . By the year 2022 the reservoir capacity will have been further reduced by approximately 5, 000 acre-feet. However, all of the model studies upon which the conclusions of this memorandum are based take into consideration the siltation of Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino . On October 4, 1983, FERC issued an order for a new license for the Potter Valley Project for a period of fifty years from the April 15, 1972 date of expiration of the original fifty-year license. The current license will expire in 2022 . Under FERC ' s policy, license renewals are limited to a term of 30 years . History SCWA and PG& have carried on an intermittent dialog regarding the acquisition b • SCWA of PG&E ' s Potter Valley Project for several decades. Discussions in the 1960's arose in response to the approaching expiration of the original license and the proposed English Ridge water development project, which would have inundated Cape Horn Dam if constructed. In July 1965 SCWA and PG&E entered into a contract under which PG&E agreed to sell the project to SCWA in the event the license for the project, which was to expire in 1972, was not renewed.. This agreement also contemplated that substitute facilities might have to be constructed if the English Ridge project was constructed. However, the Eel River projects were not constructed, and in October 1983 FERC issued a new license for the project . In May 1994 PG&E announced that it was suspending work on a • 2 new $14 ..4 million fish screen at the Van Arsdale Reservoir • diversion, which had been ordered by FERC.. PG&E also announced that it was reevaluating. the project economics, and that rather than construct the fish screen, it would consider the sale or decommissioning of the project . . In response, in September 1994 SCWA initiated efforts to secure state legislation establishing a Potter Valley Authority to acquire the project. In February 1995 Senator Thompson introduced legislation establishing a Potter Valley Authority, but conditioned moving the bill upon development of a regional consensus, that proved unattainable . In May 1995 SCWA began informal discussions with PG&E regarding acquisition of the project by SCWA. In June 1995 the water supply contract between SCWA and the cities and water. districts was amended to authorize the acquisition of the project by SCWA, subject to .the approval of the Water Advisory Committee. In August 1995 the Water Advisory Committee approved the acquisition of the project by SCWA. SCWA retained several consultants to perform a due diligence evaluation of the project. In November 1995 SCWA met. ith James K. Randolph, PG&E' s Vice-President, Power Generation to discuss acquisition of the project. In December 1995 two additional meetings were held between SCWA, PG&E management, and legal counsel . In January 1996 SCWA presented PG&E with a, formal offer to enter into exclusive negotiations to acquire the project. However, in December 1995 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued an electrical utility industry restructuring order requesting that utilities file a. generation divestiture plan by mid-March 1996. As a result of that, order, in February 1996 PG&E suspended acquisition discussions with SCWA "for a period of abproximately .six months", citing the changed conditions resulting from the CPUC' s December 1995 restructuring order. In connection with the current proceedings pending before . the California Public Utilities Commission on PG&E' s Application 99-09-053 to auction off its hydroelectric assets, ' one of several options presented to the CPUC would give public water supply entities a first option to acquire hydroelectric facilities. Project Description • • The, major components 'of the Potter Valley Project are Lake Pillsbury, a storage reservoir on the Eel River which is impounded by Scott Dam; Van Arsdale Reservoir, which it impounded by -Cape Born Dam, and includes a forebay and diversion structures on the Eel River;' the tunnel and penstock system to the Potter Valley powerhouse; the powerhouse located at the north end of Potter Valley; and the tailrace canal from which water flows into • 3 • • the East Fork Russian River. An acquisition study prepared in 19.95. ,by Energy Unlimited, Inc. , one of the consultants retained by SCWA at that time, includes a detailed description of the Potter Valley Project. That description is attached as Appendix 1 . Water Supply Benefits To determine the water supply benefits to SCWA' s water transmission system customers from the continued. operation of the Potter Valley Project, SGWA performed hydrologic and water rights allocation model studies .2 The models used are those which were filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by SCWA in conjunction with the current Project license amendment proceeding. pending before FERC.3 The project diversions • used in the "with diversion" scenario are based upon the Eel River model filed with FERC by the Department of the Interior (DOI) •in conjunction with the Current Project license amendment proceeding before FERC. 4 The results of model study analysis ate summarized in Table 1 . The worksheets for Table 1 are contained in Appendix 2 . The fourth column of Table 1 shows the average annual water supply benefit, in acre-feet for each hydrologic sub-unit, 'Water supply curtailments were quantified for the several hydrologic sub- units of- the Russian River basin under two different scenarios. These are (1) continued Eel River diversions and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Decision 1610 Russian •River minimum flow requirements-, and (2) no Eel River diversions and SWRCB Decision 1610 Russian River minimum flow requirements. Both scenarios were for the estimated year 2022 water demand and reservoir sedimentation condition. The modeling period included water years 1975 through 1995. -These are the upper and lower Russian River models described in a report entitled Russian River System .MOdel - A Water Balance Computer Model of the Russian River System, revised March, 1996,. which was filed with FERc on June 17, 1998, and the water rights allocation model described in Appendix B of SCWA's Interim Hydrologic Analysis of the Impact on the Russian River of the Eel River Flow Schedule for the Potter Valley Project Pr000sed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company on behalf of the PVP Fishery Review Groups dated June 1998, which was filed with FERC on June 15, 1998. Certain revisions were made to the SCWA upper Russian River hydrologic model input files. These are described,in Appendix C of Part 3 of Sonoma County Water Agency, Potter Valley• Project .Final Flow Proposal filed with FERC September 3, 1998. Also, certain errors in the SCWA models that were identified in DOI/NM S comments filed with FERC• on December 2, 1999 have been corrected. 4Revised Software for Modeling of the -Alternatives for the Potter Valley Protect, prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior by Natural Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc. filed with FERC on July 19, 1999. • • • 4 resulting from the continued operation of the Project, assuming continuation of the Russian River stream flows required by State • Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Decision 161.0 .5 The fact that the loss of Potter Valley Project diversions would have an adverse impact on the reliability of the water supply available to SCWA' s water transmission system has been recognized for many years . In fact, it was discussed in some detail in SCWA' s 1996 Urban Water Management Plan, but the, impact has recently been more precisely quantified. As Table 1 shows, the Potter Valley Project provides a large water supply benefit to the lower -Russian River sub-unit, which includes the SCWA water transmission system intakes . Average curtailments in water use would be seven times -greater in the absence of the Potter Valley Project, amounting to an annual average of over 10, 000 acre-feet rather than 1, 400 acre feet . • These averages, however, conceal an even more serious problem. That is, in a majority of years there is no impact, however', in a few years th_e impact is very large: The water available for • diversion to by water transmission system would be cut in half in two years and nearly in half a third year, out of the 21. years modeled, with substantial cuts occurring in five additional years (see Appendix 2) . TABLE 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE IN WATER SUPPLY RESULTING FROM CONTINUED EEL RIVER DIVERSIONS. UNDER SWRCB DECISION 1610 RUSSIAN RIVER FLOW REQUIREMENTS, IN ACRE-FEET ' • Geographical Curtailments curtailments Water Unit No. Diversion With Diversion Gain Coyote ,9,318 105 9,.213 • UR-RV 13,151 2, 806 10;30' M Russian 4,567 554 4, 013 Dry Creek 295 2 293 L Russian 10, 131 1, 414 8, 717 Total 37,462 4, 881 32,581 • 5 Decision 1610 reserved to the SWRCB jurisdiction to modify stream-flow. requirements in the event FERO changed Potter'Valley Project diversions. • 5 . • • 1 . The effects of the Potter Valley Project on storage in Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma under projected year 2022 reservoir sedimentation and water demand conditions, with no curtailments, are shown in Plates 1 and 2, resbectively. These plates show the percentage of time that storage would exceed the x-axis storage values with and without the diversions for the modeled 67-year period 1929-1995 . They show that Lake Mendocino storage would drop below 3, 000 acre-feet for 5,469 days in the absence of the Potter Valley Project diversions, compared to 212 days with the diversions . Lake Sonoma storage would drop below 20, 000 acre- feet for 950 days in the absence of, the diversions, compared to 43 days with the diversions . • • PLATE 1 • Lake Mendocino 120 # days out of 24,471 (67 years) that LM<= 3,000 100 Run. acre-feet — • - Run la 212 Run 3a 5,469 80 � %of Days with Storage 60 Greater than - ' X-axis Value - 40 20 - I I I - —41—Run la-DOUNMFS,D1610, --F_=Run 3a-No PVP,D1610 0 I . . - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,00 Storage (acre-feet) • 6 PLATE 2 Lake Sonoma 120 I I I I Run # days out of 24,471 (67 years) that LS<=20,000 acre-feet LSG=100,000 acre-feet 100 4 - Run la 43 1,688 - i Run 3a 950 4,911 801 To of Days • with Storage Greater than 60 - X-axis Value 20 -0-Run 1a-DOI/NMPS,01610 --SF-,Run 3a-No PVP,D1610 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Storage (acre-feet) Project Valuation The income approach to valuation is the most appropriate method for determining the market value of the Potter Valley Project . Under the income approach to valuation, the value of the project is the present value of the after-tax net cash flow of the project. A market approach to valuation is only appropriate where properties are reasonably comparable and it 'is possible to make rational adjustments for the differences between the comparable, sales and the subject project . The Potter Valley Project is unique and, for that reason, does not lend itself to the market valuation approach. • 7 •. The pre-tax net cash flow is the difference between the • estimated annual revenues and cash expenditures .. The pre-tax net cash flow must be adjusted to reflect taxes and the tax benefit of depreciation. The present value of. this series of annual after-tax net cash flows over a specified period of years is the value of the project . The discount rate assumed is the cost of capital . The cost of capital reflects the capital structure of the assumed purchaser, i . e, the ratios of debt, common and preferred stock, and whether the purchaser is investor-owned or a public agency. While most information necessary to appraise the value of . the Potter Valley Project is available, the valuation is an involved iterative process, which is beyond the scope of this memorandum. However, as discussed below, the project has a . positive after-tax net cash flow and has a significant market value . That value, however, is far less than PG&E' s book value, which was reported to be $23, 441, 550 on December 31, 1998 . Operation and Maintenance_ Expenses • In its annual reports to. the CPUC, PG&E disclosed the annual operation and maintenance costs for the Potter Valley Project • listed below in Table 2 . TABLE 2 POTTER VALLEY PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE 1995 - 1998 Year Operation Maintenance Total 1995 $605, 105 $166, 796 $ 771, 900 1996 704,632 281,444 986, 076 1997 638, 761 216, 026 854, 787 1998 815, 739 504, 812 1, 320, 551 Average $691, 059 $292, 270 $ 983, 329 • • 8 Capital Expenses • ' During its due diligence inspection Of the Potter Valley Project in 1995, SCWA' s consultants identified deferred mechanical capital expenditure requirements of $950, 000 and electrical and control expenditure requirements of $667, 000 . The terms of the license amendments currently being considered by FERC almost certainlywill require substantial further capital expenditures . Potential additional capital expenditures could be necessary to modify the Scott Dam gates or outlet works to permit the temperature of water releases to be regulated, and for major replacements associated with the $14 . 4 million dollar fish screen. Finally, either substantial relicensing expenses will be incurred prior to 2022, or substantial decommissioning expenses will be incurred after 2022 .. SCWA estimates that a $600, 000 annual capital expenditure allowance would cover these- known capital expenditures and. contingencies . This figure also corresponds to the ratio of ' capital expenses to operation and maintenance expenses expected by PG&E with respect to its hydroelectric facilities system-wide. Project Revenue Since April 1, 1998, electrical energy has been traded in a • market known as the California Power Exchange (PX) . Bids are submitted to the. PX one day ahead for delivery of power during each hour of the following day'. The unconstrained market clearing price is not necessarily the PX price that PX generators are actually paid: When transmission constraints restrict the flow of power :from one area to another, the Independent System Operator has to make adjustments . Generation must be increased in the area downstream of the constraint and decreased in the • area upstream of the constraint. This can affect PX prices because PX generators are dispatched in order of their bids, ,least costly first . The main transmission link between northern and southern California is called Path 15 . Congestion on Path 15 causes the price of electrical energy to vary between the zone north of Path 15 and the zone south of Path 15, with the northern California price sometimes being higher and sometimes lower than the unconstrained. price. The net affect of this zonal variation is considered to be insignificant for the purpose of valuing the Potter Valley Project. • Listed below in Table 3 are the average monthly generation estimated for PVP under the flow proposal proposed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the National Marine Fisheries ,Service (NMFS) under the estimated current Lake Pillsbury sedimentation condition, the actual weighted average monthly unconstrained PX market clearing prices for fiscal year • 9 _ 1999-2000, and the estimated monthly revenue from power sales • which could be expected under the DOT/NMFS flow proposal . 6 TABLE 3 POTTER VALLEY PROJECT AVERAGE MONTHLY GENERATION, PX PRICE, AND-MONTHLY REVENUE Month Total MWh Pr-ice/MWh Monthly Revenue July 1999 2, 498' $ 28 . 92 $ 72, 242 August 1999 2, 894 $ 34 . 71 $ 100, 451 September 1999 3, 174 $ 33 . 91 $ 107, 630 October 1999 3, 181 $ 47 . 63 $ 151; 511 November 1999 3, 229 $ 36. 91 $ 119, 182 December 1999 4,304 $ 29 . 71 $ 127, 872 January 2000 4, 836 $ 31 . 18 $ 155, 099 February 2000 5, 045 $ 30 . 04 $ 151 , 552 March 2000 5, 647 $' 28 . 80 $ 162 , 634 April 2000 4, 923 $ 26. 56 $ 130, 755 May 2000 3,.770 $ 47 .22 $ 178 , 019 June 2000 3, 110 $120.20 $ 373, 822 Total Annual Revenue • $1, 830, 769 :. In addition to receiving PX revenue, some generators receive revenue from the sale of ancillary services such as spinning and non-spinning reserves . Such revenues, however, generally cannot be earned by capacity that is simultaneously selling energy into the PX. There is currently no reliability-must-run agreement covering the Potter Valley Project . Furthermore, the _range of discretion in the operation of the Potter Valley Project is limited by various regulatory requirements, and will be even more limited in the future under the proposed license amendments currently being .considered by FERC. For these reasons, additional revenues are not expected to be realized from the sale of ancillary services . Revenue from water sales, recreation and mi-scellaneous fees is not expected to be significant. Annual water sales revenues have varied from $5,'000 to $17, 000 per year duwing the past decade.. Other revenues are .nominal. • 6Based upon hydrologic modeling of the 21year period 1975 through 1995. Electrical energy generation was estimated using the patter Valley Project hydrologic model filed with the rederal:'Energy.:Regulatory. Commission by the United States Department of the Interior on_July-19, 1999. • 10 • After, its construction, extensive; and significant • Y to th.e dam, enhancing its stability. modifications have been made A summary of these is included in• the 1'988 FERG Fifth Quinquennial Safety Inspection Report,. Between 198;8 and 1991, PG&E re-evaluated the _seismicity Of the Scott Dam site and ' developed acceleration time histories and response spectra for use in dynamic stability analyses of the dam: In 1990, PG&E prepared a report which reviewed the geologic ' setting of the dam site and laboratory investigations berfotmed in 1983 by Harding- Lawson Associates, and presented recommended Values of shear strength for the foundation materials,. However, following receipt of comments f--rem DSOD and FERC on the proposed rock properties,. PG&E elected to proceed with a research program to characterize the shear strength of Franciscan melange. In May 1994, PG&E initiated a. dr.illing program to recover samples of the abutment rock for laboratory testing and development of a geotechnical model of the foundation shear strength parameters . Borings were located on the right abutment, from where it was felt representative Samples of the rock foundation could be obtained. The samples of rock were tested in the laboratory at the University of 'California at Berkeley under the supervision of Dr.. Richard Goodman-. In addition to the testing program, students of Dr. . Goodthan extensively investigated the literature. for data on "melange Their research led to the development of a statistical method to assist in the determination of the • appropriate strengths to be used for stability analysis of Scott Dam. One of the conclusions of the study was that., based on logs of cores previously obtained from below the dam and the cores obtained from the abutment, the strengths predicted from tests on the abutment cores were lower than would likely be found from testing rock'from below the dam. While Dr.. Goodman recommended further testing of. materials' from below the dam, he proposed in the meantime using a weighted friction angle of 39 degrees with zero cohesion for the rock below the dam for preliminary analysis . In 1995 PG&E initiated a drilling and testing program to directly determine the weighted, friction angle and cohesion of the rock under the, dam. The California Department. of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety, and FERC, in letters dated August 27, 1997 and November 7, 1997,, respectively, concluded that concerns about the safety of Scott Dam have been resolved. Lake Pillsbury Sedimentation The rate of sedimentation of Lake Pillsbury is substantial, consistent and well documented. Surveys of the capacity of Lake Pillsbury were conducted at the "time of construction of Scott Dam, in 1959, and in 1984:. The reservoir, has lost nearly 20, 000 acre-feet of storage capacity, more than 20.% of its initial I 12 capacity, since the construction of the dam. It' 'wil1 continue to lose about 250 acre-feet a year until the entire reservoir is full of silt . By the, year 2ti022 the reservoir capacity will nave • been further 'reduce'd by approximately 5, 000 acre-feet. However, all of the model Studies upon which the conclusions: o this memorandum are based take into consideration the siltation of` Lake Pillsbury and Lake, Mendocind . Year 2022 License Expiration On October 4, 1983, FERC' issued an order for a new license for the Potter Valley Project for a, period of fifty years froth.. the April 15, 1972 date of expiraton, of the original fifty-year license, which was issued to the 'Snow Mountain Water & Power Company. As noted above, this license will expire in 2022 . • • • • 13 ApperdX `1 Potter Valley Project Description 40 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • 2.1 Introduction The 9.2 MW Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project is remotely located in the Coast Mountain,Range, approximately 90 miles north of Santa Rosa, California, as shown on the Project Location Map, provided as Figure 2.1. In general,the project allows an interbasin hydrologic transfer, by diverting water from the Eel River, across a natural divide to the powerhouse in Potter Valley, located on the East Fork of the Russian River. After passing through the powerhouse, the water is used for irrigation and, other domestic uses in the Russian,River,Basin. Specifically, the project extends from.Lake Pillsbury at.Scott Darn in Lake County, down the Eel River approximately 11 miles to Cape Horn Dam at Van Arsdale Reservoir in Mendocino County. At Cape Horn Dam, flows are partially diverted from the Eel River through a tunnel to the powerhouse in Potter Valley, where flows are released into the.East'Fork of the Russian River.; The Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project operates under the terms,of FERC license No 77, issued on October 4, 1983 the license expires in the year 2022. The project initially began operation.in 1907 [11]. The project utilizes water released from Lake Pillsbury at Scott Dam, the headwaters of the Eel River. The area is • mountainous and moderately forested, with elevations extending in excess of 7,000 'feet. Water released from Scott Dam travel down the.Eel R iver to the forebay(or Van Arsdale Reservoir), created by Cape Horn Dam. At,Cape Horn Dam, flows are partially diverted from the Eel River through a tunnel to the powerhouse in Potter Valley, dropping 479 feet. The powerhouse contains three Francis turbines, with a peak capacity of 9;2-MW. Flows from the powerhouse exit into the.East Fork of the Russian River and two irrigation canals, owned by the Potter Valley Irrigation District. A Project Description.Summary is provided as Figure 2.4. Project:photos from our site visit are provided as Figure 2.5. 2.2 Scott Dam7Lake`Pillsbury Scott was constructed in 1921, thereby creating Lake Pillsbury, the headwaters of the Eel River. Scott-Dam'was constructed as a multi-purpose facility, including recreation, flood control, irrigation, domestic water supply, fishery enhancement, and power generation at"Potter Valley. The Lake Pillsbury reservoir is used to regulate the annual precipitation from the Eel River drainage basin. Winter and spring runoff are released,to satisfy downstream fishery and power production needs throughout the year The structure is a concrete gravity dam, with its axis angled to form three tangents, totalling 805 feet in length [1]. The principal tangent, which extends about 550 feet from the right abutment, contains a gated ogee crest, forming most of the overflow spillway; the remainder of the spillway is constructed within the second tangent of the axis. The 31-bay spillway is gated by five steel radial gates (32.foot wide by 10 foot high) 2 and 26 steel slide.:gates:. The.storage,capacity of Lake Pillsbury is increased from 59,500 acre-feet to 80,556 acre-feet with all spillway gates closed. The maximum spill occurred in January 1993 at 27,723 cfs. A Lake Pillsbury Site Location Map is provided as,Figure 2.2. A summary of the specifications for the dam/reservoir includes the following: Dam: 122.5 ft.high (crest) x'805 ft'long, concrete Dam Crest 'Elevation: 1818.3 ft USGS Outlet Works: 42 in. needle valve, controlled at 70 to 352 cfs radial gates (5), 3,100 cfs each slide gates (26), up to 1,000 cfs each Reservoir Surface Area: 2,280 acres Storage Capacity (usable); 80,556 acre-feet • Drainage Area: 289 square miles Average Annual Runoff: 412,000 ace-feet/yr =26.6an. of precipitation/yr Recreation Facilities: 4 campgrounds, 2 boat ramps 2.3 Recreational Facilities The recreational facilities associated with the project include: 1. Fuller Grove Campground,.24 single units, 6 double units, located on Lake Pillsbury, managed by the USFS; 2. .Fuller Grove Group Camp, 50 person campsite,located on Lake Pillsbury, managed by the USES; by reservation only; 3. Navy Camp Campground, 20 single units, located on Lake Pillsbury, managed by the USFS; 4. Trout Creek Campground, 14 single units and 1 double unit/located on the South Fork of the Eel River near Van Arsdale Reservoir, managed by PG&E; 5. Pillsbury.Pines;Boat Launching Ramp, 30 parking spaces, 10 picnic tables, located on Lake Pillsbury, managed by the USES; and 6. Fuller Grove Boat Launching Ramp, 40 parking spaces, located on Lake Pillsbury,managed by the USFS. During our recent site visit on August 10, 1995, each facility was either recently constructed or in very good condition. Therefore, additional near-term capital • expenditures are not expected. The USFS generally charges six dollars per campsite per night, which essentially covers the operating costs of the campgrounds. 3 2.4 Cape Horn..Dam/Van Arsdale Reservoir • The 'City of Ukiah decided to construct Cape Horn Dam, for power generation, in 1904 [13]_ Thereafter, the Ukiah city council hired Mr. Van Arsdale from San Francisco to construct Cape Horn Dam in 1907, thereby creating Van Arsdale Reservoir, on the South Fork of the Eel River: The dam is comprised of two sections: a concrete gravity overflow section with a spill crest elevation at 1490.3 feet and an. earth-fill :embankment section with a concrete core at-elevation 1516.8:feet [14]. Each year after the'winter flood flows, an additional four feet of flashboards are,installed across the spillway".: When constructed in 1907i the • reservoir capacity was 1,457 acre-feet... Subsequently, sedimentation:occurred'to substantially reduce the reservoir capacity to less than 600 acre-feet today[11]: A fish ladder was originally installed in 1909, which is currently operated by the DFG. A Lake Van Arsdale:Site.Location,Map is provided as.F bgure'23. .A summary of the specifications for the dam/reservoir includes the following: Dam: 63 ft high (crest) x 283 ft long concrete section, plus 237 ft long embankment with concrete core section Dam Crest Elevation: 1490.3 ft (crest) plus 4 ft with flashboards Reservoir Surface Area: 65 aces Storage Capacity: 600 acre-feet (maximum) • Drainage Area: 349 square miles 2.5 Fish Screen A pool-and-weir fish ladder at Cape Horn Dam allows upstream migrating adult salmonids (primarily chinook salmon and steelhead trout), to utilize approximately 17 miles of the Eel River between Cape Horn Dam and Scott Dam, for spawning. In addition, the DFG operates the Van Arsdale Fisheries Station, located at the,fish ladder at Cape Horn Dam, primarily as'an?egg-taking station, and secondary, as a fish counting facility. Van Arsdale Station has produced the longest record of andromous fish counts for any'.river in California [22]. These fish counts are indicators as to the health of the salmon and steelhead. fishery in the Eel River: The fish ladder at Cape Horn Dam allows upstream migration of adult . salmonids: However, some outmigrant juvenile fish that result from spawning, enter the project's diversion/intake structure at Cape Horn Dam, which are transported through the powerhouse to the Russian,River'Basin, thereby resulting-in lost Eel River population. As mitigation, in accordance with,Article 35 of the FERC license,"PG&E installed the first fish screen in 1972 for outmigration of salmonids: However,.the fish screenrwas apparently ineffective,and has been completely inoperable since 1982. 4 • As a result, PG&-P is currently constructing a new'fish screen and bypass at Cape Horn Dam. The construction is targeted.'for completion,in. December 1995, at an estimated cost of roughly $I5 illion. The,fishs'cseen.and bypass will protect the outmigration of salmonids on the Eel River.' Based upon discussions with PG&E, the operating period for this fish screen will be variable,:depending upon.die chinook salmon and steelhead trout outmigration season which is a function of climatic conditions (i.e., precipitation, river flows, temperature, turbidity, etc). Based upon and the fishery studies conducted over the past ten years, PG&E believes that the fish screen will operate an average of 35 months per year, in succeeding months, but may range from 2.3 to 5 months, depending upon the fish outmigration season. After extensive research.and development by PG&E over several years, an inclining horizontal fish screen was designed for this application, comprised of eight major components j15]: .(1) the approach flow straightening area, (2) the bar grating and gravel trap area, (3) the bypass tunnel, (4) the fish screen and fish bypass collection area, O the fish and debris bypass pump area, (6) the secondary fish screening and handling area, (7) the fish bypass pipe and outlet structure, and (8) control and equipment'areas. The fish screen is a new concrete intake structure with a two-bay fish screen..and bypass,system. The facility is designed to • operate when the Eel River flow is below 7,500 cubic feet per second. At flows above 7,500 cubic feet per second, the fish screen is unnecessary. A summary of the specifications for the fish screen is provided as follows: Operation Criteria: If Eel River flow < 7,500 cfs, then operating If Eel River flow> 7,500 cfs; then bypass Operating Months: Winter/spring, but.variable (likely potential period: Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun) Tunnel Flow : 310 cfs (max) Bypass Channel Flow: 16 cfs for fish and,debris (.via screw pump) Total Fish Screen Flow:; . 326 cfs (max) tunnel + fish screen bypass flow Operation and maintenance activities,involved with the fish screen facility will include: daily operator''visits, removal of gravel from the gravel trap, removal/ hauling of logs and debris from the trash rake deck, preventive,maintenance of equipment (i.e:, changing oil, replacing bearings, cleaning, calibration of electrical and control devices, etc.), etc. 2.6 Tunnel and Penstock Water released from Lake Pillsbury flows approximately 17 miles down the Eel River to Cape HornDam. The Potter Valley Project tunnel intake structure is located on the south bank of Van Arsdale Reservoir, approximately 400 feet upstream of Cape Horn Dam. There are two tunnels in series—tunnel no. 1 at 5 • 6,413 feet in length and tunnel no. 2 at 1,186 in length interconnected by day- • lighted sections of redwood stave.and`steel•pipe, with a sand trap. The tunnels are either circular or arched, and range in diameter from approximately 7.5 feet to 7'feet. In 1950, the tunnel was enlarged to its present capacity of-approximately 325 cubic feet per second. At the end of tunnel no 2, there are two high pressure, semi-buried penstocks, both 62 inches in diameter at the tunnel,exit, gradually reducing.in:size to 48 inches at the powerhouse: In the powerhouse, penstock no 1 is connected to turbine no 1 and penstock no 2 is connected to turbine no 4, while:a Wye branch interconnects both penstocks to turbine no.'3. The total length of the tunnels, pipe, and penstock is approximately 9,394 feet, with a total static head of 478 feet. ,A summary of the,specifications for the tunnels and. penstocks includes the following [141: Capacity: 325; cfs (maximum) Tunnel No. 1 & Pipe: 6,413 ft, 7 ft dia. (approx.), concrete and steel-lined and wood stave pipe Tunnel No. 2 '& Pipe: 1,186 ft, 7 ft dia. (approx.), concrete and steel-lined and wood stave pipe Penstock No 1: 1,793 ft, 62 in to 48 in., riveted steel pipe Penstock No 2: 1,722 ft, 62 in. to 48 in., riveted steel pipe Total Tunnels/Penstock 9,394 ft (approximate) - 2.7 Powerhouse On April 1, 1908, power generation began at the Potter Valley Project by",the Snow Mountain Water and Power Company. Subsequently, PG&E acquired the project in 1930'[13]. The powerhouse is located in Potter Valley, approximately two miles southwest of Cape Horn Dam. The powerhouse is a steel frame structure, with a:corrugated steel.roof. It contains three;;horizontal, Francis turbines- generators, with a total peak capacity of 9,200 kilowatts. The tailrace level is automatically controlled to minimize destructive cavitation of the turbine runners. Water exits,from the tailrace to the East Fork of the Russian River and Potter Valley irrigation District's east and west canals. A Powerhouse Site Location Map is provided as Figure 2:3. The tunnel, penstock,,penstock access road and drain ditch, powerhouse, and tailrace canal comprise a total of 42 acres, within the FERC project boundary: A summary of the specifications for the powerhouse equipment is provided as follows: Tailrace•Elevation: 1014.8 ft Gross Head: 477.7 ft Flow: 325 cfs (maximum) Total Capacity: 9,200 kw (peak) Unit No 1 ®. Turbine.Model: Allis Chalmers,:Horizontal, Francis, 6500 hp 6 . • Generator: Westinghouse, 5500'kva, 2400 v, 0.80 PF Speed: 720 rpm Installed: 1939 Capacity (rated): 4,400.kw Unit No. 3 Turbine Model: Allis Chalmers, Horizontal, Francis, 2559 hp Generator: Allis Chalmers, 5500 kva, 2300 v, 0.80 PF Generator Re-wound: 1982 Speed: 450 rpm Capacity (rated): 3,187 kw Unit No. 4 Turbine Model: Allis Chalmers, Horizontal,Francis, 4000 hp Generator: Allis Chalmers, 3400 kva, 2300 v, 0.90 PF Speed: 450 rpm Capacity (rated): 3,060 kw The switchyard is located adjacent to the powerhouse, with the main transformer bank that steps up the voltage from 2,400 volts at the generators to 60,000 volts for use in PG'RrP's transmission system. The switchyard also contains three other transformer banks to transform voltage: to 12,000 volts for PG&E's local distribution system. Based upon discussions'with PG&E, they will likely maintain ownership of the switchyard, as well as the power lines servicing the plant. • 7 0 g JJI7 ' / t ,/' I 1 li s _ 3cd o 5.---3/ 1 § 't 7 i k W i6 � a C Q , ti � JI d J ova u I = 4 c . J H s C. r a c 3 _ O 59 h t_ Z �C O r G 5Ii g34 a a i ....? '1 .,,,... 2 j axn / ' = ^ / C^ \ VJ�Fy' u J u 7 • ° 'c9 c fel 4+ St°L1Ta - O 4Jy J -u o f— of 7 \ 4 9 ..< i� �a _, lI $ , ;:v_r� 3, x �e� �; �' B3 ei > �IIa' a, r, ,��!� � `� C. i <: I. 8 , -� ';;e t4 f. , 2 ..to y 4.�_ a3` g F ,wry� �� .0 la C k z C 11 ,I ¢o P g ) 1 -Si 1 w � any -. ...-'.4f"-.:..j-f.::-.7”0C;(.7.7;T:(-1,;‘--,-:r-f.7 ear-i-litil-1,71 I 1 71.!.:.1 I z bire-PiusguRY GLEN ;I. -.;;;--;;4C''.2-;?'1‘,Cr,... -.ILK,'”1"1:,''- ',. ;1;frT;'A-r•- '1, .:;Y'' 9I. I. t)• ji113.:-=)-).;..2);":c.A....;;.:-:)/SN))/ ,,;?),IvM,.-:,/,,,_.„. : LAKE (l'i') :522(2S- -I- - - - - -a 1 IL. tio---.-.2.))._-_.-_;„-,I0,01.(1,',IrtyL•/ iTs.,(s.: _ ;,::);-ntae,.,7_;,,t.::; i2a:, ,,,.,0,:_;‘,,:i.,.:4_;yi,c= I/AN AKEbAli-"-- ‘ n)(:-.T-.).7T -:<(.?rliZa.'tf'..*;:')igi, Y....3.1:':;..-r'.C±fpf.:W.,Zii-411Liy.=Pj;=7J;4??:414.,.'1:.4 - ss ( \ \ / LAKE ), COUNTY COLUSA or:ilis...).. ..: I,;F:1-f.:);22„)...„„:„. ,f1/2(,, MENDOCINO ' , IN- I1:-;;;,W/■<;;---,`•.',":-IT.ligl I- ' ,/(7(i/E't7,7) _-_-. 1__&/6-?R‘_-_;-s,,....),_-t-i-k_2_,-5-;;;(..51,,,..Aryl/. . 'COUNTY 'Ram,4,.tax)„ . _ _/-,,, ,,_1 ■• ) COUNTY -- 'N. COUNTY /.. '':';':\ ;II'1'.i. =-z-fk.1-',7-&--,L.,A, ■-=---` s,r5,..,)//:(6;//'-'141- 4itr-='";/'N-; 1111„'Rit-t7---I it;;C;e-iRt st.)(9 ,. N ___0/)),D7.7-N',.:77:71-4.2::.--itni - '11.■^?‘. .c•.,:.,. ..,,Ii<:.--1-,1..-Kr,=::=, 2-, iIk%4:1--NI---)f `r)- -4---.7.7-7...N),t , ‘; , '611,..,- I) --, /--A.!). 4,7ALC5i 2-..)-1'. ,,ttv ,I''-`-t-=--_,_,--,, if-:,'"J',/;=:%1.1----- ‘ 7 Tn....,*6.2...,-- -,,,,,, ,,,,..,, A Lseit-z,/------ .. ici&s ...,, ,L,. ,- , --1,,:',,,., ..,,7-&--7P: -.4,PiiPyL-:,-c-L•e,--- t:=,z-)tii;84i ', . \a-1,1,111 ' -''''‘.. k , . ,4_.-,- ,c ,,,,,:.,,,:t,,,,:!,:erlissu,,,,,,,ri?,/ei., – ),,,;, li.'-`.-12-$"---"----"." `.;:',.---=1 .2': s....0 t \ — - 1..?„....... ...■--7.5-:-z--c..-r,,SZ:C=---' '',.■4 )/([;, -; ))!..` ty'.1....-::. 7---7---"Ar• t, 2 n,.(L_2_2-=---(( fr.Q., „ l(_- t.i ., ----Th„ -,,.,,,.. e 1. 4-..->-- 4., . ,Iii-------/ -v71- 'r?It coL----t-r--:14k, ' ---- c.3, r — -2'.. . C ' ■;');')'I)-H ./i n5 :.-r)-- 4 --55,r tcs,,, °N:-,,..1‘--4-,1,,w--------ti,- -\., — , -„„...,_,,-_, , .r. , , L-W•4,..,..(f , ("1;‘,.1-..-* 7.-");A-, i7e,' c ..-1-2')P4-5--i--C- ---- -----/-,• f ••-t7 \,, \. \ \• .--, ,_ _ --- \ ,... .t..._2,t,s. • it-.'" 'a1,1-,-,--2? \,,..4.0-i- — ',,17 (,.._---/I iv ;i 2., 1, 17.--,, ,-. 1'.,•.,,.,'''-'':' "ti;7.r.,,;47,14-r'c--- ., ; Ni..„1,-±17,.....j.„ :,.._T-L-,....„- ),W. „s,Lv.„..:1,912_„ .ci.c.f..,,i Vin,14, lc,;M-----:---entlii-,-,21.',,Si...„ , \ SONOMA /.3 \ NCI°A9L/N41Y / fa -,\;1;'a":;;;;),II;IA " I'L-4)--).-._ ,?),)7;;;;;;) Al.‘,';.i.";A", \\„.. ..i ...4 a 2;,i-c.. i-, ..1f4 ''',../a2=W )• L4,111. A l'N,CD COUNTY ,- '/, ' G) I A;(7')/A-■VI ''1) ,/ , -Iiittiot I, ( II,EsTk-i 5=-1( )7y.,/),I4.-;:;),S-2..,< „ C:,.../ f ).L'RtAN, IS T.;,„;) _ ‘.. I■./--TV • ,Ar-2,./ il,),;1),/,Ali) T</-' — ‘7,1's -4, )••) ) (-1 .ez.--;*_,.:, -,-_-,. , "-s-,-, r, c y itc.---C. tZ21.c:fl Sui\N) r ,"..t', 1 . zi?(szts--,:."---j5t.:;-7-5-: ,,,,,- _=-.,..- N77-, ,-->':,P"', *A \ Y•,, 11.) V ))IM((! / Ps' C--.;7c Vol ; ; 1\ tett.;- so.it----:,??.- :.-., rir RoSA =I C' )‘ I,...kfc.iu.ozrley.::::.,,. ..-4_.).1?f,21 Its icoyPte Pm; / `i _._ il? ci.::c ,- C,,,/[4;.-Ii1g,,....:r4). f I. II .6'1 t "111-,ViCS5\01 Ito:7'1:11i Il frig' '7"/11 s ------ ._, -,.qrt\-?SiSLC )1'4 r pi!. ,--.7,N /. -ar , _„_ ...,‘ ._ , c__ '11-A - • i a_iy , 2.1, t , ,,4 ,._ t,..,--k\_,..---\ c ..1 k'\ 1 / A. • ?.. i 0 t-sre )• ' -,. , _ cmcAuRNINTy oat true: \;• „Re•s■a9--- 't )) ',,) ILce& .1.,,,, • .___Jti)1p.C4,igi irt 1 I '' //n rr-deteeCli\413-aii"' ' %S.-\ r.:^4-14- .4 NV: .:-‘ 2•--: ..litzmiliellround c) 0 - --- '--- ---4 *-k" i. .,,,,,) -- ,,, , : -.. i yz ,---1, I •ffc-41-v- ---c-:-: ,.. 11 \iir ml FRA..s. 4. ,. --.r : 'tni° N.,/1 • A, 1 ' I::' -2-I' 4 0 1 F 10 , it- y cr.:.,;((...' - , (AI, '11-g, 7`L-_, ,,,5 31))? Aft._.4 -V: ' --L-r- -- ,rstegf---'_ 9-1:2--, -.? •=z,----_-,(c:7:/..O.451- ' ,,71.1s.--"- Si% -,..„...„_-_-__ „Cseek--)R3%:75), ., n,: 1;eiriricaTSLi a'Cr),-."-,, -1‘. r A74?-1E4 'r ----0 1,4--17,1 'fla:,-..- '”- - ' I- ' • n )41F.” "'T-5,1 3, i 11`-rig-0.I,L,. ,..a5Z 7.7.-.: - -'772.E ilbot)),C-r.,53',-:72.r..riinete-a) l >41-7-::-j-c-----Ac--j'±-Tilartiu, ri5 ,- a-T-veK,e- -"--•,13-""grit:-..\ &I '':-5-SLA Lt ...(5% ,s---'.-; 2.1 7. .,.L.=.2_,Litc:-,--1 - . zilitTYce.±1,1lIjic-.:4• `I-,,,IINLIA1?-.11.1h 47231 , /j- if -2/.../.;2"-i-s:W; --. • 1' R/- t,)--h,-LTN-5GCT:'..2/4-,,--T--/---- "--,'' `-)-of -E. 2• 1-;) ' ,)="LL-A:- -1 ; .5St-- PTRE/A2).RN.R-;://;11/4?--C,-;-STIA4VIT5N_::-..-‘z,\Arir,,,Tret,„I, ,A, II,4/ 7A:,:.W&R )i-;;;5"7-7--: 72' IsZ"' )--4.4""‘-../N., . ;) 169 7-,;1:31- -■ ' In rircr:?.?.-9/7:-L--7,742;47?-4r \N,C.Llrfr-----4,12-/"1,17..5) -;',■ Pi eget(r)/457-(±zrPrL4;.:2-1') s;L L: X '9, )VJLIT% C=rr, X ....-‘-'.5)/C -•••• 'F--':)a_r--71:tXA--‘-:WY,-01A,7 :,..„:___,,,,, ,triLscil;:.. ._. sa..,-jr .nit;,-,77-. .,,..,,,,:,,,,.... - , ...-.:.3( ,_A-,,s_-:- , ,:L ,„tt..., :,.7.______=--_, ...,,_,f.,..4L::::?e,,..),•Q_. ,,Icif,2,--z.c. i ----,-_,.: s,.,7-7,----,--------- :.Ati-k,..-- t :-.,---2,,,,c,„ (4, i r -;;,..T.-.(... ...L=ki,_ ;; 14 TI--- -1-1.4..,--,.c-mi ,'Ll .:,-5: 'In-•\c'-irdire--a-S-7"-,yil; --L: =;=55,c.5,51/-17:::4-na ''ISS',tct- ,.-ii. 1 92,::::=,,,,.: ''''E;;,,Y;'.,„.■,_77,-.7-_, kifil'E'l':`riVf:,;?.)‘,/, . ?:',P4iikij_7.z.Y,1.4;,----2 -15:'%2Y(Pt F-TN-C--CIA'r7iii,---iVirq - rcn-d-r-\-Z-1,-LY,.,. s j. ...•;;;../ LT.-.-Arb..7:-.,..--......-;c‘ .1_,,----_,-;.:4• -."----,,Hz'r.r•-.-4'.. :.-_.--. . ---.z.cj,.......2.764.)I-1- I 7-1-.. I-.57S,ST):,-,")L,A=ELN,;;;;;),--A-25',/;,,,-pL::_,Ra/til")LA:.-ci\.,t -/i ii/AI,1%),./3-=',_=_5,-; -.v."--i-AA'121,; !1,, ftII- 4;1" CS:=5--...,-,z_i-,7),sf, --N:=_--- ____I----- )))Iii-R).', l'-g1K-a-'5C-T`R--n)5:2AI■5TAPC.'1 s)",;• 1ThigsfSk-"5,,-f/14::,TRik=)1.,Wria;-_,.-S-4 ..‹',.;j.122.,V;,I 1?-.,=;?si-2-5--'/ )1;-/-/2/-I;'''------ ; /;7-%,--;;fil/iIi‘";,(;);I:', ijci222 ----)-----32)D------‘1;1-Is W;;;SIRA-.,,iii1a:-'4;'''I./)-A,/A..,-g.:;■•.,cyl'it,. ., -:...-.) - --;..s.171._.„-al.:=,-.7,-,,_,,■■:,-.:,L-r-k.:-.,yo fr.' ‘427,11e---1\'::::F>RS.)r) ■rirrit.-51‘:, - L!'L.rt r'r',ry'Ur?I.-3-'2V-7-",.2;.T.11.1:_?-,(9-*:':';‘• ..:'. rX0Vrgrit..7C-11*- 6,-;:',. •KE7-:---•,:‘,.-:: :„[>ir--.,_,-_---J-z-,,,. 1,-::‘,_\,--,... _.--=--",z- :,----;- -iThiLci----, c,-,\(k..,,,, L :03:(.--_---_,-,--,-„;;5,-,*■:,,,b-uthe.,N33.22;:::-.;, - /. -=--,:,.-sa,..0,---_,,--..0\;?-imyst5-- - , - =7,E1.7---:";;;:( ;/.cIK)//-?-:----)-N-;:-?:\/A*1-4 a..- -:-:TI L..5---51`;;:? ; , ;-A'-/-t';;;;;: i. e.,5:77.N. ,-C -5 :)t...7. ---:41-\'ir-'1:4-r4.',2Ii ‘4.--.-. 7 t:-[ •1011-_:-.4.14Ift,,cr-e.:::*,. \77-4c-,..Ths71•-p-7-fl---7-2 Citp,)7'>,-. L22t1)...11 l .---77---.):3(1------7c,-;:y4•/.--,_Jerr'--•=1:•zt?-7.::-.-•.•, -Iliii:"„r- r:'...;1;;C;c1IP(-2./F,\---z_ a-`..:...::C'i..,,.:',11-Y,ilitt:1 7TN,41,4,r---:::---r----,‘itz:..gsci,iyf::: :T..<.'. , t.i..8 - , .: -=.7)?----,, :: -:--,--4--: ).;--". :::.q;/,(4,4k. ;.:,_, . •Vi- --,,,sv4 . -.44;:15\E-,,,t`Tk.-15;::::::‘,v, Qris,t, _,•fec,,p.-.,t.,4".:i..,),,:i”,7,A 1t1L.. _ :._ ..,.„ -.=). . fl.. . .,:'-ti'=.'71- :re,: , + --'. 11' --„ ---- ...- t ',f-Th! 4- LL-C. (' ti., 1 • 1.,451;(1 , 71._ , Ty 1/16-C1...;-:Xi)1/1... ".-)E-J--=.:---= K-ASTka---:=5). I/ff '. - ‘isri71-I-Rsi TtI,/ /1I'AIa/S- AK`')/Csi-Er; .--;''-=---)'-'477/-';`) •-,,T,'TT ;Ca),ViiRe.C.-2=---11-,5,.--4)\-T/11...... -lacHt,' ‘). . :I-----17:-:=.a=1`•Th-•l - ' gi• -‘43-a n,_ .-.,-'el-4-L4----'t 7------, . ) .0.-fr•gia- W---r-11-=:,-t•, %:-•--zi:I .":'`.:,.. •i.=. .;1,:i5F;;;;I:7"::::=:"1=7-.:---..t.,13/7,..Z4-,.:".s..: r 4Lt;St'4-:7- NittlWfS1.4:1c,:r1.;4?-":17----.11)..7-- .--t \ :'N. ;3C5'..:-7:::::gr-SC\...:•),(7-rc-‘-',±..---- -..)247:14.1:--7--;.„-*;•&-31,". 4 1 l&:•,%:::?;.,-;;:Zbj\-,..‘a Li:L'I'ZI::.- -..'1.14tgietlii-r-1447.7,„1„,==>2-'44::::is.ipc,•!.*(1-,:_t_.-:-..1_-___44_,Sry,114.4.t 1-4t4-.72-0.4,ar..fzi:r",„.„ ,..vi:7.7‘,..14teiz-.1kcrk--- . - 7'.--i.t. iii.,, it:Kt-2-7-t---5%.,,':- . 1. l'i . V.1--a-,.,;3/4,r;.--=--F---&--------\---.1r1P.1---=7,.: ;. (.. C. ...72•0Q,;"',..--"7---'4:.,::'?"-''': . Tr------171:1 '.',t-t -t- :- 11%, 1 r:,.,2;,,,1 c:cr----77.1)::pref;-17 e'rr't r'-."-cn, ; :r;‘r-C17.3.2.:', S.-.2.5-'1,1 “C.,:„)1,1,5,, .-Linlii,lc;riy:jy-T-7,Jr2rriyi4 ir.ji. 'rr:r- r'r-C,,, ‘, -- . ;-,7:n1:'"(:::7nri:=riCkrrirr'::;t17:•%--; -5---- -;":7-EII'I; : III' ;"/=/,'sn1/4/'/::C I';'t',/:_:.1,1/91/„/' r'r-)/ I-A"-^;',:-5-'-'57-2)_2/-era:4f;;;,--.)::;''''' ,R aimih‘,/),../RDIK I.; ,I% 'A ;): - ;"; ; '',5--7:':','/"Yriiingrefy 'Tit Iii 4,4'.C--.SZS"-f 4-4-.--4!..•1'41,-" , - ,! 1 ; :Th.-IV:414.,V:ki: . 4"77.:::. - .,p_•,. . . ) SCALE I:62500' I _ 2 5 1"ILLS UNITED STATES DEPAR14ENT .-117 r rn 0 ---' ' THE INTERIOR CZOLCCICAL SURVEY 1=..... 7 \ Moo o moo 0000 0000 I. 3 15000 I ta000Lo],,,,,,1003 Fur — —ilk 1 .5 a hi "-I .,--i I-4)-------' I '— CONTOUR INTERVIL 50 FEET —_, POTTER VALLEY QUADRANGLE CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2.2 15 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHY) mAnc/Nn.croOETC 0E011000.omum....i. SITE LOCATION MAP Prepared By: SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY PLATE LAKE PILLSURY (SCOTT DAM) LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 2150 West College Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95403 - L- - - •... - I 1-7 . . ..,,_ i: f • _ - . . .. .. • , ...• •. . . i . .!: • ., i••''' tS‘"V (..• •').-41'....1.' b.‘:, .ic'' • L'. 1-7(74''.' +.1.A.H....?:'V' l'I''. iliIIItlitT: ' :HI.:,11: .. '• •' 7.-1 '' . ...4\ti: -' ).•:. '''/"'. • ''.--- I i ::; •il?: 4 1•';: 4"5C.t\l' •••1,-iiii,;.A,•I C:;:.%:';'...??...5.: :7;•:- 'lliVI i•• 0:. 14.Z.L;iia -..it',::", T. IL. • „ -,1 , Liki ll:',....-c1;,','•-•<•, .:. '.:c•.'?::t.,..•1•1:111... .., ";;;.-••,'V(.11.:,:(:::::'7.'"-,1.. c-l.•,.(y-LI.: T --1.A.II' '...-1<2./: c?..,7 11 - -,:. Z, : ' •.:,.!.; : . . . ..• ' -CF ..-- .i. ), ::, ::.r.:-:;fr)7.)) ,':').::_ )ir,-.. :?%-,...)::)-;)f t)4' r:(5:);H::/)).:',$,`,').Wrr,;...:1,:lA..."..;\i?.:.i. ' !) .. it.-,..f... ''''''.)•F (`:-. 1::: er.5-.-:-- :X -:::1 • ---)Y; : , j*.-1- ..C1.:"T•;-..,',( :" •; 11/.:.-2--> .•-:•:...").1-1,5=:. iii•:)..:"1:i:C:,..cef'?:ttl':"':, ' c:• •Jj"..i, .i.c..-?'•f? '.1: V1,2 -1../,..:.(•. '::.'...i-,!' 'tilt:J..," '''' --.T.',' : • ? :-' ;7.':•••:,..f j:., % lii, •:-..•••[...) : f.;!:•:;:'..::::::'J6.E.:•:.±41, 16;L';:!; 3(..'S; :1t'4,t. ••••:•••••:'7) ,i.,‘kTIN.:,_ . . ,,i..::1. ,... ‘ if.f.- • ,) :' •••• '`,7 I::::r:-. '7 (9-_:[:::!):r:k 21-7,-- "±„ rila:)._•„].k1) :: Li)2:rr)1+1:17',). .i 211,.L.;1:.:(2.-'•-1:-1.'-'1C27 ..',?''CLI:S7.-t .'-.Y:It1 ...."';•:-::2A( ..I 'V \ 2.,.-;e.t;:-- 'c,-.,.:',-;::-..,::•,:;::', :ts '-'1,-.*(Si• 1.•:c'.1-:7`,:Y4e,:c..::::.:2..Fril.#?.1,1 /,;,:i:. •••v;•:!:----:,..1,,1):..r,).:. ••.,.r..„•• _.... ...,f,.:,,....,..:f• 1 ..:.• ......;.•. :,_ .:!. ,• / ! ..):, ..-_-..L:Ti:.: ,•,.;;•, „;,,,v,:.::-(t.1 ,. ........„.,..* :91?9,.5...!\......-. ...:.I .::..-.„:•... ,i.. .:_.. ",.: •:,..;.F.s.: ::_ .cf,.:3. 7,:•,. . .1:.•::•• r ,-.--..- ..ii..:' CI," 4.- •-•'''''•• •••\.v0,...4.•-• .*:-., 1 •ti-:: '' •';::' ' '...c. ■I'-", ---til---1:::-../:,/•'''. l'.1.1-.; -•k.., '-: 'I'..‘■.'.'L.:---._'',;•Lii../...'':. .71. ... If 'LC''''-• It .-I •.i '..:11:11..".:L:i M'..I.-=;7::.:7.,■,;'..'.:',';■',,..'1,: :.-‘ _ •••-._•;' I:- "7;5.1*7:!:'::..'•v3 ;•;=i1j."31.• I;\-z,L 2Lt':'. J '1.•;; .1.7.:,,•).,ri)),:li::.II:el,-).'--.;:ck--; ')),i'ir. ./„C: z .)=., r')-:•;..ri %.;?-•:_•)t:::)ka' :: -1::.,)r-:±: h ,,:i .- .-•••))1 r •:l„-....:),, . •-:•:...,-_.,r7::): :1::rr2:: ,)),"1:ii)g . . „?-:-/r771) _ FC:::•::: : :.: ) 27 :,<L ::-.. Tc.kik3)..?tirr) ,,cri:yr•::: \)„,,I)r:.,:r. 1:,,:r),--,k);±2.):-::, ::,,r,,:....)::!:;:,,k))• : :)..,. ), : .• ....)•;:r.:,?)r.),: .•-:, _)..:LL).:•;),1?e,Tr's-kre ,Arb-:',1-.-tr',--)5TriatEt!! 1__.>;L. -(!:.:."..i.i.(,':.: .:11.1').:: ...:irLii:ji.L(''',14../..:--,..:. :2:--..'2....,-,.:4'.:--r•-.. : ...):' .-'7--.----,.. T.L.7-.-.. e'.jpc..15°c.••••::-.‘7,',Vii...''.-,.?,-'-'.,7:-.'Clf. -: :• ::."._,,),-i-... ... 2 • -tii'l-:...,/:•'.i:i .!,,u i'i,:tfirtir:Ii(:,"'(; . ,. ,:;c Kti:::?.. •'-',1- , ;!-:,• • .‘; •• - : ‘,.., :i.r.7r,:;:..1..•:::-..;"• :... ,x,,,9'c ;.--.--,,t.!,: -:.::2,1•:•;-c-.±-.!..c".•.t•-..cc :',,i,,';?:',..1';;J:'':',. - ' I •.:' -\. ,..'.1, licrabLILIblt V '',2,,•‘,k. -,-. .....:•:-/ !.;'',_.---t!., -:-_,..7i- -;.;'..7"..:...__--__;:.c1;.-i';',:. ;.:.',2,-;.;__:-...zy—::::;::-.,:',5,1::,-;',';`,/::•:./ i.,'''',4.4.i: v-' •''''! ';";•. -•••• v.-..R:i, -,':'.-i . -.."'-;',,i '..,;..;,-: :: ; -2:Q..„. ! .;2 di,7:.„"b,.... ._„7-r. ,,,. ..;;::-...7.--.- -,:-.12-1"---_,Arr4:,-;,:"\i' ‘.";L:\?;;;--7..., `.....C.:•in.Pc':'-' I itf,://1,.• •-:... 'Ed‘1±I' '..)]:,:::;.;/;I- I..:'....: '..■''., (., : .•'T 1 . .. _."' • • ...LI ••‘-,•-i'' 1'1'r__.'73.^:;.-..4.C.r_;t2t.,.:::,.;/_.:.2.1 '.1 :L•A '••••:ii•:..:'.`12.-:L.:L.•'.1.' •-•:.-kj;"•-' -4,i, ./..i: _ ,--;--,-:.-:.-1..),in.- . 7..t :. -.:x:._ 2..-5.-t,„::,:,.:y.,,NL::::-., ,....,,. j .c,,...:.•11? !: (:-::••• /.'.y-,-..."..c:,.... ,.- . ;...., '': • ..jel j'..• ..---st:.' .--;'•:Y.C.I •n--".k.;''',.,'-'-•1;j,7•_::,,r it,:::::.Err.:: :: . ::•.);'; ‘).k_ : :).■.r:):•-,,ii ))?-. -7--:z:).''?it,' ,:`-,:..K...s.;:..±..4l. :1..1:2. 7:,;.,•,--T:S' "•': ::: t '.: .,„, (..I • , ,:147-, . T+/"Li4jCr .,'••: '-‘.•; : ' -;>•;.• ..•1 1'N.C-_,"7'11':*„;Y:7-.;c:c:-..1:2.;:;:P.: ':r.:::IZ----7-- „• 2' -kv' : i;,:i.-..::.:).'• .' ;'-'07.'. ' ": 1" • :. • l'.. — . . :'V ,.7j.... 1,is(p .-“,,H .;..;J:... .-,,.,.' '.. -.-..tp,',. - :-.,:<, -.L- L'-' ---'it' 1- '.7:•.::31±..• :.:1;;;- - iiii..- --.; ''.-..-', ..-(FL.-' .i../7- L: i Li. )1)%.. .../1 ..., ..41-\-. -,.::.-V:-.•_.51-i :si)11."-:'.--... rkil.i.-y.,::z.3-r -:-.--',&1'.-'-r.2 l'.'?"'1:7 :::(1: '-• :3,;irl• -77.* e •-•.),'••U: 'Ti::.. ?: 2 ,-.:-, rf ., •\., -r - ..,), 7:,..3 5(..... \\i . ..;.'..:i.. ..::: c;::'..,.y..:;,: ,T:0:: ::':-......4....-.:::,-F'il.:;.:1::(..I... .„r'.. .1 ): 72.1:).' .,. ,/, _.)21., ),":).,-) : ) „):),° ',:,-,;--.• - : r,.• /1..).i:,.'ii1.)..kr::.: 1 rr St-C6),;1:.: •:•.,7•.;•• _ :---;---,:c.: -IS: ( cif?: • • %; : - -• -,- •-•'.-" 14, 1•,, .K. . • ii .; • ...Y... .-2,.. ; • H.,_: ; id\. S. ',. • • 't Ht ') ..''• I LAKE eitzseuRr• • GLEN 1;•:_-__\:;. . ■ IS-• . .: 1 \ ' '!L_LLtL- . .-t __L-.:± (--.- 'Lic 1 '5.1".,.L.., 3 ' \.. . \-\c--.) 1' •LAKE -). . :GOLuSA' • ..., • NODGU9O 1 , I ?: ;'I'6 -'1.9,- ''.. ‘.) 4... ' , i l' :..f..%..7 •• ■ I.,-1 CouNTY uP!'" ;;.); I I •. -''..]:' • -I • - •14-,j A -(..11‘,` '1.1. )1. .r) -- , •Tr, ..,... 4,-,. . ra4I , -.. ,\_,34 %rca . 5u-----;, „.‘,.... ..\.„, .,:„..s s, i \ .,a . - - 2Torrcz- •-r)- •\:: :: - --.,-„)....._ ,..;) \, Iristinia."1 4 ..a„ , \ .. _. . rrt-,))1r„,.:r- ) .1 Fla' a-% .1-.5:71. V' iL\ .: II ' ' _....'t '', ':''AL ')' ': • .. . • .-\-----,\ -1 L.,E3 . ' ' .._ \ 118 ' MI: 'IC :- 1 '''' ' - -.:•/-. 1 ; . : -• ',I _,• ■ i. \ _I — t ' to t lt.?: • 1,--. ' -t. i . Ti. ,•••• . 17,7 ''' r -‘,-Sii I •''' , ;,--- k: .., 8.1 1-' I- .%:: - -- . :) _ <17 ' irc• ' ' , —. * SONOMA" „ -0 1,„ , '!. •:. gas, .-•,I___,/,,_ .., i: •.: ' 0 .•,., . . • - . I - . S y ETA \ \ o , -‘ = ,l.... ''' - .;J: V'.. • _ '. ''..i.° 17 r f_ I 0 13 41# .: ' •'• 18 v -1 ._ :•r; !•1 : • - ..' ' --.. ( - ;..'- ■ Ti:: II/ , N J-J. I L i. --.. .,j- : . • , ..,_ Ts Li : -- 1! Potter Villeykr, - . . .- , . r r MARIN to. L i. .COUNTY • • ...• , ,,, ofg,t1-...9;•..5),4a. ,ff. , ... , ..f • c 0 ' •••• . • . ' 1 - • . . I a 4.i, ,.. .2i,.• .:7."--,,i , 22., tar -- . 4, ,:-‘'' C) !,•• Mg TO SCALE _ ......,-.,_______. RANCHERIA C .... 9-'a_ SCALE l: 25O0 3 4“ILES UNITED. STATES:DEPARMENT OF _ I 1/2 a THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 5 i=-•--• -:•-•,----- 3000 0 ,_ L___, ..__, ----, . . CALIFORNIA i-1 •-.. .--, — „— 3— -exon 4000L - N2.000 ,__iscal ,__. te?.00 —4 e21000 nu . '3: 4 ,5 KILOMETERS SERIES ( I, 2 POTTER VALLEY QUADRANGLE 1 5 •I ,___---, „..1 ..... .--, 1-1 ,.. . , CONTOUR INTERvIL 80 FEET FIGURE 2.3 ...15 MINUTE. 1I9E5Sb TOPOGRAPHY)! 00720 LINEE'REPRE9rilit-P3 FOOT C01.1rOURS DATUM IS LIF.A1.1'SEA LEVEL ..- , . Prepared By SITE LOCATION MAP „ SONOMA COUNTY 'WATER AGENCY LAKE VAN ARSDALE (CAPE HORN DAM) PLATE, .2150 West College Avenue AND POTTER VALLEY POWERHOUSE 10 Santa Rosa, CA. 95403 MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - • • Figure 2.4 • PRIPJECT.DESCRIPTON SUMMARY • :9Z,MW:PotteriValley Hydroelectric'Project GENERAL INFORMATION Location. Lake&Mendocino Counties near Ukiah, California Rivers South Fork Eel River & East Fork Russian River FERC Project No. 77 Licenselasned 1983;Expires 2022 On-Line Date 1907 • Capacity (peak) 9,200,Icw Energy (aye) 52,533,648 kwh/yr HYDRAULIC DESIGN • Head (gross) 478 ft • Flow (max) 310th EQUIPMENT Unit 1 Turbine-Generator 4400,I&,horizontal Francis, 720 rpm Unit 3 Turbine-Generator 3187 kw,horizontal.Francis, 450 rpm Unit 4 Turbine-denerator 3060 kw;-horizontal-Francis,450 rpm RESERVOIRfWATERWAYS Scott Dam • Concrete,Gravity 122.5;ft x 805 ft Lake Pillsbury Surface Area 2,208 ac Storage Capacity 86,556 ec-ft Ave Runoff 412,000ft:,ac- /yr 26.6 in/yr Cape Horn Dam (diversion) Contrete Gravity 63 ft x 283'ft Van Arsdale.Reservoir Surface Area 65 ac Storage Capacity 600 ac-:ft Tunnels 1 &2 7,601 ft 7:ft dia, wood/concrete/steel Penstock 1,793,ft*2, riveted steel, 62 in to 48 in Total Tunnel/Penstock Length 9294 ft Tunnel/Penstca Cipacity (Max) '25 cf s PVTD Irrigation Deliveries (ave). 9,088.ac-ft/yr • UTILITY INTERCONNECTION Pacific Gas Electric • Potter Valley Project Substation 60 kv Transmission • 11 • 1 Figure 2.5 PROJECT PHOTOS (page 1 of 2) 5 y xr' - ; ' • O i Prlx far 1 n 9.414,12.2:44%;s : r a '}r r 'I t �J�„ �i4 •"5 „4:;,-:':.:. ..' 9i S 2 �""4 k3xx :@ v pp�i S i "rvt y ' , ayh ” ¢ Y. n r s ,� r '' ] x .. by r,^ ar e Yt ,rtOt: - $ I/ikx. k it �r_ttt iii ., , 3 ..../:#C.f 1 r•rho,c J lr;:;,,, j k� y }b f i �;$'r^'r•..2 #f�{y f i)'✓ y!1,, rV•S f} :4,A4 r �x P'— sr- r t I 4 _ .�.I-hsl . sa S s F3 r tti ,. ,. �• f .tYE Y h T Y A 4 x L 1 M 'r It * �j 1'14 i .I j t1 1r If S� „ 'r 1 1/4;•'"./..1.,. f L e AE,.... 'ae \M.e pit r F h • ., st IZ r • 1.. s r l➢• , r �. `r 4 i 1 r*"1i7,: 1i •,S'�tcY �y ,Y �r+4ti ii ; ro� r � ,y : t ��, r. 4 y i I 1;',.."'"2/ i y "e; '-, sd k. t. ! f . 1 1. C Ct'41;2.-111.1"1'1-7;. 1 iy'�iV 3sV. t r ' rn"11F '- 7� i d v 5} A fA 1 by e ° : 1 r v jit F ! n. a�' 4, A �. • rt,� •.; 'ri a vti,c 3 M.(1 ! Fri k :,;:S..:<,:-.\ "^+. k it . r i €9 '11;''r' 4 f: r v J,l ',lb •.`q i "'s_' '`M}ttt s. M 2t �.: 4t Y'�M �r 4 "�.�.t/e..121--", —cv+,.� _ r 4L,:.;10.na f+-1 , .- `(qr R are -"es.' 7 _ `' ; ip't .e it 1 S CY.Ac T.9^ w�'.5 . _.a t ..'4'44'k. '.'• _ . L a.q e ,t Y.. _ , Scott Darn. Photo dated May 24, 1995. • I c d :` :-:-.;t. :r r• .,,,i+ ..14-1..22 4 • J�SL j c i _.J �h��rx�P ti r r t4f r 1 r ra f 1C .-t.1: x 1 ti:, - ,c';'',."7 "." S? -2"1".74 : r P " n t + r `,1 ', { i i n" :{ i i.< 43:111 ::1-;-": b ta z ( ' ± 1.1.4t ti JY!J ( y a"y ;*_S�, otx tad... y i 41 \ tPj r 1 I[ e ti 51M CM , i t t arI' x c s�y� ':.0- .f N ,yt. }� e• 7&>T a� f��'7 W �'f'r4('� its: 1. n f l y' k rnl ' sy;'M1 L!' q ,1 CI A 'Lr Y� ,, t� fr S. 1 c •3 *11'2'4 y Cape orn Dam and Van Arsdale Reservoi H r. Photo dated May 24, 1995. 12 • Figure 2.5 PROJEC%'.PHOTOS !(page;2+of2) ,0 nrnim_. �n y tt� y 3; " „ K a G4 y3- Jy v ` �L Erli s "y `r -may 'y '4' `--: .- .i ;.- S `` +:.• "7 .. • S K I t ^'�fP I R =c k Y,•. • ,'i jl I s. i fi ' • r aq U� 1 -0 I 11 ih 1 . i t •_. 1 iii •. "-a, t a.l ;1, � 5 I --el u 1 t ,'�� Yq i "Y.,: a r I ' ' -.A'- - -d r r t5fi ds41 _ ,, T ":,• . . -a 1$ powerhouse: Potte r Valley p user Photo dated May 24, 1995: a �.. ® , as � 3 it:, 9 f �-na i d tom` A/ i !US G[-�Yf IoYI®l+ ','1 ` ^/C /li �t ; „ r i �y t F a .a..L I � � .7.,.”.:::n / e ; (/ r .E � �r yyrr 1 � � I • / Unit no. 1 turbine-generator inside the"powerhouse. Photo dated May 24, 1995. • 13 • Appendix .2 Worksheets for Calculating Average Annual Increase in Water Supply On April 27 1999 the United •States Department of the Interior (DOI) -filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory' , Commission' (FERC) %N a .Joint Department the Interiorational. Marine Fisheries' Service Proposed.'Flow Recommendation for .the Potter Valley Protect (PVP) (hereafter DOI\NMFS flow proposal) . On May 2,0, 1999 DOI filed with FERC "Software for Modeling the Alternatives for the Potter Valley Project" which consists Of Version ,2_:•0 'of: DOI 's generalized model of the upper Eel River. that was originally filed with FERC in October 19.98 ;Revised software was filed with FERC ,on July 19:, 1999 . Version 2 . 0- has the capability of simulating the DOI\NMFS flow proposal: A model run was ).Made using ;DOI ' S Version 2!.0 to produce the daily tunnel flows under the DOI\NMFS flow-proposal for the year 2022 Lake Pillsbury' sedimentation condition. Upper Russian, River''Without Demand Curtailments Two model runs were made using the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) upper Russian River model ,to determine, the impact, O of the proposed DOI:\NMES ,flow schedule and the, no Eel .River diversion scenario on the h drology of -the Russian, River without any curtailments in demand to ;mitigate the impact on water levels in Lake, Mendocino. Russian• River• Curtailment Allocation Model The SCWA ,Russian' River curtailment allocation model; determines the magnitude of the curtailments .which would occur in the Russian, River basin upstream from the Dry Creek ;confluence if water divetsions ;and 'rediversions were limtedfo. those authorized by existing. riparian- and appropriative water rights withSCWA;authorizing no additional usage under SCWA• "water rights., and determines-how the curtailments would be distributed among the,.hydrological subunits. Two model runs were made for the :proposed DOI\NMFS flow schedule and the, no Eel. River diversion scenario. Upper Russian River With Demand Curtailments The demand input files. for the upper Russian River model. were then reduced' by the "curtailments determined from the curtailment allocation model and additional upper; Russian River model runs' were made for the proposed DOI\NMFS flow schedule -and. the no Eel 'River diversion scenario.. 1 . • • • Tables- 1 and 2 The annual curtailments,, the additional Coyote Valley Project water available each.'year from Lake 'Mendocino under- SCWA water rights -to satisfy those curtailed demands, and the net curtailments if the additional available water was used are shown in Tables 1 and 2 . TABLE 1 - ANNUAL• WATER RIGHTS CURTAILMENTS WITH NO PVP DIVERSIONS MAINTAINING DECISION 1610 FLOWS WATER SUBUNIT CURTAILMENT .IN3ACRE'FEET ADDITIONAL WATER NET CURTAILMENT IN ACRE-FEET YEAR ,COYOTE UR-RV M RUSSIAN. AVAILABLE COYOTE UR-RV M RUSSIAN 1975 9,393 9,570 0 0 9,393 9,570 0 1976 10,629 10,829 2,067 0 10,629 10,829 2,067 1977 10,629 16,746. 5,110 0 10,629 16,746 5,110 1978 8,950 9,082 275 0 8,950 .9,082 275 1979 9,051 10,108 406 0 9,051 10,108 406 1980 8,950 7,969 0 0 8,950 7,969 0 1981 8,950 12;728 1,668 0 8,950 12,728 1,668 1982 _ 8,597 4,790 0 0 8,597 4,790 0 •. 1983 - 9,040 518 0 0 9,040 518 0 1984 9,393 8,056 7 0 9,393 8,056 7 1985 8,950 11,045 649 0 8,950 11,045 649 1986 I 8,950 9,704 2;363 0 8;950 9,704 2,363 1987 8,950 12;567 2,143 0 6,950 12,567 2,143 1988 8,950 12,204 1,339 0 8,950 12;204 1,339 1989 8,950 9,028 222 0 8,950 9,028 222 1990 9,884. 5,118 0 0 9,884 5,118 0 1991 10,629 15,015 5,581 0 10,629 15,015 5,581 1992 9,051 13,129 2,620 0 9,051 13,129 2,620 1993 8,950 4,811 0 0 8,950 4,811 0 1994 9,884 15,250 3,617 0 9,884 15,250 3,617 1995 8,950 7,477 0 0 8;950 7,477 0 annual mean 9,318 9,797 1,337 Lower Russian- ;River without Demand Curtailments Using the Russian River flows at Healdsburg from the upper Russian River with demand curtailments model tuns as input, two additional model tuns were made using SCWA' s lower .Russian River model to determine the effect the proposed DOi\:NMFS flow schedule and no _Eel River diversion scenario would.hage on Lake Sonoma, Dry Creek and the Russian River downstream from the Dry Creek. . • 2 • TABLE 2 ANNUAL WATER RIGHTS CURTAILMENTS • WITH PVP DIVERSIONS ASSUMING 'THE PROPOSED DOI\NMFS FLOW SCHEDULE MAINTAINING DECISION 1610 RUSSIAN RIVER -FLOWS. • WATER SUBUNIT. CURTAILMENT IN ACREFEET ADDITIONAL WATER NET CURTAILMENT. IN,ACRE=FEET YEAR COYOTE URUR=RV. M,RUSSIAN AVAILABLE, COYOTE UR=RV' M'RUSSIAN 1975 0 .695 0 0 0 695 0 ' 1976 0 .6,056 0 0 0 6,056 0 1977 2,215 14,125 4,315 - O 2;215 14,125 4,315 1978. 0 520 0 0 0 520. 0 1979 0 2,055 " ,0 0 0 2,055 0 1980. 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 1981 0 4,732 0 0 0 4,732 0 1982 0 0 0 6,146 0 0 0 1983 0 0 0 ,21,709 0 0 0 1984 0 1,328 0 0 0 1,328 ' 0 1985. 0 2,482 0 0 0 2,482 0 • 1986' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 4;444 0 0 0 4,444 0 1988. 0 3,857 0 0 0 3,857 0 1989 0 2,888 0 0 0 2,888 0 1990 0 1,023 0 3,321 0 1,023 0 • 1991 0 7,582 2,728 11,552 0 7,582 2,728 1992 0 3;286 0 - 0 0 3286 0 1993 0 0 , 0 2,083 0 0 0 1994 0 5;814 0 0 0 '5,814 0 1995'. 0 0 0 7,370 0 0. 0 annual mean 105 2,490 205 • Tables ,3 and. 4 contain the additional curtailments which would oceur when Lake Mendocino or Lake Sonoma dedline to their minimum pools and as a result insufficient water is available in the Russian River or Dry Creek to satisfy the water demands- The minimum pools are 3 , 0.00 acre-feet and 20,000 acre-feet, respectively. In the last column, labeled lower Russian River, the ;amounts also include the' 30 percent, curtailment in SCWA water transmission system. diversions' which is :required under certain hydrologic conditions pursuant to the terms of Decision 1610 of the State Water 'Resources Control Board. • 1110 , 3 TABLE. 3 ADDITIONAL CURTAZLMENTS' . WITH: NO PVP: DIVERSIONS NAINTAINING' DECISION' 16fi'0 FLOWS WATER SUBUNIT CURTAILMENT IN ACRE-FEET ACRE-FEET YEAR COYOTE UR'-RV M RUSSIAN 'DRY CREEK L RUSSIAN 1975 0 0 0 0 0 1976 0 6,649 7,015 0 0 1977 0 9,568 10,958 3,670 51,227 1978 0 ..812 808 65 10,640 1979 0 59 '112 0. 0 1980 0 ,294 35 0 0 1981 0 4,556 4,246 0 0 1982 0 :601 206 0 0 1983 0 0. 0 0 0 1984 0 0 0 0 0 1985 0 3,442 2,874 _ 0. 0 1986 0 759 298 0 0 1987 0 4,435 4,170 0. 0 1988 0 5,012 5,241. '0 0 , 1989 0 2,353 1,890 .0 6,991 1990 0 10,958 8,964, 37 20,073 • 41111 1991 0 4,253 5,495 332 41,690 1992 0 5,587 5,264 '0 16,735 1993 0 1,190 410 0 11,668 1994 0 9,052 9,310 2,092 50,380 1995 0 860 530 4 3,352 Annua! Mean 0 3,354 3,230 295 10,131 • • 0 4 • TABLE 4 ADDITIONAL CURTAILMENTS • WITH PVP DIVERSIONS' .ASSUMING THE PROPOSED DOI\NMFS FLOW- SCHEDULE MAINTAINING DECISION 1610 RUSSIAN RIVER FLOWS WATER SUBUNIT CURTAILMENT IN,ACRE-FEET'ACRE-FEET YEAR COYOTE: UR-RV N RUSSIAN DRY CREEK L RUSSIAN. ' 1975 0 0 0 0 0 1976 0 0 • 0 0 0 1977 0 6,077 6,866 0 18;710 1978, 0 557 472 34 • 7,505, 1979 0 0 0 0 0 1980 0 0 0 0 0 1981 0 0 -0 0 0 1982 0 0 0 0 0' 1983 0 0 0 0 a 1984 0 0 0 0 • • 0 1985 0 _ 0 0 0 0" 1986 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 . .0 0 0 1988 0 0 0 0 0 1989 0 0 0 0 0 . 1990 0 Cr 0 0 0 • 1991 0 0 -0 0 3,260 1992 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 • 0 1994 0 0 • .0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 218; Annual Mean 0 316 349 2 1,414 0 5 • Appendix 3 Summary of the California. Energy Commis=sion Natural Gas Price Forecast The California Energy Commission (CEC) is required under Section 25310 (a) of the California PublicResources Code to prepare a biennial forecast :of natural gas prices, supplies, and demand for California over a. 20-year period. The methodology used to generate the end-use forecasts ,consists of two steps. The first step entails analyzing the continental market based on resource availability, natural gas trantportat-ion capacities and costs, and expected demand for natural gas in: regional market sectors. The North American Regional Gas (NARG) model is the principal tool used by CEC to assess natural, gas market fundamentals and generate the California borderprice forecast. Basic inputs to the NARG 'model include estimates of resource availability, production costs, pipeline capacity and transportation costs, regional demand projections, and other parameters defining themarket fundamentals!: The model also applies a methodology to account for reserve appreciation over time The second step focuses on determin-ing the end-use prices Aft for each market sector ;in the state. The costs to distribute and ler deliver natural gas for each customer class, is 'determined. These costs and the California border prides resulting from the first step are then combined to .generate the end-use prices for each market sector in each natural gas service region within the state. The Energy Information and Analysis Division (EIAD) of the CEC forecasts that natural gas supplies will retain plentiful for the next several decades. The total gas recoverable with today' s technology for the lower 4'8 states is estimated to be about 975 trillion cubic feet (TCF) , enough to satisfy current production levels for more than 50 years. Production from Lower 48 states is expected by EIAD to increase from .17 . 1 'TCF in the 1994 base year to 25. 9 TCF in 2019. Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountain supply regions account for most of the increase during the next two decades. Alberta continues to provide' the bulk Of Canadian ;production. Canadian exports' ate projected .to rise to 3 . 9 TCF in 2014 and remain at 'that level thereafter. The avera.ge .wellhead price in the Lower 48 states is expected by EIAD to increase from $1.:55 per thousand cubic feet (MCF) in 1999 to $2,. 05 per MCF in 2019 (in constant 1995 dollars) , representing an .annual average increase of 1. 4 percent. In Canada, the average price is projected to increase 2 percent per year from $1. 10 per MCP- in 1999 to $1. 65 per MCF by the year • 2019 . 1 4 Four producing regions ;supply California with natural gas. • Three of them (the Southwest U. S. , the Rocky Mountains, and Canada) provide approximately 85 percent of all gas used in the state. The remainder is produced inside California. Total, supplies are. expected by EIAD to increase from 5 :9 billion cubic feet (BCF) per day in the 1994 base year to 7 . 8 BCF pet ,day by 2019 . No significant changes are anticipated by EIAD in the market shares of supplies from these four supply regions over the forecast horizon. Southwest supplies will continue to dominate, holding approximately half of the California market. Canadian producers will supply another quarter of the market, with the remainder split between Rocky Mountain and California .suppliers. The average California border price is expected by EIAD to increase by 1.,9 percent per year from $7. 68 per MCF in 1999 to $2 . 46 per MCF in the year 2019. rfb c:\wpwin\scwa\pvp\wacrepvp.wo • • • • 2 .t\ 0, • CAPITAL PROJECTS PLAN WATER TRANSMISSION SI A •ta •••••:,- suet-1-W '37.-1 g - . "^:"' kei • • 4 •.4444.: ,44,■4 • C St "al%• it.14 r tale- mtv c'&41* -111P-91111,1,4fJt-q= ittO"MA: 43, ith "P'1/2ti 11.AU ,• FY 2000/2001. - 2004/2005 E • e SCWA LEGISLATIVE CONTACT LIST • 10/13100 • SONOMA AND.MARIN COUNTY.LEGISLATORS Senator Diane Feinstein P 202-224-3841 F 202-228-3954 USSenate • fsenatorefeinstein.senate.govj Hart Building#331 Washington, DC 20510 •Mike McGill,AA, P 415=536-6868 F 415-536-6841 .525 Market Street San Francisco,CA 94150 Senator Barbara.Boxer P 202-224-3553 F 202-228-4056 Hart Building#112 Jsenator(@boxersenate.govj Washington, DC 20510 Karen Olick,AA P 415-403-0100 F 415-956-6701 525 Market Street •San'Francisco, CA 94150 Congressman Mike Thompson P`202-225.331:1 F 202-225-4335 US House of Representatives IM.-Thompson af�mail:house.govj Cannon Building#415 Washington; DC 20515- David Flanders, Leg. Dir. P 707-226-9898 'F707-251-9800 1040,Main Street#101 NapaCA '94559 Congresswoman,Lynn Woolsey P•202-225-5161 IF 202-225-5163 US,House of Representatives Jlynn.woolsevbmail house.00vj Cannon Building#439 • Washington, DC 20515 Janice:Morns, COS P'707-542-7182 F'707-542-2745 1101 College Ave..#200 Tom Roth, Field Rep. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 from Rothe m ai I.h o use.govl CA Senator John Burton P916-445-1412 F 916-445-4722 Capitol Building#205 Mary Schallenberger Sacramento, CA 95814 Alison Harvey;Chief Asst. P415-557-1300 F'415-557-1252 445 Golden Gate Ave.#14800 Margie Goodman San Francisco, CA 94102 CA Senator Wes Chesbro P 916-445-3375 F 916-323-6958 'Capitol;Building#3070 Bob Fredenburg; Consultant Sacramento, CA 95814 fbob.fredenburgesen.ca:aovl Tracy Perry,COS P 707-576-2771. F 707-576-2773 50'D Street Suite 120A Jim Leddy,.Dist. Dir. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 f iim.leddy(o sen.ca.govt CA Assemblymernber Kerry'Mazzoni P 916-319-2006 F 916-319.2106 Capitol'Buiiding#3123 fkerrv.mazzcnieassemblv.ca.govj Sacramento, CA 95814 Patti'Habel,AA P 415-479-4920 F 415-479-2123 3501 Civic Center Dr.#412 Leslie Weber,AA San Rafael, CA 94903 CAAssemblymember Virginia Strom-Martin P'916-319-2001 FI916-319.2101 Capitol Building#3146 fvircinia.strum-martin(5assembly.ca oovj Sacramento, CA -95814 1 1 IT ?f. • , Robyn Boyer Stewart, COS, - P 707-576-2526 .F-707-576-2297 50 D Street Suite 450 Lorena Anderson, Off:Mgr. • Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (L o re n a.An d e rs o n a s a m.c a.q ov j CA Assemblymember Pat Wiggins P 916-319-2007 F 916-319-2107 Capitol Building#4112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Matt Reilly, COS P 707-546-4500 F 707-546-9031 50.D Street Suite 301 Lawrence Jaffe, Field. Rep. Santa•Rosa, CA 95404 Other Legislative Contacts Association of California Water Agencies P 916-441-4545 F 916-325-2316 Bob Reeb, Legislative Affairs Dave Bolland , Regulatory-Affairs, davebaacwanet.com Kimberly Dellinger Brett McFadden, Legislative:Advocate brettm(a acwanet.com Grant Davis, Director, Bay Institute P 415-721-7680 F 415-721-7497 Tim Smith, Sonoma County Supervisor P 707-565-2241 F 707;565-3778 Paul Kelley, Sonoma County Superyisor P 707-565-2241 F 707-565=3778 Michael Delbar, Mendocino County-Supervisor P 707-463-4221 F`707-463-4245 Steve Kinsey, Mahn County Supervisor P 415-499.7331 F 415.499-3645 RandyfRaines, North Bay Watershed Assoc. P 925-299-6733 F 925.299-6736 • David Bunn,CA Department of Fish and Game P 916-651-6443 Randy Poole, Gen. Manager, SCWA• P 707-526-5370 F 707-544=6123 Selected Regulatory Agencies Ed Anton, State Water Resources Control P 916-657-1247 Board Pat Rutten, National Marine Fisheries P 707-575-6059 Service • Larry Week, CA Department of Fish and P,916-327-8847 • Game Maria Rae, CA Resources Agency° P 916-653-5656 F 916-653-8102 Legislative Web Sites Assoc. of California Water Agencies htto://www.acwanet.com/ US,Legislation http://thomasloc:aov/ CA Legislation htto://www.assembly:ca:gov/acs/ • • • >j - • WATER TRANSMISSION:SYSTEM CHANGES FROM PRIOR PLANS Storage Facilities Four projects were completed in FY 99-00, minor scope and scheduling changes were made to several ,projects, and three new projects (Kawana Springs Tank No 2, Reservoir Seismic Valves for Cotati Tank No 3, and Purchase of Rights to Oakmont Pipeline) were added to the FY 00-01 capital plan for Storage Facilities. Pipeline Facilities The Cotati to Kastania Pipeline was renamed (now a part of the South Transmission System Project) and rescheduled, the Mirabel to Cotati Pipeline was rescheduled, and the Eldridge to Madrone Pipeline was added to the FY 00- 01 capital plan for Pipeline Facilities. Common Facilities Several scheduling changes were made and..ten.new`projects were added to the FY 00-01 capital plan for Common Facilities. • rf .1 0 I,0 C ''C C 1010:0 C 70 C p: . 'v1ICIC In '9i - r- N O h c•a I'O en �fY •. O c N — c ..p:- IC N v I -4 .C:0 C 10 C ;010 O C .O O O% C O :C C; p ,1 v1 Of0 �/? IY Cr :.N N:O .S u'^ en • .1I ‘o ter `O " 1 N I . Z Z oo o ';o o c cio o ° p:hc C a c cr - Co Ni F z: F' p N N C Cl Z O_ L O. a loo oc o >0000 o 'O O O� r N �n ol,n c Oi: • .:O v7 0 II. ,n ors ci CO i Ni —• en I w !iG CA. N I I• "I Z. to d Q ° • o o o— • c .o cic a o o • O NQ •o o i c c p: r. C �.oi C,.c o pi. ,. �. '1 N O I 1 Lm hLe 1� Cr RS. �" C C fV N b C♦< • U < e I rt 1 V rr O l t Fv :Q o A ° ;C O 4x- Q Q 4414.47u.-a,,,,,, 0.Q . A g7, �,p F i x ' 3 44-.. } O . Z > C o-� Z : Y c t � Pctir , nt ; �— .M ^ - w a4f tr s M - • 6 �Q k � cm b o a t . 1y . Q O' >7('''';' ';'•Z wF 4 - lA "p y6 P fe sd45.a k,O o, 9fr :7i mi #1 ;,. t n se: r g{i,„ P N 'fix° �-il^ 7"s -. t "4 ix"i° � ,��.�: _x,a("...1 �,_ . L - '.y. I ! u dl. — C . z; E. I j• z z o � I ' v o ' . u o Q z. • z. . . ..r.. Cf. _ a'. C ;Cri Q:IL VJ L1 i , ; z C Q � .v u � c C" mu p'O w � ►�' � a , u ,al'- Z': c V ., c o- c Z Gd c a F:. s, . =ILL rn r 'C'U a Z..ca c.101-a C D, = O,, • 0 Gr: 1 .E U, Z. i �ii, In .,.; O V .O. 'O. N i xVF — O O'. O C O O C. C 00 0 O O 0:. NW)' O 00' O: O N C 10 O O r; N R: • cn • crj 01-- O O O O O O C. O O O co . 0 O a co z ' • ▪ U 9 O N N N 0 ,V.• uo :. V] U O N N. F -' N ,, L4.• Z c4 o 00 0c 'oo g p. -Oo 0 0 0 O. - O N N ,N 'Vi • H O 0 N cp •O 2w • Z eQQPg"i, G O C C C C O C 'C C 0 C 0 Q. 1'O z v1 O O O. O O 'C O O OO • Q `� O p •Q O O N N N. Vi O [�'- O• .F. W N N ^.t Q C L _ U 'Y^7- t+* ak' .JO' et d g7 Q4 7 x Wit'* '4'^' Qom.. 1 i ' L7 Z 'a a; 7 r sa'S "'$' e z. A, 4,,, gt ,m0.-At;4�" 'F° 2S 0ig..x. � , � �"�'" j f ....- c. >,'' 'a: Q ''yy.W.I. 03 „ ,fig 0�.�.-'.:rt-a " t-SJ% pt- iiict"g,.,�.a x.. gm 'ttrttib ao d'. E , «,,-,4x. -as7c- ' -� r: °°„s:, yr 7, aow � <.,�os.nom, +,vf. V: C L ,� €, «tea rr nv . ,•-'n -�x rS" s-.'-ac'«r74 'u-'3,.,"} +" 9 4 �•= Z �i .a y '� ra tvro•`�Y.. Na,'*"" .tn� 5 t e ms. 4 -a1, u- r ro . 'vim' „f r-ig r' — "'+ • U.�Cd¢r-+ ".^,�� f ,. ^r`S i't'Ei '�4- fi9", G`e'Y-..�•+.ne 4d-.t45 ?-s-. ¢v.;. x�„'- ^ z+.t:.o " ,.-+ . -., G' F �. n ,wsrs µ„r �Pa :- rr ,. ;,°`4-.'" n„,f': xt-"r" , S .�,"x w"T `'N .`zk,5'a'.. w - :� 3 to ka +fin O -'L17v "' n r t k" .5 4p 'xd ' � ♦ a£t,� 4 'A�r mr Q G !A'�"naE' 2r�."i�e� "v'ra xr:ry r .cxi.*t'�'r,£..r.?�.��'•3�. h,;�wcr a,*rr�.`,��`".`F�a^'r�x��S„ �a'ros�tx'^�....P?a�.-2 :uWcu.:-:: WI N C C" = y = h = = . rH rye" cn 3 c _ O F '7 U c o -- �> G m ?n , >, m Z Z u o o y, C. "o c te• ,,, C�. .5. U rn m. N o. = 'o ? G _ .= o. Q O • ^ -- ` . O G O ff _ ` + a .. • C O m O = O 0 _ 0 U m L'7 Q vi I.0'•N G LA' N G O •0 'n VI I-1 0 C C •L. N = C E p O C E. "F z o c h F o oN o R a E- .4 o C) C. 7 F-. y L7' e c h n Fc-+ a o m C7'e cn N _yz¢ ^ C. - 1 ti p Z 3 3' 3 = 3 a D C r. r. 'o o aa' m - a.. a s -z. c X X Y U U 2 2 a x m • ../ • C. 00 0 00 88` • 0 C C 0 o C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ±p O a 01: C !T N O O N c.r ' I. 00 C C ,!..w. g O'. O O' O O. O 0 C 0 co 0 0 O C ' 0 7 'ref- O co' -= o m µ cl an .,...."'.4 F `n g 0 c o o c O 0 = 0000 o , o0 0 5� o. 0 0. .0 ' 0 0 0 0 '0: [I.1 N 0 v01 le) ....4 U o N ,,. a,� 0 00 O o O C o 0 o C o•0.00' 0 25 °o '2 C +ax: 0 ''` k-,w w` o 0 0 cRo 0 0 0000 '0ooc.: o0 o C 0 0000 .00 C. C co 0 0 C 0 0 o c. io 0 0 0. o 0 v'1 tIn. O N OO O O 0. v) u-a 'O' O O 0 N 7'j m N N OOO a v ^ N O cn C 0 .2 N r h . ,,,..__, pppp g, .LRF Op per+ C 'r a9° 'H' C�,NL� rr`' :20� -�CfQr, 1,e42,, • r= 1e4 v a�f 5-4, v!ra c� � S, NY n;Q �, N yn.*OO . ..CiF , t 4s- x ..:er. ..2''s t+Cr' a#,' ?-�amo f 6., #'r r f a iii.^„*t ??,s + •,.. ` r"`' .= -,- ...-^ tniti `�, '•,1: Fes t _ Y :'3">'•. ttArt.: e'> ��,4, 4t: ;"iera•. -'" 'r'2d d -z,,,yd'.vzg »∎ittl5..s:,-,..ftw,,t; _ CO 4,0 C O U =� N. 0 `'' O LI —• w U _ C 6. N y C. 0 0 "' ^ O O ffO _ G v E G C Vi o., 1-1.1 v U O C .: E to. c c C7 ? C7 C . 0 o E� e - �O N r. R co C...N c G •C. U E .. Y U ' A 6 U c m o .` °E- E b .0 c C .- m - = n - 'a ci C in w � O ' 0 0 C U .. u C o 0 ` U L o v 3 0 04, F '0 -1 m E d - X O co C C v N ,L, U . v C C = . e4, as m m L - L] .�cr C ■ C m 0.0 wr1 0 0 U = U20 _1 C CC...) cn ':n'' J 4.) - y y c L -] c 4. C .y c E F. ❑ a .� r . . C _o 0 U m a • (-, M n , n, L- N O Z v v O o L o n c• 0 !' E.c. 5 ca cn � o Cc' 2 ;,, ... , r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 O O -O O - O 0 0 '.CO! ■O. In 0 N ,, a — ;f1 ts::'. 0 0 0 c o o 0 0 0 O' 0 O O O 0 Q? :0 0 �" p1 c a N: O :g it :O Oy ,A. O ^ N O 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 `0 0 0 0 0 0 O 8: ,C` o h, O 0 O irt: 'dpy • o ^ N N 0 n O p L O C - O=; ;N; 0 C' U N a • O �— o00 000 0 o 0 co 0 0 0 0 " 'p Q. N v1 O O' 0 0 O O � '� 0 - N N ,O O � 1tY3 0 nx N : en -. ' O - . O ^ N Ad a„ T#3 — g O C ^ 0 0. 0 C 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 t0 Q O C O co o'. 0 0. -,O O C 0 0. O O O S 0 0 vn O C 0 O 'O 'O Ol0 co. 0 0 O ii 0 v1 O N [n. o N -O V1 - v-� 0 't b en 00, N N to en N N t. 7 �` O M' N1 MP' GQ: N T!'Yi ..-..a , � r ,. ..p � d a 5 H n .-y p 8 p p pt " �Q Oa"0 GS + y CL e 5 i Q v l vl rn � ;r'� 4 G 'b A O •wl'Ir - - whC . ' b nc„az ND p 1n *. ca r-. r d.. , ;L: ' a h %e " � �a i 0* .z, % s , f.Q c asn t t Y r w 1 'a E .uk�. O IX � €L` F M xY. 'h ir . . a .w I i m s t W � ` � � � � iv ..r nx? A : i ks. as � Y1 � _ S� �. r-s 1a4,,ee�n.,w++OA';' a_.,, ki% C Z E ^ o g c 0 c. `j o U o' o �.." o= - ,= "'i - '8 C Z, = a=i m o O mo Od ', ui m '.0 n c:_ m o ,-,✓I 0. O.0 7 .` � -0 m._c O 0 ` J—�6.U O J = > C O O ou F 'G > > ca w > > ✓I v c c ,3ac C ,o s c cv3 ¢ u � ¢ v . c' = q 't. w .0 = w'„ . - Z O .. C 1-,.) Z a �W o L C U > ti y = y P ,� E r. c ' o c a y .-7 F- = L` F c °- c 0 _ _ 0 ¢ Z U - _ - o 3 o y �_ T n O N v > - C r �. y F L:.1 du T. zi y o m a °2i' y = o ' F ci m C y _ F- R 'y > C 2 c $ 0 7- Sonoma County Water Agency An Analysis of the•Adequacy of the Petaluma Aqueduct Water Delivery Capacity By Jim Flugum and Robert F. Beach • • March 1998 • - Table of Contents •3 Introduction 3 Purpose 3 Background Petaluma Aqueduct History 6 June 1997 Aqueduct Performance 9 Projected Petaluma Aqueduct Water Demands 12 Structural Remedial Alternatives 13 Kawana Transmission Main, Pumping Plant and Reservoir 13 Ely Pumping Plant Modifications 13 Parallel Petaluma Aqueduct from Cotati Intertie to Ely 13 Parallel Petaluma Aqueduct from Ely to Kastania 13 Analysis of Alternatives • Non-Structural 16-Structural Remedial Alternatives 16 Reoperation of Stafford Lake Treatment Plant 17 Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse in Petaluma 17 Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse in North Mann 19 Water Conservation Curtailment Criteria 22 1974 Agreement for Water Supply 22 Maria Municipal Water District.Agreements Conclusions and Recommendations 25 • 2 • 'Introduction. Purpose The purpose of this ;report is to examine the current capacity of the Agency's water transmission to meet the water supply demands expected to .be placed upon the Petaluma Aqueduct during the. period: preced-ing, the construction of the implementation of the proposed Water Supply and Transmission - System Project. This report also investigates potential interim structural alternatives 'for increasing: the capacity of the Petaluma Aqueduct and ;potential non-structural alternatives for reducing water demands on the Petaluma Aqueduct. Finally, this report reviews the current curtailment criteria which would be applicable in the event of a water deliuery capacity shortage in the Petaluma Aqueduct and recommends steps 'which may be taken to avoid such. shortages. Background The Sonoma County-Water Agency (SCWA): Operates a water transmission system pursuant to the Tenth' Amended Agreement for • Water Supply and Construction of the Russan, River-Cotati Intertie Project (Agreement. for Water Supply) entered into November 14, 1997 between' the Agency and, eight cities and water districts in Sonoma. and Marin. Counties. This agreement authorizes the -financing, construction, maintenance and operation of facilities' with a capacity to deliver ,water at an average rate of delivery' during the maximum month of 92 . 0 'million gallons per day (mgd) . . During the week, of August 11-17, 199.6 the total water in storage in the Sonoma County Water Agency's transmission system declined to less than a total of 40 million gallons of water in storage, which is about a 12 hour supply The total system storage capacity is 108s:8, million gallons., In the late evening of Tuesday, August 13, 1996,. the water level reached a low of 9 . 9 feet in the Ralphine .reservoirs, 11. 8 feet in the Cotati Reservoirs, and 16.5 feet in the Kastania Reservoir. This situation raised concerns' as to the adequacy and reliability of the Agency' s -water production facilities, and the degree of risk of curtailment in deliveries to the Agency's customers. A SCWA report. dated, February 1997 examined the capacity of the Agency's water production facilities 'to meet the water demands of the Agency's customers, assessed "the risk that water deliveries may have to be curtailed in the future due to • inadequate water production capacity, and identified a series of measures necessary to improve the reliability 'of the system. The Agency experienced a. second decline 'in total water in storage 3 • during the week of June 12-25, 1997 to 46 . 7 million gallons . • This triggered a second SCWA report dated July 1997 , which examined the extent of implementation and effectiveness of the measures 'recommended in the February 1997 report and made certain additional recommendations. The decline in water in storage, which. was: analyzed , in the July .1997 report, was attributed to a combination of factors. While the severe .decline in storage would have been avoided if the recently constructed Russian' River Well Field (RRWF) had. been, fully operational and if by June 12th at least some of the RRWF pumps had been valved to pump into Collector No. 1, the performance of the transmission system in June revealed some serious water production system, de'ficiencies . . • The most serious of these deficiencies was the .decline in infiltration rates in the Mirabel infiltration ponds which- was evident in June. The average of; 0 10 foot per hour infiltration rate actually experienced during May, June and early July is well per produce g below the 0 . 17 ..foot er hour needed to roduce 60 mgd with t he largest pond out of service (assuming 25 mgd of direct Russian River indicated that this deficiency The experience with Pond 3 in July may be corrected with a change in operational practices. While not a factor in the June storage decline, the lack of All a standby pump at Wohler was also identified as a serious water production system deficiency, Also, the restoration of the Agency's emergency well production capacity to at least 7c&0 mgd would 'add at least 1. 8' mgd of emergency production capacity and was identified as important. Finally, certain changes in plumbing and operational practices at the RRWF-were identified to be necessary.. The wells should be replumbed. so they do not pump to waste in the, Mi:rabel infiltration ponds, which- impairs the Agency's lability to p electrical equipment at the wells, maintain the ponds. Also the electr which is subject to damage when inundated, must be replaced in the spring in, a timely manner so that the wells. are all fully operational during the summer high mater demand p eriod. Notwithstanding the low water in storage exper'i'enced -during. June 1997 , the transmission system would have had the capacity to meet all water demands experienced in 1997 with certain operational changes. To assure adequate capacity is available in the future, the following changes were recommended and either have been 'implemented or are currently being implemented. infiltration A ttion�ratesiin investigation filtrati'causes ndsfhas:beeniiri infiltration rates in the MirabeY infiltration ponds has :been initiated - • by the-Agency and. is .bein dill entl ursued., O eratin procedures, have been be adopted which will insure the ponds perform 4 f • Also, the construction, tfr ,Pond 5- will be :completed by the end of 1998. 2'. Operational rocedures 'have been modified to address 'the need for may b meffe fail acklyh1CInhthe meantime, any interim planpfor t,he�iohler the maintenance in inventory of a snare motor .othe�' com onents at Wohler may be effected utilization of the RRWF has:bbeen developed and is being im lemented which::addresses, the potential need for standby-_pumping capacity at Wohler, in addition to the other demands placed on the RRWF. 3. The plans, and specifications currentlyl in. preparation to rehabilitate the 'Todd Road, well and replace the 'wells -at Occidental Road and Sebastopol Road should' be.. completed in sufficient time that the rehabilitated ,and new wellscan :be fully operational by the summer of 1999. 4. Plans 'have :been.'developed to replumb the.'RRWF wells so they pump to waste in ,theMirabel, sett'ling 'pond rather than the infiltration ponds during startup. • 5 . Operational procedures have been modified so that spare parts which are necessary to repair the RRWF after inundation' by winter . floods, and which have-;long delivery times, are !maintained in inventory so that the RAWF wells ar'e ,fully operational during the summer high water demand period. 6. A feasibility study of: replumbing the RRWF so that the wells not pumping to Wohier can pump .water to Collector No. 5, as well as directly III into the Cotati Intertie, .has been completed. . The schedule for implementation this change is dependent upon the outcome of current water quality studies underway in Collector No 5. The earliest this change can be -implemented will be in the summer of 1999. 7. The final currently authorized collector with a design pump and collector capacity of 20, mgd ,should be constructed on the former MacMurray property now owned 'by the Agency. ,.This project has been been given a high priority and .wil be completed as soon as an orderly process will allow. With the implementation of these recommendations, the water transmission system is .expected to have the capacity to deliver water at an average rate of delivery during the maximum month of 92. 0 million gallons per ;day. The' actual average_ -rate of delivery to all Agency water transmission system customers in June 1997 was 72 . 0 mgd. Accordingly', if 'the implementation- recommendations are fully implemented, including the construction of the final :authorized collector, the water production capacity of the transmission system ;is not expected to -limit deliveries: from the Petaluma Aqueduct `for. a number, "of years. 5 Petaluma Aqueduct History •' The Agreement .for Water Supply sets forth the delivery obligations -of the Agency by establishing, delivery entitlements in terms• of maximum average monthly rates of delivery in mod for each of the water contractors at Section 3 . 1 (a) . These- delivery entitlements are listed in Table 1 in the following section of this report. The City ofPetaluma' s delivery entitlement is 17 . 0 mgd from the Petaluma Aqueduct., North Marin Water District's (North Marin) delivery entitlement is 11. 2 mgd from the .Petaluma Aqueduct.. Entitlements of the Cities of Cotati and :Rohnert Park are 1 . 7 mgd and 1 .:0 mgd respectively. The delivery limit to "other Agency customers" from the Petaluma Aqueduct south of the Intertie Aqueduct connection is established by Section 3': 2 (c) as 0 . 5 mgd'. The deliveries to Cotati and Rohnert Park may be made from either the Intertie Aqueduct or the Petaluma Aqueduct north of the -Ely Booster, The total deliver obligation from the Petaluma Aqueduct is 31. 4 mgd. The 'original 1974 Agreement ,for- Water Supply provided that when the combined water requirements of Petaluma and ;North Marin reach- a peak rate of 20 mgd, or earlier upon the request of Petaluma, the Agency would install 'a booster pump on the south part of the Petaluma Aqueduct (that part south of the connection of the Petaluma Aqueduct with the intertie Aqueduct) sufficient • to increase the capacity of the south part of the Petaluma Aqueduct from 27. 0, mgd to 40'..3 "mgd, except that the required capacity could be reduced to 31-. 8 mgd if the , A,gency,, Petaluma and North Marin. agreed that suff-icient storage had been installed on the south :part of the Petaluma Aqueduct'. The ".sufficient storage" reference is to the Kastania Reservoir-, which was constructed in 1985 . The Ely Booster was constructed in-I985 . Prior to .construction of the Ely :Booster the total delivery entitlement from the Petaluma Aqueduct south of the pumping plant was 23 . 4 mgd. The prior Agreement for Water Supply provided that after: the booster 'pump was installed on 'the south part of the Petaluma Aqueduct, Petaluma's entire; delivery entitlement of 17 . 0 mgd would be available. to Petaluma from 'part of the Petaluma Aqueduct south of its connection with the Intertie Aqueduct. The prior Agreement for Water Supply stated that the Agency would not be obligated to deliver water 'to North Marin at a rate in excess of 5% above North Marin's average day demand during the maximum month unless North Marin shared in the cost of construction of new storage facilities . It added that, irrespective of its delivery entitlement, North Mann would nevertheless have the right to a flow rate of 14 . 8 mgd 'in 'the 'Petaluma Aqueduct . The rationale for the 14 : 8 mgd flow right in the Petaluma Aqueduct recognized as vested in North Marin arises from the 6 • prior agreement between North M • arin1 Petaluma and the Agency, dated May 9 , 19'60 and last amended August 19•„ 1966,, which was superseded by the Agreement for Water Supply. The 1980 agreement provided fbr the con"structibn of the Petaluma Aqueduct Prb5; ct in four par-ts . Part A was the aqueduct extending from the original Santa Rosa Aqueduct to McNear Avenue in Petaluma. Part B was a second, 6 million gallon reservoir constructed at the Ralphine tank farm. Part C was to be two booster pumps, one in Santa Rosa and one at Wohler. Part D was a new intake and pumping plant at Wohler and an aqueduct. paralleling the Santa, Rosa Aqueduct . The 1966 amendment substituted the Wilfred Booster for the two pumping plants originally called for As the need for Part D approached, the Agreement for Water Supply was negotiated which provided for the construction of the Cotati ,Intertie Project in lieu of the additional Wohler intake and pumping plant. As each part of the construction was triggered, the delivery entitlements of North Marin and Petaluma, were stipulated by amendments. to the 19.60' agreement. After Part C was constructed, the agreement provided for a delivery entitlement of 4 . 0 for Petaluma and 6 . 5 mgd for ,North Marin, which approximated the actual deliveries to the ',parties. North Marih' s share was 6 . 5/ 16 .-5 , or 62% . This same ratio was the 'basis for the current right of North Marin to a flow rate of 14•.'8: mgd in the Petaluma Aqueduct. North Marin'"s share in the 23,. 4 mgd capacity of the Petaluma Aqueduct south of the Ely Booster prior to construction of the pumping plant is 14. 8/23 . 4 , or 63%:. Construction under the.'1960 agreement 'wa!s financed from the proceeds of Series D and G of the Agency's 19.55 general obligation bonds. The repayment was based upon entitlements until the 1966 -amendment, which changed the repayment basis to water deliveries . Water deliveries continued to be the basis for repayment in the Agreement for Water Supply. The vesting in North Marin of a right to a flow rate of 14:. 8 mgd in the Petaluma Aqueduct simply recognized the actual financial contribution made by North Marin vis-a-vis Petaluma in paying the cost of the aqueduct. North Marin' s right to 14 . 8 mgd flow rate right is explicitly acknowledged in Section 3 . 1(b) of the Tenth Amended Agreement for Water Supply. The vesting in North Marin of a flow rate of 14 : 8 in the Petaluma Aqueduct does not affect its delivery entitlement from the Petaluma 'Aqueduct, which is limited to 11. 2 mgd. However, it does have a. practical effect in that the proposed Agreement for Water' Supply and. Expansion of the Russian River Water Transmission System• recognizes the 14 . 8 mgd flow rate vested. in North `Marin in the allocation of costs of the proposed expanded transmission system. Section 3 . 3 (a) of the Tenth Amended Agreement. for Water Supply provides that water contractors may take delivery of water in excess of their deliver entitlements provided that: 1) such delivery does not impair the delivery to any .other water 7 , contractor or "other Agency customer" ; 2.) the water contractor receiving the excess' delivery is then proceeding with plans and . funding for an expansion of the transmission system; and 3) either a) all the water contractors approve, such excess delivery, , or b) such excess delivery as Made ,during a period when another water contractor is not using its full :entitlement, :such excess delivery does not exceed the unused amount of such contractor's entitlement, and the contractor consents to such delivery, An agreement exists between North Marin and Petaluma, dated November 15 , 1950, 'under which Petaluma has consented to delivery of its unused entitlement to North Marin. North Marin in a letter dated May 2,0, 1992, agreed that surplus delivery entitlement available to North Marin and not used by North Marin may be =used by Rohnert Park. • • 8 • I • June 1997'Aqueduct Performance: The: Agreement for -Water Supply establishes' limits an the maximum rate of delivery to each, of the water contractors and other customers. Marin Municipal Water District' s (MMWD) delivery limit is established by separate, contracts between the Agency and MMWD. The entitlements of water contractors to take deliveries of water from the Petaluma Aqueduct, and the MMWD delivery limit, are shown, in Table. I. The :actual deliveries of water to each of the water contractors from the Petaluma Aqueduct and to MMWD during the month of June 1997 is also shown in Table 1 . TABLE 1 PETALUMA AQUEDUCT WATER 'CONTRACTOR-'S ENTITLEMENTS AND AVERAGE JUNE 1997 DELIVERY RATE Maximum Average June 1997 Water Entitlement Rate of Delivery Contractor in mgd in mgd' North Marin Water District 11. 2 13 . 9 Petaluma 17 . 0 13 . 2 Rohnert Park 1. 0 3 . 4 Cotati 1. 7 0 . 9 ' Other Agency Customers 0 . 52 0 23 Marin Municipal Water District 7. 4 3 . 9 Total (excluding other Agency customers) 32:34 35 . 5 'The average monthly rate. of delivery is prorated from billing meter- readings and reading dates. Proration' is necessary because the meters are read -monthly but the billing period does not exactly correspond -with the calendar month. 2The limit on "other customer" deliveries is 1. 6 mgd but only 0.. 6 mgd of that amount may •be taken from the Petaluma Aqueduct south of the Ely Pumping Plant. 'Total delivery to- other Agency customers from the Petaluma Aqueduct. • 411 4The Petaluma Aqueduct was not designed to deliver water to Marin Municipal Water District during the summa=months. The Aqueduct was only designed to satisfy the entitlements of North 9 • - -- - . The average rate of delivery to North Marin during June was exceptionally high,: On May 22 , 1997' the Stafford Treatment Plant was shutdown for a scheduled two-weeks of maintenance after achieving a fiscal year total production of 2 , 136 acre-feet. In early June,, an unusual strain of algae bloomed in Stafford Lake, which resulted.. in taste and odor problems in the finished water and operational problems with the conventional filters, delaying the restarting of the treatment plant until July 11. During this period North Marin relied solely on the Agency for water. This caused the North Marin average rate of delivery in June 1997 to be approximately 2 . 6 mgd higher than would otherwise be expected in June_ The performance of the Petaluma Aqueduct during June 1997 is shown in the following two graphs. 'GRAPH 1 KASTANIA 'RESERVOIR :JUNE 1997 FLOW AND TANK LEVELS 20.00. 1J.., H 40.00 ,. .. ��. I I I I i I I I I + + I + I r i 1$100 — ._+ ' `+ + 1 + K 30.00 r+ ` I I I r , + • + I I III . i / I +.+ r — r - If r 0 10'.00 + r+ 20.00 �N r I . p I 1 + . ` — + r • 5:00 '— 10:00 — Kastania.Flow(NMWD+MMWD), — - = Tank Levels • 0.00 t 1 + i I I + 1 I I r 1 I i 1 i I 1 i r i 1 + I + ) I- i- i I r '0.00 6/1/97 618/97 6/15/97 6/22/97 6/29/97 Marin Watet pistrict, Petaluma, Rohner-t Park, Cotati,, and 0 . 5 mgd tot other Agency customers', which total 31. 4 mgd. 10 • Graph 1 shows the Kastania tank levels, and total flows to • NMWD and MMWD during June 1997 . Graph 1 shows' that, although the Ely ;Booster- operated nearly continuously throughout. June 1977 , the Kastania tank level declined continuously until approximately June 22 , when it reached a low of about 13 feet. A voluntary reduction in deliveries by MMWD in the amount of about .4 mgd on June 26 allowed the Kasstania tank level to recover by about June 29 . • Graph 2 shows flow through the Ely Booster and the corresponding suction and discharge pressure. Graph 2 shows the discharge pressures at the Ely Booster operating at a maximum of about 140 'psi, which is only slightly below the 150 psi design pressure for the Petaluma Aqueduct. GRAPH 2 ELY PUMPING: PLANT JUNE 1997 FLOW'',AND PRESSIIRES Ely Operational Data - June 1997 1 40.00 — -- 300.00 • 1 JI:1 I I I ill 1 t u it „ I i 1 1 11 I ' I It,1 i'. ; ! I.I II �.`I, II' ll /.'I ■'l,.I ' 0 Ir.l'ill . 111 \-11 11 rill 1 �1 yl- 11 - - -I Li L ,G loll II /01r r- - J 1 _ I'_• r L I 1 1.1I L il i-t �I r 1 M II - I I ,�1 - 1 III I 11 I 11 I 1. 11 11 C 1, 1 I I 11 1 1j1111 I II 111 I I li III 1 1 II I 1 1111 It I (1I 11 Ij111 I. Il I I I 21 -I I I I It I L - _.1 1 I l- 11 I-I - 11 11�11 - I. 1 11 T I 200.00 30.00 I I I I 1 I - I. �. - �I 1 I" I 4 f u II VIII II II till LI 1 1 I I i Il. 11111 I LII 1 111 I �I I I• 1 1 II I! 11 1 1 1 I I. I I 1 ill 1 1 I 1 I Il 11 0 — i T 1Y _ -II j. - ITI - - -I I r 1 — a.• N �' 1 I'I' 1 I r 111 V V `l 20.00 — -y l 4 - c 1� — 100.00 i ` I • X11 - - - rqr - — _ _ . EIYlw- 1 I Ely discharge pressure I — 'Ely suction,pressure 10.00 1 0.00 • 1 4 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 T- 6/1/97 6/8/97 6/15/97 6/22/97 6/29/97 11. Projected Petaluma Aqueduct Water Demands • To project the future Petaluma Aqueduct water demands a linear regression .equation of the `peak monthly demands on the Petaluma Aqueduct was determined using the Agency's raw peak monthly water delivery records from, 1980 through 1.977'. The results are shown in Graph 3 . The raw monthly water delivery' records, are based on meter readings which did not necessarily occur precisely at the beginning and ending of each month: the data has not been adjusted. For instance, the raw meter reading data indicated an average demand of 38 : 8 mgd in June which, is the figure shown in Graph 3 . However, the majority of the 'meter readings embraced a period- of 33 d'a_ys . When adjusted for a 30- day month-, this figure. becomes 35. 5 mgd, which is the number reflected in Table 1. In spite of this additional variation, the R2 for 'the . linear equation is, 0. 90 .. The actual equation is Y = 1 . 406X - 2768%5 which is considered to be representative of the historic ,growth in -demand. In other words, since 1980 , the . demand on the Petaluma Aqueduct has increased very consistently at a rate of 1. 4 mgd per year-.. In the absence of int'eryention, it is not unreasonable to expect 'that this rate of growth' in demand on the Petaluma Aqueduct: will continue in the future. GRAPH 3 4 PROJECTED FUTURE PETALUMA AQUEDUCT DEMANDS 60.00 - I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I _- I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 11 1 _ I'. I I P - I I 1 I I 50.00 - I I I • I I I . 1' I i I I I I I I 45.00 - I I' I I 9 t I I ' I I I ( 1 1 I I I I - I I. I I i- 1 I i I I I I 1 1 40.00 _ _ J _ _ I_ _ L _ _I _ I I I. I I Q u -.1 I I I I I f _ I I I' I• I I I I I I _ I I f 1 I I I 1 1 _ I'� 1 . 1 I •30.00 — — — _ — 1 t 4 I I I I I I _ I 1 i I 1 L. i t 1 1 I I 25:00 L J I 'I LII 1 1 I I 0 1 n a ❑ 'I I I i I, io 20.00. ' — —1 — — — E — —1 — — -- - - — -- — — r - - — — I— — - — -1, — — I— — T — '.I /yu_/(1� I 1 I I I I f I _/ 1 1 I I i' I. I 1 I 15.00 — . I I i I 1 I I I I _ I I I I I I i 'i I I. I I l I 10.00. I I. ■ b' I I 1 I I I I I I. 1 1 1980 1982 1984 1986' 1988. 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 • Structural;Remedial Alternatives Several structural remedial ,altet atives: Which have the potential to increase the capacity of- the Petaluma-Aqueduct have __ been identified. They ate described below arid shown in Figure 1. Kawana Transmission Main, Pumping Plant and Reservoir • The Kawana transmission main, pumping plant and reservoir consists of approximately 33 , 900 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline connecting the existing West Santa Rosa Transmission Main ^at Occidental Road with the Petaluma Aqueduct at Hearn Avenue, a booster pump station near Wright Road, approximately 9 , 700 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline between the Petaluma Aqueduct and the Kawana Tank site, and the 10 million gallon Kawana Tank. These facilities will raise the hydraulic grade line on the Petaluma Aqueduct at its junction with the Russian River-Cotati Intertie, and will eliminate. the need for the Wilfred Booster Station to pump water northerly. Ely Pumping Plant Modifications 410 The Ely Booster pump. modifications consists of a adding a third 225 horsepower booster pump at the existing Ely Booster. Parallel Petaluma Aqueduct from Cotati Intertie to Elv This alternative consists of paralleling the Petaluma Aqueduct between the °Russian River-Cotati Intertie and the Ely Booster with approximately 21, 100 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline. Parallel Petaluina. A4ueduct from Ely to Kastania • This alternative consists of paralleling the Petaluma Aqueduct :between the Ely Booster and Kastania Tank with approximately 15,.220 'feet of. 30-inch diameter pipeline (West Payran Street) and 17 , 500 feet of 24-inch diameter pipeline. Analysis of Alternatives The Agency used its EPAnet hydraulic model to analyze what, if any, increase in capacity might 'be' realized from these alternatives . Several assiimptions Ve-ta made for all simulations of the EPAnet 'model. The demands on 'the ::Santa Rosa, Sonoma and 13 L GUERNEb1LLE RD \ \ \ / AV Y �E ��� _ J S > W COLLEGE ab OAR \\ \ I -Roo_o\ HALL RD SANTA ROSH\ .i \ to -U--- e \ �•\ OCCIOEN TAL RD 000 i I \ \ / N v \ .<ti e I I PGs r _ 'nee: e*ooe • \ e \ m+ s'y. KA WANA SPRINGS I3 O a, OEGh. H A\ ( P MR/NG-OhA T I� '- .. KA.WANA SA-INGS g0 �P\ I n -4i- . RESERVOIR O. 1' \ o' s 9j.\ TODD ROAD I o Po hw \ L\ /1 lCeP\ J 6 %,A '1i 1 t �o • \1 \ � o 7 j -...--•-••••-----\\__________/ is e'•Z�\ o \ . z \ . \ RO I ER - R :OHNCRT.t: \P4- \ EXP WY I /HA a - 411111 9 s}o, � COTATI \\\0 0 I, con- G • 4.c- . eE,•.aOHlRO e RD -4pO \ �' j toot,Po • 0 7 4 I a PU PI G PLANT 6� Oi/F%AT/ONS • yc 0 BOOEG ' p0 > 4 e'Q-TOAALS RD p O..cc, * amit 24 ,I, . t LEGEND rti ' — — EXISTING AQUEDUCTS �-sv, ® KAWANA TRANSMISSION MAIN PETALUMA 0 1 3 e o ®,_®'®❑• PETALUMA'.AOUEDUCT PARALLEL COTATI AQUEDUCT TO ELY BOOSTER = SCALE SIN MILES 1.5. ,$ONOMA E WATER T'' PETALUMA AQUEDUCT WATER DELIVERY. CAPACITY ANALYSIS g WATER FIGURE ELT I STRUCTURAL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES A.0 E N C Y • • Forestville Aqueducts were assumed tb, be the approximate current peak month demands. Rohnert Park, ,Cotati, Petaluma and North Mann demands .were assumed' to be their current monthly average entitlements, of 1. 0, `1. 7 , 17 . 0 and 11: 2 mgd respectively. It was assumed that production capacity et 'the Russian River Was adequate to meet all demands within the system.. For all simulations;,; the determination of adequate capacity in the Petaluma Aqueduct was taped' 'pp the ability to keep at least 10 feet of water in the Kastania Tank. at all times . The simulation results are summarized as 'follows: Simulation 1 - The model simulated operation Of the existing transmission system to quantify the capacity of the Petaluma Aqueduct with the existing transmission system.. With this configuration, the average monthly capacity of the Petaluma Aqueduct, is. approximately 35 to 36 •mgd. •The .Capacity in excess of existing entitlements available to deliver water to MMWD is approximately 4 to 5 mgd. Simulation• 2 -; The model simulated operation of the existing transmission system with the addition of the West Santa Rosa Transmission Main, Kawana Transmission Main, Pumping Plant and Reservoir:. With this configuration, there is a less than 1 mgd increase in the capacity in excess of existing 0 . entitlements available to deliver water to MMWD.• Simulation 3 - This was the same as simulation 2 , with the addition of a third booster pump at the Ely Booster. The results of this simulation indicated that without paralleling portions of the Petaluma Aqueduct, no additional capacity tante gained from a third pump at the Ely Booster. Excessive head losses upstream of .thebooster station cause the suction pressure to .drop to unacceptably low levels, while excessive head "losses downstream cause the hydraulic grade line tb fall below the bottom of; the Kastania Tank. Simulation 4 - This was the same as simulation 3 , except that the parallel pipeline between the Russian River-Cotati Intertie junction. and the Ely Booster. was added. With this configuration, the average monthly capacity of the Petaluma Aqueduct-is approximately 38; to 39 mgd. The capacity in excess' of existing entitlements available to deliver water to MMWD s approximately 7 to 8 mgd. Simulation 5 -- This was the- same as simulation 4 , except that the .parallel pipeline between the Ely Booster and Kastania Was added with this configuration, sufficient capacity is available to deliver the, proposed new water contractor entitlements and to deliver 1'2 . 8 mgd of water to H . MMWD. 15 Non-Structural Remedial Alternatives Reopetation of stafford Lake Treatment Plant Stafford Lake is formed by Stafford Dam, a 79 'foot high earth-fill. dam structure constructed by North Marin in 1951 on Novato; Creek,. Stafford Lake has a capacity of approximately` 4 , 300 acre-feet. Just as is th'e :case at other northern California reservoirs, rainfall and runoff in the Stafford. Lake watershed generally occur from November through March, resulting- in high turbidity in the reservoir during those months. Because of this, and because the water demand is higher during the summer, the Stafford Lake treatment plant has primarily been, operated by North Marin from April through October- when the water turbidity in the reservoir is lower. A treatment plant operator must be ons'ite during plant operation: The treatment plant is. typically operated from 12 to 14 hours per day at a production rate of 5.:0 mgd resulting in daily water production of 2 . 5 to 3 . 0 million gallons. North Marin' s annual water production objective for the treatment plant is -2 , 000 acre-feet. The Actual average production from 1991 through 1977 was 1, 680 acre-feet;., During the same seven year period the average daily rate of production during June on days the plant was in service was 2 .:57 million gallons. North Mar-in has increased the annual production goal of the • Stafford 'Lake treatment plant to 2, 100 acre feet and has employed an additional treatment plant operator to help assure that+ this production goal can be met. North Marin has also embarked,: on a program to rehabilitate the treatment plant which has been in operation for more than 44,9 years The plant facilities are in need of rehabilitation and repair in certain process areas and require 'process upgrades to be able to continue to satisfy water quality regulatory requirements.. The first phase of -the. rehabilitation program plan has recently been completed and North Marin is currently reviewing it and deVeloping the scope, of work for any necessary further action: While these actions bySNorth Marin are commendable, and will help reduce the peak month water ,demand on the Petaluma Aqueduct, securing of the maximum potential benefit from the Stafford Lake treatment plant would require operational modifications .in addition to those currently planned by North Marin. The proposed reoperation of-the Stafford Lake treatment plant would consist of adding a third shift of operation during the months of June and July' with' a production objective of 450 acre feet per month during those two months. This would be an average production rate of approximately 4 . 7 mgd, which would approach the treatment plant's normal operating rate of 5 : 0 mgd. 16 • The ,producti'on objective for April, May, August, September and • October would be 2'50 acre ,feet per month, which would be an average rate of: production of. .2-6 mgd. The total annual: production .ob.jective would; remain at 2, 100 acre-feet: North Marin would probably incur additional costs associated with this change in operation. If So, an equitable :ar-rangement for reimbursement of those costs by the Agency would need to be developed prior to implementation of the proposed reoperation proposal . Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse in, Petaluma The City of Petaluma certified a final, environmental impact. report (EIR) and approved its Wastewater Facilities Project and Long-Range Management Program in June 1996 . Th'e City issued a notice of preparation (NOP) of an effluent -management plan and supplemental EIR for the' Program in September 1997 . The NO? identified` six alternatives for a long-range reclaimed wastewater reuse program which included a demonstration wetlands as well as several option""s fbt Urban and agricultural irrigation. The urban options involved extending a pipeline to the Petaluma Airport area to' support an estimated 300 to 400 • acres in permanent urban irrigation. Additional lands identified by the City as possible urban reclaimed wastewater irrigation sites included the new "Rooster Run" golf course, the remaining airport property, "Prince and Wiseman Parks,, _ Casa Grande High School, Luchessi Park., and. expanded irrigation of the Abode Creek golf course. Irrigation of the Petaluma urban separator and the schools and parks near the urban separator were also identified as possible sites, In a September 1997 letter, the Agency 'offered to provide to the City funding to expand 'City's urban reclaimed wastewater study to include additional areas such ad; :the Lakeville Business Park; McDowell, Bernard Eldridge,. and Kenilworth Schools; Petaluma Fairgrounds; the library complex, and other .sites which are adjacent to these areas. An administrative draft' of an analysis of Petaluma' s effluent management alternatives dated February 6, 1998 identifies a, ;number of potential reclaimed wastewater irrigation sites and potential potable water savings. These are listed in Table, 2 . Reclaimed Wastewater 'Reuse in North, Ma=in, In November: 1997 the',North Marin Water District and the Novato Sanitation District received a study of the feasibility of supplying recycled water :to the proposed Bel Marin Keys Unit 5 CIO Golf Course and Renaissance Estates Golf Course performed by Nute Engineering. The study-.determined that it is technically 17 feasible to, serve ,either or both of these proposed golf courses • with reel-aimed wastewater from the Novato Sanitary District' s Ignacio treatment plant. TABLE 2 SUMMARY -OF PETALUMA RECLAIMED :AASTEWATER REUSE POTENTIAL 'Any 'Maid Dmwd! P.4 Dapl.ad Dapl.m6 ye.d.a N.o(Wand, 1571491144 Leman 'I1mlpl.dl ;pa' I S 4SW7n.. D®m6.pr Seem wed 3.ar.194 'WI r.'rys l9a J.raam 500 420 1323 2500 _ 00 AdcbeCak Goff Ca,c(aiallim) 400 : 202' 334 375 -. Adobe Ova Golf Cam((rim IMO: .. ..40• - 123 _. - 134' 230" 'W _. 'D Cad Gnnde Itch School 10 -69 -:79 430. A 49 Ga Creak Oven Saco Arroyo Park 2.3 61 '.10113 < .. A . - _ . _ 10mcwPot' _ 'll :II _ -34 2501 H A _ 40 : '73 120:-_ 400 7$: Rim. Run OWE Cams 310 ID3: I - 111 fN. ,. 1303 • P.iaa Put' 9 :II _ - '36 303':_.., . V II - SaMs441. 253 ' 111; 234 - 2.510' ..101 __ 71, -336 BmmdEJdid3.Scholl - - 3 10 16 -16 .. i lsthai Park 5 - -- Rl - 30 - 49 340. V 30. ' Swb�ll 30 •30 _ 0 • GmMiv Silo - l 12 :ID' ] - IDf W: 13 Mc D•.eLL Flamlu,Sebal 7 10 16 • 1164' - 'A .510 Kmil.vlk Main Mel School - 115 16- '26 273' A "16 - Focnomde' - 30 .194 ,132 . • '1.72 V 94. •Kmilwnh Park.. - _. 3' .. ']_ :1: -l '30 'A ' 3: kdwm Camla Me Kink,^. gScaevi 4 10 ' 16 I • 161 - A, 10 _ • "II H149 240 1 2429 206 42 0. • IhWmSmu.me(4 looLl 32 _dOC. II J^ leG •30 Sonoma Mn Sebal _ - -..- . 21 —ID i 16 I M. A. 10 Es*Nat _ - - .I4 12 -. 9. 36' A Sad.Rai lmice Colley. 5' 10 16 - -:114 A. - 10 - _ Pak behna Cali* 5 S.bi sl :41 D ' '1134 350 0 , .23 W' . Foamy Awridtim •40 D !136 ..730 - - Lakeville Be®.Put 3 .. - 10 16 121' Pined Nmhh..Batts Pak :31' 51" - - _ -94 __ '974 . _ . _ 311 . Sal acl - n =❑31 1244 1375- ' 0. 0, :151 .T.aIPac i.11hbn lead 373 1.14$ • 4252. 17936- Ta.4'spa I;I4i .Taal sfma cam 241 .133 '354 7w4 oay,, 1.141 24951 Cm,im 45,: 319 245 1314 d. Mali Cr.k A new 18-hole go-if 'course is'. 'prop,osed as part: of: the Bel Marin ..Keys Unit 5 development which will contain 120 acres .of: irrigated turf;_. In addition' therTe 'is an additional 17 acres ,of landscaping- in the proposed neighborhood common ,,areas social center and school site-. The„Renaissance Estates, development is planned to include a golf ,course with approximately 12 acres of- irrigated. turf and a contiguous 15 acres .of land to be developed as a driving range,. The planned development will also include .152 single familg residential lots; a, clubhouse and open space-. Th'e reclaimed wastewater reuse potential at these two -proposed developments is presented in Table Z . 18 ' . TABLE :3 SUMMARY OF NORTH. MARIN RECLAIMED WASTEWATER, REUSE 'POTENTIAL AT BEL_MARfiN REYS 'UNIT AND RENAISSANCE -ESTATES Irrigated Total Annual Peak Month Rate Area Use in acre-tests of Use in mgds • Bel Marin Keys Unit 5 golf course 340 1 . 05 common areas 42 0 . 14 Renaissance Estates golf course 340 1 . 05 driving range 42 0 . 13 Total 764 2 . 37 • Water Conservation In November 1996 the Agency's Board Of Directors adopted the five-year. update of its Urban Water Management Plan required by the:State Urban Water management Planning Act,. The Plan identifies a number Of best management plan (BMP) water conservation measures which were selected for implementation by the Agency and its customers. These are designated in the Plan as Program One measures. The Program One BMP water conservation measures selected are described as follows: BMP 1: Residential Water Audits. This measure targets existing residents. to reduce indoor and outdoor water use, especially during peak use periods. The top 20 percent of residential water users' are offered afree -audit that includes indoor water.-cdnaervation measures and development of an irrigation • schedule. BMP 3: system 'Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair. This measure targets the water distribution system of the Agency . SThe Nute Engineering study included high and low projections. The figures in Table'. 2 are the high projections . • The low projections exclude the common areas and driving range and are approximately 27% lower. 19 and its customers. The audits includes source meter testing, Sample accuracy testing of customer meters, and estimating volumes of unaccounted for water. Distribution system leakdetection uses sonic listening equipment. BMP 4: Metering. This` measure consists of requiring meters to be iristalledon' all water service connections and billing to be based on water use. "Retrof-itting of unmetered connections may be implemented over a ten-year period. BMP.SA: Large Landscape:`Wateraudits and Incentives:; This ;measure consists of conducting audits to increase the efficiency of irrigation of sites containing more than three acres of landscaping and providing cost effective, implemeatation. incentives and 'Oul*_ilingUal information and training. BMP 5B: Commercial/Industrial/Public Incentives for Irrigation System Upgrades. This -measure consists- of offering customized rebates for any device or technique that can be shown to reduce irrigation water use by more than 7501000. gallons per year per application and reliably provide those savings for at least five years. BMP 6: Low Water-Use Landscape Ordinances: .This ,measure consists of enforcing existing ordinances in Sonoma and Marin, Counties which require the installation of low water use plants. and efficient irrigation systems'. Enforcement is accomplishedduring the building, permit approval process and. by random site inspections of net./ construction. .BMP 9A: Commercial/Industrial'/Public Indoor Water Audits: This •�' . measure consists of contacting commercial, industrial. 'and public building customers and conducting free indoor audits and follow-up audits and providing incentives sufficient to achieve customer implementation of audit recommehdations.- BMP 95 Commercial/Industrial/Public Outdoor- Water Audits: This measure consists of contacting commercial, industrial and public building customers with less than three. acres .of landscaping and conducting free audits with the goal of establishing optimum watering rates. BMP 12: Water Efficient Landscape and IrrigationSystem Incentives; This measure consists of offering incentives to .residential . customers for the installation of water-efficient landscaping and irrigationaystems. BMP 16A: Ultra Low-Flush Toilet Replacement: This measure consists of offering rebates, free toilets and/or installation to residential customers who replace their high water use toilets With ultra low-flush toilets. BMP 163: Incentives for Commercial/Industrial/Public Toilette/Shower Replacement. This measure consists of offering rebates, free plumbing fixtures and/or installation to encourage replacement of existing toilets and urinal valves and shower heads for commercial, industrial, or public agency customers. - 4 ent Plan estimate of annual water savings which .would result from the full implementation of the Pic Urban Water Management 20 • Program ram One t= • ban water conservation measures by the Petaluma Aqueduct. water contractors, is sented in Table 4 . TABLE 4 URBAN, WATER, MANAGEMENT PLAN ESTIMATE' OF PETALUMA AQUEDUCT CONTRACTORS WATER CONSERVATION SAVINGS Water Contractor acre-feet average mgd during peak month° North Marin Water District 1, 200 1. 6 Petaluma .1, 000 1 . 3 . Rohnert Park 1, 400 1 . 9 . Cotati 80 0 . 1 Total 3 , 680 4 . 9 These savings would directly offset Petaluma's demand for water from the_Retaiuina Aqueduct. - • 1. 5 . 6Assumes the ratio of peak month usage to annual usage to be 21 Curtailment Criteria • Aareement for Water Supply As noted above, water contractors may take delivery of water in excess of their maximum entitlement only if each of the following conditions is satisfied. 1.. That such excess delivery does not impair or .delay the delivery to any other customer of its entitlement: 2.. That the water contractor receiving the excess delivery is then proceeding with plans and funding for an expansion of the Transmission System, sufficient to supply its needs in excess of its entitlements. 3 . That either (a) all the water .contractors approve such excess delivery; or • (b) such excess .delivery' is made during a period, when another water contractor it not using its full entitlement, such excess delivery does not exceed the unused amount of said contractor's entitlement, and said contractor' consents of its consent to such delivery. Marin Municipal Water District. Agreements MMWD may take delivery of water from the. Agency-'rs transmission system pursuant to the Third Amended Offpeak' Water Supply Agreement in an amount not to exceed 4 , 300 acre-feet per fiscal 'year and at delivery,. rates not to exceed 760 acre-feet (approximately 8 . 0 mgd) per calendar month. During the five month period May 1 through, September 30 the delivery rate may not exceed 360 acre-feet per calendar month (approximately 3 .,8 mgd) without the prior written consent of the Agency and the total quantity of 'water- delivered shall not exceed 1, 800 acre-feet. MMWD may also take, delivery of water from Agency's transmission system pursuant to' the Amended Agreement for Sale of Water in any fiscal year in an amount not to exceed either 10,000. acre-feet or MMWD's maximum delivery limit for that Fiscal Year Upon request by MMWD and subject to all of the terms of the Agreement., the Agency .must make such water available to MMWD at Agency's Kastania 'Reservoir at delivery rates specifed 'by MMWD, but not to exceed rates calculated by dividing MMWD'-s maximum delivery limit by 10 , 000. acre feet and multiplying, this quotient • 22 Y • by the following .amounts: '(a) 9 million gallons per day between 110, May -1 and October 31 of each year, (b) 12 million gallons per day during the months of April 'and November bf each year; and (c) 15 million gallons per day during all other times.. The maximum delivery limit was 5, 000 acre-feet during fiscal year 1996-97 and 4 , 000 acre-feet during the current fiscal year. Accordingly, the initial maximum delivery rate: under the- Agreement for Sale of Water was 4 . 5 mgd. It is currently 3 ..6 mgd. To the extent .permissible under the Third :Amended Offpeak Water Supply Agreement, the first 360 aCte-feet- of water received by MMWD from Agency in any. month is accounted for as being received pursuant to that agreement. MMWD may 'not, receive any water pursuant to 'the Amended Agreement for' the Sale of Water in any month unless, or' until one of the following 'two events has occurred: (1) MMWD already has received in that month at least 360 acre-feet pursuant' to the Third Amended ,Offpeak Water Supply Agreement; or (2) MMWD already has received in that Fiscal Year the maximum amount of water that it may receive pursuant to that agreement. The Amended Agreement for Sale of Water between the Agency and MMWD, originally' entered into in 1991 and "amended in 1996, recites that the Agency's transmission system has excess capacity to supply MMWD under the agreement at the present time and under normal circumstances, The agreement also recites that additional transmission facilities are required for the future to continue to have such excess` capacity under normal circumstances, including new parallel aqueducts from the Cotati Intertie to the Ely Booster and from the Ely Booster to Kastania Reservoir. The November 1997 Agreement for Water Supply establishes the following priorities in,-the event the transmission system capacity becomes inadequate to meet the demand for water: • First, the Agency delivers to each of its regular customers the quantity of. water, not in excess of the respective entitlements :set forth in sections 3. 1 and. 3 . 2 , required by it for human consumption, sanitation and fire protection as determined by the Agency after taking into consideration all other sources', Of potable water then available to said customer- Second,. to the extent additional Transmission System capacity is available to the Agency the Agency delivers a quantity of •water- to the regular customers in proportion to their respective' entitlements set forth in of section 3 . 1 and section 3 . 2 provided, however; that no regular customer shall receive -under these paragraphs "'first" and "second" a • total quantity of water in excess of its reasonable requirements: or its said entitlement, whichever is less. • 23 Third, to -the extent additional Transmission System capacity • is available,, delivers' the Agency del , water to regular customers in excess of their entitlements pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 3 . 3 (see discussion 'at bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9 of this report) ; Fourth, to the extent additional Transmission System capacity is available, the Agency delivers water fo MMWD not in excess of the delivery limitations in section 3 . 12,; Fifth, to the extent additional Transmission Systeiti capacity is available., the Agency delivers surplus water to the water contractors; . Sixth, to the extent' additional Transmission System capacity is available, the Agency delivers surplus water t6 ,Other Agency customers. • • • • 24 V Conclusions and Recommendations The water delivery [demands' on the Petaluma Aqueduct have reached the capacity of the aqueduct. Without intervention, these "demands will continue to increase at a rate of approximately 1 . 4 -mgd per year. The only identified effective structural measures available to expand the capacity of the Petaluma aqueduct are the construction of the two parallel aqueducts from the Cotati Intertie to the Ely Booster and from the Ely Booster to Kastania. These aqueducts cannot be constructed until the proposed new Agreement For Water Supply and Expansion of the Water Transmission System is approved and becomes effective. In the interim, all available non-structural alternatives available to reduce demand on the Petaluia -need to be pursued in order to postpone the necessity to curtail 'water deliveries from the Petaluma Aqueduct and reduce the amount of curtailment necessary. Some of these potential measures are identified in this report. Even with the implementation of the available non-structural alternatives to reduce demand, it is Likely that curtailments of deliveries from the Petaluma Aqueduct will be necessary before • the planned parallel Petaluma Aqueduct dan be constructed and placed into service. The Agency is 'contractually obligated. to make all reasonable efforts to deliver water to MMWD using all facilities available to Agency. Water deliveries, to the water contractors have priority over deliveries to the MMWD,, but only up to the delivery entitlements set ,forth in Sections 3 ..1 and 1..3 of the Agreement for Water Supply. Section 3 . 1 establishes the entitlements set forth in Table 1, and Section 3 . 3 establishes a procedure whereby water contractors can share their entitlements under certain conditions. As noted above, an arrangement exists whereby Petaluma's unused entitlement is available to North Marin. Any portion unused by North Marin is available: to Rohnert Park . Once the full entitlement of these, three water contractors is utilized, however, deliveries to the MMWD have priority over any further deliveries to these three contractors. Deliveries to the MMWD alscr, have priority over :deliveries to the Agency's "other customers" .in excess of a monthly average of 0 . 5. mgd from the south 'part of the Petaluma Aqueduct and to Cotati in excess of its entitlement. Immediate' steps should be taken to develop the mechanisms necessary to implement curtailments in water deliveries from the Petaluma Aqueduct consistent with the contractual .rightt and' obligations of the parties. rtb c:\wpwin\scws\sdmin\vmsys7.wp 3/9/98 • 25 • 5i'ATE-',OFFCAL'IFORNIA-HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES!.AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. \ DEPARTMENT OF HEATH SERVICES DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH STREET SUITE 200 � �,' ROSA. CALIFORNIA SU '95404 ' Sib'-2135 FAX 1707) 57S-2722 ' / November 13, 2000 System No. 4910020 • U =, 1 Mr. Randy Poole, General Manager/Chief Engineer POOL Ic+ Sonoma County Water Agency i P.O. Box 11623 NOV 1 7 Ha: i 2150 West College Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95406 Ong 40,-; t,Jc./Leo - D - 7 1 Dear Mr. Poole: Enclosed is a copy of the Department's Water Adequacy Evaluation for the Agency's existing water supply facilities: This evaluation formed thebasis of our letter to you dated August 24, 2000. It was`•given to each of the Agency's Contractors, with final comments due November 3, 2000. This report incotporated,those comments. To date we have not receive&atresponse to our August 24 letter in which the Agency was • asked to provide a schedule for'proposed system improvements to°meet peak day demands over the next 10• o 20 years and a schedule for the Contractor's use of local supplies to augment Agency water: Please provide our office with these schedules by January 26, 2001. Sincerely, acrowil Robert C.Brownwood, P.E. Sonoma District Engineer. , Drinking Water Field Operations Branch cc (w/enclosure): Sonoma County Environmental Health Department The cities of Cotati, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Rohnert Park Valley of the Moon Water District- Forestville Water District North Mann Water District Mann Municipal Water District Town of Windsor Citizens Utility-Larkfield PenngroverWater Company Kenwood Water Company • L11142000 7%1 . • SONOMA COUNTY WATER AD EQUACYEVALUATION (November 2000) INTRODUCTION • A. Background The Sonoma County Water.Agency(SCWA or Agency) is the main source of drinking water for the communities of:Cotati,,Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Valley of the Moon Water District, S000ma, Foresrville, and NorthMarin Water:District. Over the last five years there has been significant growth in Sonoma County that has resulted in increased demands that aretapproaching,or exceeding the capacity of the system facilities. In 1996 and 1997, demands on.the-Agency's system exceeded its capacity and resulted in low storage levels and pressure problems in several areas. In December 1999, the Agency declared that the systems safe reliable yield,was less than`its''contract commitments and thus was temporarily'impaired until new facilities could be constructed and additional water rights secured. In the,interim, the:Agency began development with its contractors of an allocation plan and'a program to significantly increase conservation and recycled' water use. The allocation plan for supply shortages was scheduled to be completed;and in place by the summer of 2000. • B. Purpose of Study The purpose of tfiis study'isto collect basic information on the status ofthe SCWA and each of its contractors in ordertolassess the capacity of each system to safely and reliably meet the requirements ofthe.California Health and Safety Code. Specifically, this study will:, I. Describe the current facilities,.proposed°improvements,and reliable capacities for rthe SCWA andits prime contractors. 2. Describe.the current an d projected production demands for the SCWA and its prime contractors. ' 3. Assess the ability of the SCWA and its prime contractors to adequately and reliably meet the:requirements of the California Health and Safety Code for existing and projected drinking wafer demands. The first section discusses the SCWA andthenfol lows with.sections for each of the systems primary contractors and major.other SCWA users Each section presents information on historical and projected water and existing facilities including sources,storage and aqueducts. An assessment is thenmade:oftheadequacy of the facilities to meet standards for current and projected demands to the year 2010. Findings anddonc1usionsare made-for each system. • C. .Standards The following standards of system reliability source and'storage adequacy are used in this:analysis. These are taken'from the California Waterworks'Standards and commitments in the SCWA l0'h Agreement with its water contractors and subsequently adopted in the Department's Permit for each water system. 1 • 2 Required Source Capacity: Section 64)64• California WateiworksEStandards requires source capacity, that together with storage capacity, is sufficient.to safely and reliably meet the maximum demands of the system. It further defines:the;minimum required source capacity as not less than the maximum day demand, unless approved by the Department. For system siutilizing surface water:sources,the source capacity is also defined by the • system's water right in tent's of place of diversion and maximum day and annual. diversions. There may also be seasonal and other limitations in order to meet instream requirements. Wep..Source Reliability: For purposes of this study, it.is assumed that'the well production data:in the Departments permit files (well data sheets),represents.the rated production capacity of the well The reliable capacity for maximumdaywould be 100% of rated capacity. The.reliable:monthly and annual production capacity is 2/3 of the rated capacity. This is based on limiting the operation of the wells to less than 16 hr per:day when using on a long term basis. Required.Storage,Capacity: Each+of the SCWA Contractor Agencies must meet-California Waterworks Standards , • defined in Section 64564.. The Department has:interpreted this standard.for existing, systems with metered data to,require,storage sufficient in each pressure zone ofttie system to meet average.day demand+:25%of maximum day demand+ fre:flow. For each of the contractors', it is assumed that they should provide fire flows sufficient'to meet commercial standards or 2500 gpm/2-hours. It is also assumed that the required volume can include the SCWA storage.available in the system's.service:area. For the SCWA„the 10th Agreement has established a design goal for storage ati2.5 times • the average day demand during"the thaximum month (maximum monthly demand) in each zone served. The standard is based on•historical use patterns and been'.found to • be sufficient to provide for peak daily and hourly demands and possibleemergencyuses. It is also consistent with the California'Waterworks Standards:and has been accepted in the Agency's permit from'the,Department. This standardris unchanged in.the pending I ith Agreement;which obligates the SCWA to provide 60%of the desired storage or 1.5 'times the maximum monthly demand;in each zone. System.Reliability: I • This is defined as•the ability of the.water system to meet maximum monthly demands withtheir largest source of supply out of service: For the SCWA, it is assumed that one of the Mirabel collectors(20 mgd) is out of service. For each of the contractors, their largest source'of supply would be.the SCWA.. It,also assumes some water'conservation measures'in effect and independent system storage that meets.waterworks standards. Growth Projections;, Projected water demands to the yea12010 were computed,for:the SCWA by assuming a rateof growth of 2% which'has been used historically by the•Agency: For each of the contractor agencies, projections were'made assuming the same rate of growth as has occurred since1993 within that community..The year 2010 was selected because of the expected time frame to resolve major;political and technical issues related to water rights and lead-time for planning and constiucting-newsfacilities • • 2 • . .\ • 3 •II. DESCRIPTION • t •A. Sonoma.County 'Water Agency (SCWA) • Description • . The SCWA (Agency) is the primary provider:6fpotable water-for approximately 550,000 people. in Sonoma and Mann Counties. The Agency holds water right permits•to divert Russian River and Dry Creek flowsand,re-divert-water stored and'.released•fromLake+Mendocino and Lake Sonoma• Lake-Mendocino has a storage.capacity of 122;50-0 AF with an estimated maximum yield of 70,000 AF The Mendocino Irrigation District holds rights to;8100 AF/Y and currently uses all of that Lake Sonoma hasa-total-storagecapacity of 381,000 AF of which 212,000 AF is for water supply. Flows in the east:F,ork Of the Russian Paver are supplemented with a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)power diversion from the Eel River(approximately 17,000 AF/yr). The Agency re-diverts water from the Russian River through'Ranney collector •at Wohler and Mirabel and conventional wells located near Forestville. The water is Chlorinated, and then delivered wholesale to Agency customers through its water transmission system comprised of aqueducts, pipelines, pumps, and storage tanks. The service area and facilities are illustrated in Figure A-1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) is currently taking action to relicense the • PG&E Potter Valley.-Project. An agreement between interested parties was reached early in 1999 which called.for a 15%.cut back in.the annual diversions. FERC''has made:its decision to accept , the 15%reduction but opposing parties (National Marine Fishery Service, NMFS) and environmental groups) have announced that they will contest the decision. .- The SCWA has concluded that;the impactof the Eel River flow reduction will be mostly on users above Healdsburg,,and should not impact primary contractors and their;entitlements. The Agency's obligations for supply are,defined in an Agreement(10'"Amended,Agreement ) As. with its eight(8)prime contractors (Santa Rosa, Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park;Sonoma, Forestville,North Marin, and Valley of the Moon)•thatwas originally'executed in 1974 and most recently amended in 1997: This agreement is currently undergoing an 11th-amendment that will significantly increase entitlements and obligations:for the SCWA. • Water Production Table A-I summarizes water production bytheSCWA,for the period 1993-1999. These data show a steadyincreaseinproductioti through the year 1997 with.a significant reduction in 1998 (attributed to the very wet,La Nina conditions,that year): However, the production resumed its normal growth:pattern in 1999 witlia maximum production of 55.1:mgd,(61,600 AF). The maximum month production also steadilyincreased over this',period with,a maximum of 80.1 mgd reported by the Agency in 1999.(This,is slightly lower than,the figure of 81mgd used in earlier reports by the Agency but was reported in their-1999 Annual Report). The maximum day demands were calculated based on a ration of 1.17 maximum month to maximum day'developed from metered records for the cities of Petaluma and N.Mann WD. These data stadia/that the maximum daydemandshave exceeded 90 mgd;for;the:last 3 years. Table A-1::-.SOYA Water Production 49934999)mgd Year Annual Production Max Ma MIx.Day • ,mgd AFY mgd. -' ' mad: _ . 1993' NA NA 72:5 .84:8 . 1994 51.6 57,700 75 .87.8 ' ' 1995 41.0 53;700 713- 83.6 1996 51.7 57,900 76 88.9 • 1997 - :54.0 60.500 79 92:4 1998 .46:-7 52.300 77.2 90.3 1999 -551 61,600 - 80.1. 93.7,. Source:DRS Annual Reports Mildly- calculated on bails of ratio of 1.17 mu day to max month. . 3 4 Future.SCWA annual and maximum monthly production needs to the year are estimated based on an assumed growth rate of 2%per year The maximum monthly production needs were estimated assuming.the same rate of growth as has•.occurredover the last seven years. These • projections show that by the year 2010;•the annual'production needs will be approximately 76;600 AFY^with'a:maximum month demand of 100 mgd. Assuming the same;ration oft 17 mayday to max month, die maximum day demand would be approximately 117 mgd by the year 2010. Prime Contractors Contract=llu. Amended Agreement". The 10'°rAmended agreement defines the,obligations of the Agency to its'eight+prime;contractors and Marm Municipal forservice including quantity, reliability; and facilities. It obligates:the Agency to deliver at a maximum rate of 90.4;mgd and authorizes the delivery.of 1.6 mgd to other customers; atotal of 92 mgd. The agreement also defines the facilities necessary to reliably produce the 92 mgd. The Agreement is currently undergoing revision and needs approval•rom allof its_conn-actors. Table A-2 summarizes the production,obligations (entitlements) of the Agency under the existing and'proposedAgreements The proposed contract wilhincrease the overall obligation of the Agency to reliably deliver 148 9 mgd duringithe maximum month and'"101,000 AF/yr. In the event of a supply deficiency,Section 3:'5 of the contract requires the Agency to develop:an'allecation plan for distributing the available supply. Table A-2: Contract Entitlements forCurrent(l0')and Proposed'(11") 1014 Agreement Proposed I I"•Agreement Contractor Max'Month Annual,-AF _.Max Mo Max Day Annual,CAF • Santa Rosa Max total 50.0 mgd NA 56.6 mgd NA 29,100 From Reach t&2 40.0.mgd 400 mgd NA From,.SR Agduct 40.0.mgd 40.0 mgd NA From Son'Agduct 4.0 mgd. 4.O-mgd NA Petaluma 17.0 mgd 21.8,mgd 13,400. No.Malin(Fvn-Pet Agdct) 11.2 mgd 19.9 mgd 20.9 mgd 14,100 RohnertPark• 1.0 mgd 15.0 mgd: 7;500 Valley of Moon 4.7 mgd 8.5 mgd 3,200 Sonoma 3.3 mgd 6:3 mgd 3,000 ,Cotati 1.7 mgd 318.mgd 1520- Forestville 1.5 mgd.. I.S;mgd .MarirrMunicipal! 12.8 mgU- 12.8 mgd 14,300 All others 1.6 mod 2.7 mgd 14;880 Total 9I0 mgd 75,000 148.9 mgd 101,000 •.Mann Municipal entitlement is for surplus or excess water,defined in Section 3.12.. Facilities Water Rights The Agency's existing water rights are defined in State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) Decision 1610. This provides for a combined rate of direct diversions/iediversionsat Wohler- Mirabelunder four:(4)permits(12.947A, 12949,12950,and 16596)to not exceed 180 cfs (116 mgd)and 75,000 AF/yr. • 4 • • • Sources of:Supply The diversion;facihnes for the Russian River supply source:include fve.Ranneycollector wells adjacent to the Russian River near Wohier,,Road and Mirabel and seven`;conventional wells along • the Russian Riverknown as the Russian1River°Welt Field(RRWF). These are shown on'Figure I, The diversion facilities are limited bylwater rights,.the physical yield of the river aquifer and the, pipeline pressure restrictions. The ability of the Russian Rivei;aquifer to produce water is^li t ited,by the rate of recharge to the aquifer.through thestreambed. 'To augment this rate;the•Agency has constructed several infiltration ponds that are ted by a pump station and system of ditches: The facilities also include an inflatable rubber damto raise.the water level to divert water to the infiltiadon ponds and increase the rate of percolation. The Wohler collectors were designed to produce 32 mgd. 'However, impaired aquifer infiltration allows only one pump in each collector to be operated for periods of more than a few hours, and limits the capacity to about 23 mgd,on.a sustained basis: However; the Agency reports that with Wohler operating=as contemplated in the lot Agreement(4 pumps operating with no standby except a spare motor) and the-RRWF dedicated to supplementing the Wohler infiltration, 34 mgd • is produced and delivered through the Santa Rosa Aqueduct. 1 The Mirabel collectorcapacity was designed for 60 mgd capacity but is currently limited by the dynamic head-in the Cotati'Intertie(5 pumps operating) to 58,mgd: However,with Mirabel operating as contemplated in the.:l0'"Agreement (4 pumps in operation with 2 in standby) only50 mgd can be produced'and delivered:through the Cotati Interne. The Russian River Well Field(RRWF) currently is comprised of seven wells,with.a total pumping capacity of 16.5 mgd. •However,the sustained yield`is also limited by the dynamic head in the Cotati Interne and is estimated by the Agency at I I mgd. The current-design, maximum'day,,current production and reliable'production capacity of the SCWA facilities is summarized in Table A-3.This shows,a design capacity of 108.5 mgd,a maximum day capacity of 92 mgd;,and a current.production capacity and a reliable production capacity of 84 mgd.-(see discussion below) Table A-):Design,Maximum"day;Current and Reliable Production/Capacity,mgd • Facility Design MMaiimum.day Current Production Reliable Wohler 32 mgd 23.mgd 23,mgd 23 mgd Minkel '60:mgd 58mgd 50 mgd 50.mgd RRWF 16.5 mgd 11 mgd. ti 'mid 11 mad • Total' 108.5 mgd 92 mgd 84 mgd 84.mgd • .Source:SCWA files • •.Assumes 1Abr.one ofti2Mirabel collectors out orservice Storage Currently,ahe'SCWA has 118.8 mg of storage•(including a 10 0.mg-storage tank at Kawana Springs which is not yet on line). The Agency'has-plans to'add an'additional 55.5'nig of storage which would give'them'a total of 1743 mg. Table'A-4 summarizes the existing and proposed SCWA storage facilities for each of the major zones served and the entitlements in"each of the zones. • • • 5 • 6 Table 1/4--I: System Storage and Entitlements, Mg - Entitlement IP Zone SCWATank Capacity Proposed. Zone Total. l0° .11th Rohncrt Park' CoutI - is Cotati Cotati 2 i2 1.7 _ 3 Cotati 3 17 .3 . 21. Corti 4 6 1.2 -21.9 JJS 69.5 1 I L? 199 Petaluma Kastania I 12 Kastania- 2 .. 12 24 Zone Subtotal - 48 45.5 935 30.9 . 00.5 Santa Rosa .Ralphine I '6 50.0. 56.6 Ralphine 2 6 Ralphine 3 6 . Ralphine 4 13 Annadel I 2 5 Annadel 2 3 KawanaSpgs I .10 Kawana Spgs'2 - 10 Zone Subtotal' 51.5 10 61.5 50 56.6 Forestville Forestville.-I '1 1.5 1.5 Forestvillei2. 03 Zone Subtotal 1,3 I.3 1:5 1.5 • Valley or Moon 'Eldndgc, I 6 4.7 8,5 Eldridge 2 2 8.0 Sonoma Sonoma 1 2 '33 6:3 Sonoma 2 8. ' 10.0 Zone Subtotal 18 18.0 8.0 14.3 System Totals 118.3. 55.5 174.3 90.4 133.4 • Evaluation Source Capacity: . Section 64564,California Waterworks Standards■requires that every public-water system have an . adequate and reliable source of supply and defines the minimum required source capacity as not less than the.maximum day demand,unless approved by the Department: For system's utilizing surface water sources, Me source capacity is also defined by the system's water right In terms of place of diversion and maximum day and annual diversions. There may alio be seasonal and other limitations in order to meet'in-stream requirements. The 106 Amended-Agreement obligates the Agency;to reliably produce 92 mgd,on,a maximum • month basis and to maintain"storage'at 1.5 times the maximum monthly demand in each zone. The agreeinent;is specific in defining the facilitiesinecessary to reliably meet these requireinents and includes a standby collector 6 at Wohler The proposed l9ih Agreement would obligateithe Agency to provide'148.9 mgd on maximum month basis with an`annual production of 101,000 AF. Production-Capacity ' The Agency is obligated;to its eight prime contractors to provide a reliable maximum monthly supply of 92 mgd under,the 10th Agreement and 148:9 mgd under the proposed 11's Agreement However, as noted previously, the current maximum production capacity and reliable capacity is only 84 mgd. Maximum day demand has exceeded the Agency's current production capacity of 84 mgd in six of the last seven years,and has exceeded-the maximum production capacity of the system in-two out of the last three-years. • 6 7 Recognizing•the immediate,deficiency''in production:capacity, ihe Agency is proceeding with a major improvement program that includes a new Collector'6iwhsh will'increase the maximum month capacity to 92 mgd. ;Itzys,expected'thatconstruction of the new collector can be completed and on-line before the year 2002. However, even with the,proposed improvement to 92 mgd, it still leaves'the Agency short in meeting the projected demand o±106- mgd by the year 2010 and tar short of meeting its 1439 mgd obligation under:the proposed.hl1h Agreement Since 1996, there have been two.incidents where limited production capacity resulted in very low levels otstorage and low system pressures The lust occurred during.the week of Aug 11-17, 1996, when total water storage declined to less than 40.mg:(approx-.36%of capacity). The water levels reached a.low of 9.9 ft in:Ralphine Tanks, I L3 ft in Cotati Tanks, and 16.5 ft in Kastania Reservoirs and provided only.anestimated 12-hr.supply. An assessment of this situation by the Agency concluded.thatthe-problem:could be.:attributed to the.Agency's practice of curtailing pumping during::PG&Es on-perk period to reduce power costs. This particular problem was exacerbated by a 6-hr curtailment in power service. The second incident occurred during the weekof June 12-23, 1997 when the total storage declined to 46.7 mg. The Agency assessment of this situation concluded that theproblem could have been avoided if the subsequently constructed RRWF had been on-fine..However, it did reveal several serious system deficiencies including a decline in infiltration'rates in the Muabel ponds, lack of a standby pump at Waffler, andrestorationof the RRWF pumping,capacity. As a result of the shortage'incidehts in;1996 and 1997, the Agency modified its power scheduling, instituted a plan for infiltration pond rotation scheduling which significantly improved the pond. infiltration''rates, restored its,full,well capacity including modification of piping and obtained permit approval fromDHS"to convert wells from standby to •active'.status, and constructed the 10 mg Kawana Springs tank. Local Sources With exception of Forestville, all of.the contractor Agencies have developed local sources of supply and several are in the:process of significantly expanding their;capacity. These are all discussed in detail in the subsequent discussions for each contractor. However, it should be noted here that no assessment was made of the,aquifer:reliability'to..continuously,and reliably produce the quantities of water ,noted for each_of the communities. Nor was',any assessment made of the potential problems with over-drafting the groundwater,aquifer ssupplying the wells,such as may be occurring within theCity of RohnertPark. . Table.A-5 suinmarizesinformation presented later in the report on the reliable local source capacity which is currently available. This shows a total'reliable capacity of 12.2 rngd which is proposed to increase by.the year 2005 to 14.4:mgd and then to 16:2 mgd by the year 2010. These values are`based on files. However, the SCWA's draft emergency allocation plan, which was prepared with direct input by its contractors,showsdhe local?source capacity to be 11.9 mgd. The,difference may be attributed to diff erentdefrnitions.of'reliability'. The combination oflocalsource.capacity with the Agency capacity to meet maximum monthly demands is currently over 96,mgd,and-will exceed 106,mgd by the year 2010. This should be adequate to meet projected needs beyond theyear,20l5. • • 7 8 • TableA-5:.Local'Sources of Supply,mgd System Max Month Capacity Annual Capacity,AF/y Plan Current 2005 2010 Current. 2010 Cntati 0.4 0.3 0:3 0.3 390 • 390 Rohnere Park 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4430'. 4430 • Petaluma I.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3580 3530 Sonoma 0:3' 0:3 0.3 0.3 340 340 Forestville 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N. Mann 6.0 3.0 3.0 1.0. 2000' 6720" Santa Rosa P.O 0.0 '1:3 . 1.6 0 4030 Vlly of Moon 0:7 0.9 '1'3 1.3 1010 . 1460 Totals 13.1 12.2 14.4 16.2 12,300 13,140 'Based on six year aJg of 2,000 acre-feet "Beyond 2_010 projection Annual Production The total annual production needs for the SCWA by the year 2010 are estimated'to be approximately 76;600.AFY which=will exceed the Agency's current water right of 75,000 AFY.. However, if local sources were used to their maximurnreliable capacity;,they could supplement the annual production capacity of the SCWA by an estimated 18,140 AFY for a.total supply of 93,140 AFY...Assuming a continued growth of2%per year, this would provide adequate"`supply beyond the,year 2020. Water Rights • Recognizing the need to provide for system reliability and to obtain additional.supply to meet growing'demands in'Sonoma/Main Counties, the Agency has made application to:_the SWRCB:for a new water right for additional Wohler-Mirabel•diversions to not exceed 230 cfs�(148 6 mgd)or 101,000'AF/yr. They have also petitioned the SWRCB to add an additional 20>mgd'Collector 6 at Wohler as an authorized point of diversion. However, there are two significant issues which will impact the timing and ultimate decision onwhen the Agency will receive'additional water rights and for how much.These:include`the following: 1. In January 1999, a lawsuit was filed over the adequacy of the Agency's Water Supply and Transmission'System'.Project E[R. A hearing'was held in'August 2000-at which,time Judge Antolini found that the Agency was in compliance with'CEQA and State'Planning Law. 2. In October 1996, coho salmon and steelhead were,listed byNMFS as threatened species in the Central California Coast Unit,which includes the Russian River,under the Endangered;Species Act(ESA). This has required the Agency to enter into consultation with the+NMFS and US Corps • of Engineers,to perform,a biological/assessment The outcome of the consultation and assessment is'scheduled for October 2000 and may include substantive:changes?'in.the'.managed flows of the Russian River: As a,result, an EIR may need to be prepared along,withyanamended water rights application. Since it ismnlikely the SWRCB',,will`take any action of the`Agency's_water right application until thisissue is also resolved,this will may delay the,additional water rights for the Agency at least to'the year 2010 and perhaps beyond. Conservation.and Recycled Water Programs ' As a matter of State policy,all communities and utilities-are required to demonstrate;that they have or will be developing and implementing effective water conservation and recycled water practices as,a condition of receiving new water rights. Communities and utilities can make this demonstration by becoming a member of the California!Urban.Water Conservation Council and committing to implement+Best Management Practices(BMPts) of water conservation. The SCWA has joined the Council and is now seeking commitment from its contractors to develop.and implement BMP's to conserve and recycle water. Many of the contractors,aiready implement • many of these conservation measures. 8 • 9 The indicator used in this report;tar evaluating the potential for water conservation savings is to determine the use per connecnon.and compare t :other.cornniuniites.where conservation practices • may or may not have been instituted: Table k 61sunarnarizes the,maximum,month"water use per connect on foreach•ut+the Agency's contractors over the period 1993=.99.: Table A-6.: SCWA Prime,Contractor Maximum Month•Demand per Connection. 1993-98 System -Connections. •Maximum Month • '1998. 1993-99 gncd Santa Rosa4 45.603 740 Petaluma 1.7.298 300 Corti 2,163 NO Rohnert Park 3.539 1215 Sonoma 3,557 390 Valley of Moon 6.577 635 Forestville 333 330 North Marin 17,6201, 733 _ Average 340 These data'show an overall.averageper connection use of 340 gpd. A generally accepted national average use would;beapproximately 630 gal per connection per day(assuming 150 gal per person and 3.5 persons per household and aratio of 1.2 maximum-month/average day), indicating a potential for signtficarn water savings through conservation/reuse..programs. Also of note, is the use in Rohnert Park, currently unmetered, which is nearly 45%greater than the average per connection use for all.the.contractors: None of the conservation'evaluations considered differences between the percentage of residential, commercial and industrial connections, various climatic zones,or already'existing,water conservation measures. A study completed by the Agency, Preliminary Assessment of Urban Water Reuse in Sonoma County Water.Agency:Service Area,November 1999 condludedthat the use of recycled water for irrigation in the water contractors' service area could',(1).offsel approximately 4,200 AF of potable • water-on an annual basis; and(2)decrease the average peak month demand on th Agency's water supply and transmission system,by,approximately 9:mgd.. However the actual cost and use of recycled water may not.provide as mu'ch'potable demand'offsets'as'First estimated. The Agency has also conducted an assessment of current.and potential increases in water savings from increased conservation efforts,(fixture replacements;water audits, irrigation efficiencies). This assessment,concluded that'an•additional 1046 AF/Y couldbe saved. Table A-7 summarizes the estimated reuseand'conservation savings for.each of the Agency's'prime contractors. Table A-7:Potential Increased Savings from Conservation and Recycled Water Use,AF/Y Contractor Rec`veled Water Use Conservation. Total Conti• 30 6 36 Forestville 50 9 59 N:Marin 650 222 872 PetaluMa 640 168 808 Rohnert Park. 50 _ 58 108 Santa Rosa 2170 427 2597 Sonoma 135- 45 ' 180' - ValleY of Moon - 475 lit. 586 Total 4200 1046 5246 Storage Capacity: For the SCWA,:the 10'"Agreement has established a,design,goal for storage at 2:5 times the maximum monthly demand in each zone served. The standard'is based on historical use patterns and has been found to be,sufficient to;provide!for.peak daily'and hourly demands and possible emergency uses. The Agreement obligates the'SCWA to provide storage 1.5 times the maximum • monthly demands in each'zone. It is also consistent with the California Waterworlcs Standards and has been accepted in the Agency's-permit from DHS.'Ihis standard is unchanged in the • pending 1 ith Agreement . 9 0 A comparisonofthe current storage with maximum monthly demands by zone over the period • l993-98'is shown in Table A-8. Table.A41: Comparison of SGWA•Storage Capaciry by Zone with Maximum Monthly Demands,1993-98. • one ,Max ;Monthly Demand SCWA Storage,Mg Deficit/Surplus Proposed - Mg Req'd Available .+/- Storage. RP/Pctaluma 34:9 52,4 43. -1:4 45:5 Santa Rosa 33.5 50.2 51.5 +1.3 10 Forestville 0.9 1.4 1.3 -0.1 Valley of Moon 7.4 112 13 .+6.3 Totals- 74.4 /1.1.7 1 I3.3 This shows that overall, the SCWA,has sufficient storage to meet its obliganonsbut;is-short;in the zones,serving Foresrville and RP/Sonoma Except forForesrville; the'SCWA.has.plans in the deficient zone to add additional storage-andto,keep pace with the increasing demand in Santa Rosa. Aqueduct Capacity: • There are basically six,(6)major aqueducts in the Agency's system including the Airport, Forestville,Santa Rosa, Russian River-Cotati';Interne, Sonoma and Petaluma(Cotati-Kastania)' aqueducts. Each of these is discussed below. Sonoma Aqueduct This aqueduct includes the Sonorna^b0000ster station tation and a-16-in main that delivers'waterto Valley of Moon and Sonoma. It has a capacity of 8:0 mgd. Table A-9 summates maximum water demands deliveredthiough the aqueduct for the years 1996-99 The maximum day figures were estimated from the ratio of max day to max month of.! 17 using metered water records from Petaluma, Cotatiand North Marin for the years 1993-99. These data show.thatthe aqueduct capacity'has been;exceeded on a maximum day basis since 1996 and is currently near capacity for the maximum month(7.8 mgd). Whendemands exceed the capacity of the aqueduct, the'hydraulic:grade line is reduced resulting in lower pressures in the zones served. This was noted in'the Valley of Moon's Strategic'Plan, January 1999; which concluded that 'water used by the District and City of Sonoma approaches+.the maximum month entitlements and exceeds the maximum month entitlement on peak summer days..This causes a lower hydraulic grade line in the'Sonoma Aqueduct and less than desirable;pressure for bot •'the District and the city. " Recently, the Agency;the City of:Sonoma and VOM have developed an agreement that calls for utilization of local well sources to restrict deliveries from the aqueduct in peak summer months in order to maintain,water levels in the 'Sonoma and Eldridge tanks. Table A-9: Sonoma Aqueduct Maximum Production,1996.98' System 1996 1997 1998 1999 Month Day Month. Day Month Day • Month Day - VallcyofMoon 4:2 4!9 4:1 4.3 4.1 4:8 43 -.5.0 Sonoma 2:9 3.4 3.0 3'.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.1 Total 7.1'" '8.-4 7.1' 8.3 7.1 8.3 7.8 9.1 • • 10 • 4 i The Agency has a project included,iii its master plan of unprovements,for-constructing a 12-mile • stretch of parallel IS in pipeline from.Oakmont that will adequately.increase,the capacity of the aqueduct'and ensure maintenance oti,pressures. 'PetalumacAqueducti The Petaluma Aqueduct,also known as the Cotati-Kastaniat pipeline, currently is comprised of the Ely Booster station, a 33-in line from Cotati to the McNear meter and•chen a 30 din main to the Kastania meter. The aqueduct has a.capacity•of 35-36mgd.'(based-on a recent study conducted by the SCWA). The aqueduct provides supply,to Petalurtia,and thence the N. Marin Aqueduct which supplies water to North Marm'and.<Mann Municipal. Demands on the aqueduct are also impacted by Rohnert Park and Cotati since the line is fed from the Cotati tanks which,are the main supply for . Rohnert Park and Cotati. If the,demand,by Rohner Park/Cotati is such that it causes the Cotati tank,levels to drop, it can have,a significant impact on the delivery'capacity.of the aqueduct. However, tank level information was not available for,this study,so that the impact of Rohnert Park/Cotati on the aqueduct delivery problems cannot be assessed. Table A-10 summarizes maximum demands on.the raqueduct for the period 1996-99 from Petaluma, N. Marin and Marin Municipal. These data show that the maximum day demands have been at or:above the capacity of die aqueduct since,1996, In 1997; the maximum day demand exceeded the'capacity by nearly 15%. If the[demands fromRohnert Park and Cotati were such that they reduced the Cotati tank levels, the shortfall in aqueduct capacity is even more severe. The Agency has recognized this deficiency and has proposed signiflcant,improvements to the aqueduct including increasing the storage capacity of the Cotati tanks, increased pumping capacity of the Ely Booster station from 500'hp.to 1500 hp,construction of a new Mirabel to Cotati 48-in pipeline, and a parallel 48 to 42-in Cotati to Kastania pipeline. This will be more than adequate to meet demands past the year2010. Table'A,I O.:Petaluma Aqueduct Maximum 1996-1998 ■ System 1996 1997 . 1998 1999 . Month.. .Day Month Day Month Day Month Day • .Petaluma _ 13:4 15`6' [4:r 184 '14.7 18.5 15.0 17.3 North Marin 11.34 12.7 13.52 15.7 9.77 11.6 11.76 13.6 Mann Municipal 6.2 ..6:2. 4'.7 Subtotal. 31.0' -34.8 32:0 38.6 30.2 35.7 33.1 37.3 • Russian`River,—Cotati Intertie In order to,deliver more water to the Rohnert Park-Cotati area and then to the Petaluma Aqueduct, thecapacity of the this interne must be;increased. The Agency has proposed a new 48-in Mirabel —Cotati Intertiewhich will ensure adequate delivery of water from the collectors to the system. • Santa-Rosa Aqueduct 'IheSanta;Rosa Aqueduct which is comprised of a 42-in.decreasing.,to 36-in pipeline from the Wohler collectors to Santa Rosa is currently adequate,to meet existing and year.2010 projected demands. ,However,within;the service area of Santa Rosa,there is a need to loop the.Santa-Rosa Aqueduct with the Russian River Cotatilntertie for increased dapacityiandredundancy. The Agency has proposed a project to provide a Kawana—Ralphine36-ifipipeline for this purpose. .. 1 t 12 Forestville Aqueduct. • This aqueduct is comprised of an S-inpipeline:from the Santa Rosa.Aqueduct to Forestville. [t:is assumed:adequate to meet.currenrand projected future needs. Airport Aqueduct This,aqueduct;provides servtceto,the Sonoma County Airport and Windsor. It'is comprised.of a (2-in pipeline-from the Santa Rosafaqueduct. Data were not available to assess the-adequacy of this aqueduct and it is assumed that it is adequate;to meet current and projected derhands. System Reliability: This is defined as the ability of,the water system to meet maximum monthly demands with their 'largest source of supply out of service: F,or the SCWA, ithas been'assumed•that one'of+the" Marabel Collectors would be out of service:providing-a.total reliable supply of 67:3 mgdwhich is inadequate to meet current demands. As?has'been noted earlier, the Agency has recogntzed.its. • deficiency and is currently in the process of seeking administrative approvals to-constrict additional:needed t'acilities. However, with exception of Wohler Collector 6, it is notlikely the Agency will be able to obtain necessary approvals and complete construction of all of the'needed facilities!beforethe year 2010: • Water Shortage Contingency Plans: In.December 1999, the Agency adopted a resolution declaring that its reliable sununertime production capacity was temporarily Unpaired being limited to an average monthly capacity of 84 • rpgd. As a result of this determination,Secnon 33 of the l0h Agreement requires the Agencyto: First;-deliver to the respective wholesale,customers water required by it for human consumption;sanitation, and fire.protection after,taking into consideration-all other sources of potable water-then available to its customers; .. Second„to the extent additional capacity is available to the Agency,deliver a quantity of water to their regular customersm proportion to their respective entitlements provided,,however;,that:.no regular,customer "shall receive a total quantity in excess of its•reasonable?requirements or entitlement,,.whichever is:,less; Third,to the extent additional capacity is available,.deliver water to regular custothers in excess of their delivery entitlements; Fourth,to the extent additional capacity is available,delver.w_ater to Marin Municipal,not in excess of Section.3.12`I imitati o ns; Fifth„to the extent additional capacity.is'available delver water.,to water contractors;and Sixth„io the extent additional capacity is available,delver water tofother customers. • The Agency has established a work group with its prime contactors to develop a consensus: regarding the appropriate allocationpf the°84 mgd dtirin_g the 'temporary.impairment',update the Water Shortage Contingency Plan element in'the;Urban Water.ManagementPlan(including conservation-and recycled'water programs), identify local sources;of supply,and”identify • alternative supply•sources for backup: Table A=ll shows the.latest draft allocation plan'forthe Agency's supply of 84,rngd•including the reliable local'supply and compares that to demands'`in 1999 and`prdjected 2010'demand These data''show thatRohnert:Parkland Sonoma would not be able to:meet 1999 demands: By the year 2010,assuming no increase in the 2005-allocation; Rohnert Park,Petaluma;Sonoma,;and Santa Rosa would have;deficiencies. It should be'notedithough,that if the contractors'were able to fully utilize:their local sources:atrated capacity,none of them Would have deficits: S 12 (3 Table A-I 1:.Comparison of Proposed Suninier:Allocation,with.Max Monthly Demands and Available Local Sources of Supply, 1993-2010(mgd). • System - Allocation LolSupply Demands. Deficit. Current.;2005 (999.. )2010 _ . 1999 2010 Current 2010 Cdtati- - 1.2 1.9 0.3 '0.3 1.7. 2.0. 0 0 • Rohniert Perk 4:3 5:3 4,0 1.0 9.9 11:3 -1,1 -?.5 Petaluma 14.5 16,0 3.2 3:2 .165 20:2 0 -1.1 Sonoma 3.1 3.4 0.3 0'3 3.5 4,1 -0.1 -0.4 Forestville 0.9 0.9 0 '0 0.7 0.9 0 0' North Mann Aq.• 13.3 14.2 3.0 3.0 14.4 16.0 0 0 Santa Rosa 32.9 36.3 0 3.6 32.9 40.0 - 0 -D.1 Vlly 4 of Moon. .4 4.9 • 0.9 1.3 4,5 4.3 0 0 Windsor 1.5 1.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA Mann Munic* 5.9 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA Others 1.5 (.5 NA NA.. NA NA NA NA TUtals 34.0 92.0 10.7 ;15.2 Source: Drell I2,MOU;Regarding Water Transmission System Capaciry,Allocation During Temporary Impairment. lune,2000. •The allocation plan provides,19.2 mgd and 20.I mgd for the N.Mann Aq. It is assumed that the allocation for Mann would be the minimum required to meet demands and would stay the same for both years. Conclusions t. The Agency's current maximum,day production capaciry'is°linuted.by both collector capacity and transmission limitations to approximately 84:mgd,. The maximum daily demands have exceeded 84 mgd in each of the last four years and in seven.out of the last 8 years. The ' maximum monthly demand exceeded 30 mgd.in 1999 and'•is projected to exceed the current production capacity of 84 mgd by the year 2001. 0 2 The Agency has developed and engineered a plan of improvements,(Water Supply and Transmission System Project)that will a)'increase the reliable maximum monthly production capacity to 92 mgd by constructing.Wohler:Collector 6; b) increase storage in the Santa Rosa . and Cotati Zones and c)•significantly-increasecapacity of,the Petaluma.and Sonoma Aqueducts. This will enable the,Agency to adequately meet its obligations under the 10± Amended Agreement. The Agency was sued over the adequacy of its.ElR for the project, but the Sonoma County,Superior Court ruled that the Agency's EIR was'adequate. Therefore, the project should continue to progress. The Agency hopes tO•have Collector No. 6 in operation by 2003. • 3. The limitation on the_system's.taliable•capacity;and,inability°to'proceed with planned improvements has caused the Agency to declare a temporary impairment Section 3.5 of the 10th Agreement: As a result,the Agency.:and its contractors have taken steps to develop and implement during the summer of 2000'a Memorandum of Understanding to.identify local sources of supply and allocate reliable.Agency capacity through the.year 2005. The current draft of this•MOU shows•thatthe Agency willihave'adequate supply to meet the current and projected demandsof its contractors,with exception of Rohnert Park Sonoma;and Santa Rosa through the,year;2010..However,full utilization'of local source capacity should mitigate these deficiencies. • 4- The'1999 annual production by.the,Agency was over 61,600 AF.or approximately 82% of the Agency's water right!of 75;000 AF. At an assumed rate of growth;of 2-Wperyear, the Agency will exceed'its water right before theyear 2010. Issues related to the endangered species listing of coho salmon and steelhead and the lawsuit over the Agency's EIR on its transmission system improvements are complex and mayvery;well delay the granting of a new water right beyond the year20l0 and/or significantly change the management of Russian River flows. . However, if local sources are developed as planned and utilized at full • capacity, they could•extend the operation of the Agency under its existing water right long enough to obtain.the;additional water rights. • 13 • • [4 • 6_. The Agency is in the process of negotiating an amendment to the 10i°Agreement-which will • increase:its obligation to supply contractors'with up io•148.9 mgd and 101,000:AFY. This'is based on the assumption that'its water right applicanonwill be approved: However, as-noted, above, it may be a number of,years in the future before the water rights application is approved, and.if so, it may be substantially altered from the request made by the Agency. 6. The Agency's proposedimprovementprogram is designed to ensure,reliability of its current obligation of,92 mgd and 75,000 AFY but does not provide for increased;production necessary to;meet a maximum monthly demand of 143.9 mgd. 7. Conservation and recycled water programs have the potential to significantly reduce annual peak and maximum day demands,on•the SCWA system during the next several',y,ears. A study done by the SCWA estimates a savings of 6400 AF. Additionally; there is significant • potential:for savings in the R.ohrierf Park system where per connection use is nearly 45% • greater than the other communities., 3. The capacity of the Petaluma,(Cotati Kastania) aqueduct has been exceeded on a maximum day basis since 1996 and exceeded capacity by over,15% for the maximum month demand in 1997.This has created pressure and delivery,problems for Petaluma. An agreement between the SCWA, Petaluma and N. Marin to more effectively balance demands on the,aqueduct with local source production will:provide:interim relief.. However, increased demands on'the aqueduct necessitate the need to increase the capacity of the aqueduct. The Agency'g. proposed.improvements will meet this need but, lawsuits on its overall improvement program, may delay the project fora number of years. • 9. The capacity of the Sonoma aqueduct serving Sodonta and Valley of Moon hasbeen. exceeded on a maximum day basis since 1996 and is currently near capacity for the maximum month(7:8 mgd): When demands exceed the capacity of the aqueduct, the hydraulic_grade line is,reduced resulting in lower•pressures in the City of Sonoma and Valley of Moon Water District: In the interim,the Agency.,.the City of Sonoma and VOM have'd an a agreement±that calls for utiliiationof local-welhsources to restrict deliveries from the - aqueduct in peak summer Months in'order:to maintain:water levels in the Sonoma and Eldridge tanks:TherAgency's•proposed:improvementproject will resolve thisidefrciency; but the:program.is:not likely to be implemented(for a number years due to the lawsuit: 10. The Agency and its,contractors have takensteps to'develop and implement a management plan to allocate:capacity during-periods when the demand exceeds the reliable capacity`of 84, • mgd. This plan,together with local sources of supply:should be'adequate,to meet the current and projected demands through•the year 2010.. 11. As discussed in subsequent chapters.for each•,CoritractorAgency,data shows that currently, the City of RohnertPark and'N-Malin Water;District are unable,to meet the Waterworks Standard to have a reliable•source of supply;greater;than the-maxiinuin day'demand. By the year 2010,:Rohnert Park,Sonoma,Petaluma,and North•Marin'will fail to meet Waterworks Standards for areliable supply.greater than.the maximumday demand- If the SCWA is able to obtain additional water•rights;and improve:its distribution facilities, these communities will. be able to:nteetr Waterworks.Standards. • • • • 14 15 B. Santa Rosa • Water Demands • Historical Demand s Table B-1 summarizes the number of service connections-and water demands in'therCity for the period 1993-1999 and shows a maximum monthly demand in 1999 of 32.9:mgd and an estimated maximum day demand of:38.5 mgd. Maximum day figures were-estimated since data reported by the City for maximum day figures is questionable since,they are for,the most part,equal to the maximum monthly demands. Tluslmost likely has occurred because of a lack of daily metered SCWA.use Therefore, maximum day demands are estimated,based on the average ratio of max month/max day of 1.17'for the Petaluma, Cotati and North Mann systems which have metered records for the last 7 years. It is noted that the City has.relied totally upon the SCWA for its source-of-supply since 1993. The maximum month per-connection.use over the;periodezainined averaged-approximately 740 gpcd. Table B-I: Historical Water Demands 1993-1999. Year. Co nnections 5,12x Month mgd Mai Day,mgd Annual,AF/Y System SCWA(Sod. S item. SCWA ystem. SCWA 993. 40226 28.3 700 33.1 19.900 994. 30688 32:3 795 37.8 23.300.. 995 41221 26.9 650 31.5 20,700 996;. 41914 33.5 .800 39.2 23.280 997 • 41034 32.3 790 37.8 23,300 998 45603•_ 32.5 710 38.0 21040 • 999 45304 32:9 730 38.5 22920 Q :iDHS'Annual Report • ues uestionable'resulr Future Demands The historical growth,in number of service connections in the City for-the:period 1993-99 was used to project the number of connections to the year 2010. This shows that the number of connections would grow to approximately 55,500 by the year 2010,a.growth of 22.5%since 1999. Assuming a rate of growth in water-demand equal to- hegrowth!in connections, the maximum mouth use would increase to 40:3 mgd,themazimum day to 47.2 mgd and the annual demand to 27,305 AF. TableB'4;summarizes these projections. Table B-4:Projected 2010'Santa::Rosa Water Demands Connections 55;500 Maximum Month,mgd 40.3 Maximum Day;mgd 47.2 Annual Demand,AF 27;305 Sources of Supply SCWA Supply The City purchases treatedwater from the SCWA with an of 50.mgd under the 10th Agreement The City's entitlement Would increase to 56 mgd with an annual limitation of 29,100 AF in the proposed 11ih Agreement • • • 15 16 Local Supply • The City currently has 7 operational wells on standby.with a rated production capacity of 6.5 mgd, asrshown in Table B-2. The City's 1994 Master Plan Update concluded that if the City were disconnectedifrom.the. SCWA;it,would haves:minimal ability to meet demands in the Aqueduct,Oakmont I, and.Los • ,Alamos 1 pressure zones and would have less than 2'days supply for the upper zones. The report ,concluded that`increasing.well supply from 6.5 mgd:.to 8.7 mgd and adding additional storage to lower pressure-zones,would provide a reliable backup supply in the event the'City were cur off froth tl eSCWA. In order to develop an emergency.groundwater supply of 8'7 mgd, the City commissioned a study=by West Yost and Associates to recommend ways to fully develop the groundwater source: . This study was completed in February 1998 and identified a 3 phase approach: Phased focused on improving the existing wells to obtain DHS,permit•approval for full time use by installing'iron/manganese sequestering and chlorinadon;,standby power and radio controlled telemetry.- The City expects to have the three Farmer's.Lane:wells,.or 60%(4 mgd) of its existing''well capacity available for emergency,use;bythecend of 2000 with the remainder(2.5 mgd) available by-year 2002. This would provide 6._5'mgd.of total capacity. However, if used on a continuing basis itwould'provide only 1=.3'mgd of reliable capacity(2/3 of total capacity with'largest well out service). Phase 2 included development of the existing Freeway Well with a capacity of I.(mgd through a remedianon effort to resolve-organic solvent contamination, install backup power and water treatment equipment,;For emergency standby use:only.. This;would provide a total well capacity of 7 6:mgd;; If used on a continuing basis; it would provide a • reliable capacity of 3.6 mgd(2/3 of total capacity with largest'well out Of service). Phase 3 would develop an additional 1.1'mgd capacity•through.new wells-over the next 15 years. . Currently,; the reliable capacity on a long,term basis would be zero (0)since<the DHS has only approved the-wells for standby use i.e. less than 15 days per year However;,assuming,that the • "wells will be'iniproved in the future`such that.they could be used on a continuing basis; the reliable capacity(2/3of"capacity with largest well out of service)would be 4.3 mgd. Table B-2: Well Facilities , Name- Operating Status' -Permit Status Rated Capacity;pym I.Late Operational ' Standby 240 2.Carley Operational Standby 700 • 3.Peter's'Sprg Operational Standby 500 4.Freeway W3 Out of service _ ' 9ppa 5.Farmen;W4 Abandoned' _ N/A 6.Farm:is'.W4-1 Operational Standby 950 7.Farmers,,W4-2 Operational Standby '.1500 8.Farmers.W.4-3 Operational Standby 300 .- 9.Grace . -Abandoned _ N/A 10..Sharon Park Operational Standby 3006 11.Valley West 'Abandoned' _ N/A 12.Hearn Ave Out of service _ 200c 13..San Miguel' Out of service' N/A 14.Stony Point 'put of service _ N/A . 15.Sun,ncdietd .Abandoned N/A 4,490,gpm (6.46mgd) • • 16 17 • , Storage Distribution facilities"owned by the icity2inciude I'9storagetreservoirs (see Table B-3) with a combined capacity of (7.2 mg. Table 13-3: Storage Reservoirs,mg, • • Name Pressure Zone Existing Pr000sed 1.Fountain Fountain 1 0.5 2.Fountain Fountain 2 1.00 3. Fountain Fountain 2 150 4.Fountain Fountain 3 0.5! 5.Montecito Mon tecito I 2.00 6.Montecito Montecito I 0.5 7.,Sky(arm Sky farm 0.:3. 3. Rincon Rincon I • 4.0 9.St:.Francis Rincon2 2.0 - or Los Almtos Los Alamos 2 0.65 L Bennett Bennett 1.2:. . 2.0 �2.:Bennett Bennett 1-2 L.00 3.Fairway' Bennett 3 0.20 4:SE SR Bennett'I,2 1.49 5..SESR SE Area 2 - 1.15 6.Oakmont Oakmont 2 0.50 7.Oakmont Oakmont 2 1.00 3.Wil■oak Wildoak'.1 - 0.10 9.Wildoak Wildoak22 0:10 20.Fountain Grove Montegeito 2 0.25 21.Fountain Grove Montecito 3,4 - 0.75 • Totals 17.20 4.29 Source:Water.System Master Plan Update,Aug 1994 • • The City's CIP identifiesfthree storage.tanks for construction. These include the Bennett Valley R9B tank replacement with a largei:reservoir, a new reservoir in the,Fountain grove zone, replacement of reservoir R5, and a.newtank in the SE Area. Evaluation Source Capacity' Section 64564,California Waterworks`,Standards requires source capacity, that together with storage capacity, is sufficient to safely,and reliably-meet theidemands of the system.It further defines the niinimitm required source capacity as not less.thantithe maximum day demand,unless approved by the Department. • Adequacy.of Current Supply The City's entitlement from the SCWA is:50 mgd but the'DHS.reports that it can only obtain a maximum of 48.4 mgd. However, this(ismore tharradequateto meet current demands(max month of 32:9 ingd"and max day'of 38:5:mgd)and,thus, meets waterworks standards. Adequacy of FutureSupply Table B-5 compares the Santa.Rosa sources of supplywith the current and projected demands through.the year 2010. This Shows that the supply is adequate-through the year 2010 to meet standards,<assuming that the SCWA is-able to obtain additional water rights and improve its production capacity. 17 13 Table S-5:'Comparison of Santa Rosa Reliable'Souree Capacity with Demands. Current and Year 2010.(mgd) Supply Current 2010 Max Day.mgd No Limit No Limit Max Month,.mgd 50.0 63'.6. .Annual•AFY No Limit 29,100 Demand Max Day 38.5 47.1 Max!Month 32.9 40 3 Annual.AFY 22.920 27.305; • Conservation The City has made a significant commitment to conservation programs:over the last,l0 years and has or will soon implement nearly all the-.BMP's suggested•in the MOU regarding,Urban-Water .Conservation in California and a very extensive water recycling program: This commitment is reilecred^in the lowest water use per connection for the contractor agencies. However, even}with savings',:already in place, it has been estimated that the City could save an additional estimated 2.3 mgdtfrom increased conservation(water use surveys to customers with'large,landscapes and providing water use budget information to customers with dedicated irrigation:meters) and recycled water use(see Table A-7). Storage Capacity • The City must meet California Waterworks Stand ards defined in Section 64564. The Department hasinterpreted.this standard for existing systems with metered data to requirelstorage sufficient in each'pressure zone of the system to,meet average day demand+ 25%of maximum day demand fire flow. For each of the contractors, it is assumed thatlthey should provide fire flow;sufficient to meet commercial standards or 2500 gpin/2=6odrs.(Note:This fire flow is more conservative than the City!s Master.Plan recommendation). It is also assumed that the,required volume can include the SCWA storage available in the system's service area. • ' In order to meet this standard, the;City should currently have,29 mg of storage and nearly 38rmg • by the year,2010. Currently, the City currently has 17.2'mg of storage. The City's 1994`Master .,Plan Update concluded that the City should add an additional 4.3 mg of storage assuming that the City could utilize pressure and flows from the SCWA Aqueducts in+tfie lower pressure zones. Independently:owned City facilities are inadequate to meet this standard. However,when considered:together with SCWA storage.of 51.5•mg, the storage available tothe'city,is more.than adequate to meet system demandsiand`meet'.California Waterworks standards well':beyond the year 2010. These data are summarized in Table-B-6. Table B-6:Storage Capacity 7o'Santa,Rosa (mg) Capacity - Current'. 2010 City Owned 17:2' 21.5 SCWA 51.5. ' 61.5' Total 68.7 83:0 Requirement 29 38 Deflcitfsurplua. +39.7 +45 • • • 18 19 System Reliability: This'is defined as the ability of theCity's''water system^to meet maximum monthly demands with their largest source of supply. SCW:a, out of service. It also assumes mandatory(Stage 3) water conservation in effect and•independent system.storage:that meets waterworks standards. Table B-7 shows a comparisontof the required facilities For source and storage capacity with what the City requires in order to meet-this reliability standard. This shows that the City is currently unable to meet this.standard':iinow or in the year 2010. Table B-7:Comparison of Santa Rosa Source and Storage Capacity requirements to meet system reliability standards,currentlyand year 2010. Facility _ Current 2.010 Source(mgd) Requirement 13 16 Available 0 43 Difference. -13 -11.7 Storage(mg) Requirement 29 38 Available 17.2 21.5 Difference -11.8 -16:5 ,• Conclusions Under normal conditions;,the City of Santa Rosa has adequate capacity (source of supply and storage) to meet existing and projected-demands through the year2010. The City does not have an adequate1ocal sourceof supplyr,and independent,storage to meet the reliability standard established for this-study, either pow or by the year-2010. This would require approximately 11.7 mgd ofadditional well supply and 16.5 mg of storage. • • 19 20 C. Petaluma Water Demands Historical Demands Table C-!summarizes the number,of service connections and water demands in the City for the period 1993-1999. Table C-I: Historical and Projected Water Demands(mgd) 1993-1999. Year Conn Max Month Max.Day Annual:Production,(AFM System SCWA gcpd System SCWA System SCWA.. - 1993 15575 0 12:0 760 0 4.6 0 8550 1994 16166 0 12:4 770 0 4.6 0' 9330 1995 16502 0 12.7 770 0 5.3 2 9510 1996 16997 0 13.4 7.90 0 5.6 0 .9330 1997 17251. 0 14.1 320 0 - 3.2 14. 10590 1998 17298 NA 14;7 330 NA . SS 921 3914 1999 17760. 15 15.0. 845 NA : 7.3 1050 9973 Source: DHS-Annual-Reports As;shown;in Table C-1, the per connection,use.during,the maximum month averaged approximately 800 gpcd over the 7 year period examined Future Demands The historical growth in number of service connections in the City for the period 1993-99..was • used to project the number of connections to the.year 2010. This shows,that the'number of connections:would grow to approximately 21,800 by the year 2010, a growth of,22:7%since 1999 Assuming a rate of growth in water demand equal to the growth in connections; the maximum month"use would increase',to 20 2 mgd, the maximum day to 23.6 mgd and the annual demand to • 13,900 AF/Y. Table C-4,summarizes these projections. Table C-t:Projected 2010 Petaluma Water Demands Connections 21,800 Maximum-Month,mgd 20.2 Maximuim:Day,,mgd 23.6 Annual'Demand,AF 13,900 • Facilities Sources of Supply The City has an entitlement fromlthe SCWA under the 10th Agreement for 17.0 mgd for the maximum month received'through the Petaluma,Aqueduct, which currently, has a total capacity of approximately 32 mgd. It also has a contract with,the.N. Marin WD to allow N.Marin to utilize up,to 3 6 mgd of its entitlement if it is not using it Under the proposed 1 ph'Agreement, the City's entitlement ncreases to 21.8'mgd.with an annual allocation`of 13,400 AF. The City also,has 11 wells currently in production with,a total rated capacity of 5.4 mgd- Table e2 gives,details.on production capacity foreach'of the wells. The reliable'capacity of the combined well field(2/3 of rated capacity with largest well out of service) is 3.2 mgd. 20 • 21 • Table C-2: Well Information .Well':Name CaPaeity;gpm_ Prince Parks North' 400 Ponce'-Park Soiah' 400 Prates 325 Kingswcll 250 Luchessi 450 . Park Place 300 Airport 350 Well Station 9 225 Well Station I'I 300 Ctdss Creek 270 Stoney Point 500 Total 3730(5.4 mgd). Storage The City has five (5) pressure'.zones with a total of (10)storage reservoirs. The total combined volume of the ten tanks is 13.04 mg. Table C-3show the location.and volume of each tank. Table C7:Storage Tanks Zone Location Volume,mg I Washington I 2:0 1 Washington 2 2.0 1 Oak Hill 2.0 2 . Mountain Vicw 2.0 • 2. ' Paula Lane 1.0 3 La.Cresta I 3 La Cresta 2 0.2 4 Hardin ardin Lane 0.5 (.0 4 Manor Lane, 2.0 5 Country Club 0.34 Total - 13.04 mg Evaluation Source of Supply: Section 64564, California Waterworks Standards requires source capacity, that together with storage capacity; is sufficient to safely and reliably meet the demands of the system. It further defines the minimum required source capacity as not less than the maximum day demand,unless approved by the Department Adequacy of Current Supply Currently, the City has an adequate source of supply to meet maximum month and day demands. However, as shown in Table A-10,under the SCWA discussion,maximum deliveries through the Petaluma Aqueduct are exceeding its capacity in order for theSCWA to meet its obligations for supply to Mann County. As a result,over the last several years,under,peak•summertime demand conditions, the pipeline has been,unable to meet the demand resulting[in very low water levels in the Kastania Tanks! This has created'low pressures•and flow delivery problems within the Petaluma system and the N.Mann aqueduct. Asa short term'solutiontorMinimize this problem, the City is developing an igreementwith the N.Marin WD to limit flow to the N.Marin Aqueduct when necessary to'maintain tank levels in'the;Kastania tanks; In the longjterm, the SCWA has plans to expand the capacity of the Petaluma aqueduct,butthey will most likely not be implemented before 2005. • 2 l T7 Adequacy of Future Supply Table'C-5 compares the Petaluma sources of supply with the current and projected;demands though the year 2010 This shows that the supply,is currently adequate to,.meet Waterworks standards:. However, by the year 2010, the;City' will,need its proposed increased entitlement from the SCWA ro meet demands. • Table.C-5:Comparison of Petaluma Total Source Capacity with Demands.Current and Year 2010:(mgd) Supply - Current 2010 SCWA 17.0 221.3' Local. 3:2 3.'. -Total 20.2 25.0 ' Demand Max Day 17.3 23;4 Max Month 16.5 20.2 Conservation The City of Petaluma has also made a commitment to water conservation and has implemented nearly all recommended BMP's along with an extensive agricultural'recycledwater program. If the,City is successful in implementing'additional conservation measures (water use surveys to • customers with large landscapes and providing Eto based water use budget mformation'to customers with dedicated irrigation,meters)and recycled water programs as suggested by the ,. SCWA study.(see Table A-7), the city could reduce its water use by at least 0.7'mgd and its annual productipn'requirernent by 800 AP/Y. Storage Capacity: The City must meet California Waterworks'Standards!defined in Section 64564, The Department has interpreted this standard for existing systems with metered'data to require storage sufficient in each-pressure zone,of the system to meet average day demand+25% of maximum day demand.+ fire flow: Table C-6 compares the City's available storage now'and projected to year 2010 with the standard requirement. This shows that the City has adequate storage to meet this requirement. Table C-6:Storage Evaluation (mg) Capacity Current 2010 City Owned 13:0 13.0 SCWA 24.0 24.0 Total 37.0 37.0 Requirement 14.4 .:180 • Deficit/surplus +22.6 +19 System Reliability: Tius is defined`as the ability of the:City's water system to meet maximum month ly/demands'with their largest source of;supply, SCWA;out of service_ It also:assumes mandatory.(Stage 3)'•water conservation effect and independent system_storagefthatmeets waterworks.standards. Table C-7 shows a comparison of the required facilities for source and storage capacity with what the City requires in order to meet this reliability standard. This shows that the City lacks the independent capacity necessary to meet this definition of system reliability currently and in the year 2010. 22 • • 23 • • • Table C-7: Comparison of Petaluma Source:and Storage Capacity with what is required to meet system reliability standards;currently and year 010: Facility Current 2010 .Source(mgd): Requirement 6'.6 y.l Available _ - )2 0.2 Difference -3.o .J,g Storage(mg) Rcquimment 14,3 IS Available 11.0 13.0 Difference •1:1 -5.0 Conclusions: Currently, the City has adequate source and storage.capacity.to meet Waterworks Standards for current needs. However; under peak summertime demands,'.the Petaluma Aqueduct is currently at or above its maximum capacity to Safety and adequately deliver the City's:full entitlement while meeting the demands of N.;Mann WD and-Mann ;Municipal. The SCWA has plans to construct a parallel aqueduct to increase capacity, but that will most likely not be operational until at least 2005. In the interim; the,agreement being,developed with N. Mans WD will ensure that the City receivesits entitlement underadequate pressure conditions. By the,year 2010, the City will have inadequate source capacity;to meet Waterworks standards using its local well--.supply and current'SCWA•entitlement: However, if the SCWA is able to obtain additional water tights such that it can;increase entitlements as proposed in the I Id' Agreement, the City would have an adequate supply. The City does not have an adequate'local source,of supply and independent storage to meet the reliability standard established for this study; either now or by the year-2010. This would require approximately 5 mgd of additional well supply and 5`mg of storage. • • • 23 ■ 74 D. Cotati • Water Demands Historical Demands; Table D-1 summarizes the number of service connections and water demands in the City for the period 1993-1999. The average•water use;per connection for the maximum month averaged 740 gpcd over the seven (7)year period for which data was available. Table 0=1: Historical and Projected Water Demands(mgd) 1993- 1999 Year Conn Man.Mdnth Max Day Annual Production (AF/Y), System SCWA..goad System SCWA• System SCWA 1993 1985 0.2 1.3 755 0.4 1113 350 615 1994 2026 • 0.1 1.2 790 0.4 1.6 320 765 1995 2057 0.2 1.0 585 0.1 1.1 135 770 1996 2019 0.4 1.2 780 0.5 1.2 440 665- 1997 2240 0:5 I.2 760 0.5 1.7 ..510 675 1998 2163 0:6 1.0 '740 0.6 1.3 . 460 620 1999 2137 .0.7.•0.9 750 . 0.7 I.0 .410 . 652 Source: DHS Annual Reports Future'Demand The historical growth in number of service connections in the City:for the p'eriod'1993-99'--was used to project the number of connections to the year 2010. This shows that.thetnuxnber of connections would grow to approximately 2650 Sy the year 2010, a growth of 24%since 1999. • Assuming a;rate of growth in water demand equal to the growth in-.connections; the,maximum month use would increase to 2.0 mgd;the annual%demand to 1300 AFT and the maximum,day demand to 2.3 mgd. Table D-3,summarizes these projections. TableD-35Projected2010 Cotati Water Demands 'Connections 2650 Maximum Month,mgd 2.0 Maximum Day mid 2:J Annual,Demand,AF 1300 Facilities Sources of Supply The City's entitlement from the SCWA under the 10th Agreement is`1.7,mgd. Under the proposed 1 lih Agreement, the entitlement would increase to 3.8 mgd-with an annual total of 1520 AF/Y. The City,also has due f(3),active wells that have a total production capacity of 2(66 mgd. However, Well I,which has a pumping capacity of 750 gpm,only.has an effective capacity of 500 gpm because of limitations in;the ironimanganeselfiltration plant. This reduces'the:total effective capacity to.2.3 mgd. Table D-2 summarizes information for the three'(3)'wells. 24 25 Table D-2:Well capacity • Well Name. Capacity,Rpm 500• 2. 295 3.. • 300 TOM! 1595(2_.3 mgd1. •Well has capacity of 250 but limited to 500 by WTIa The long-term reliable capacity:o f theCity's well source(2/3 of rated capacity without largest well in service) is approximatelyO.&mgd. Storage There are two storage tanks,in the system with a combined total of 1.10 mg storage—one 0.10 mg and one I.0 mg tank. The Cityhas recently made a request to their City council to replace the 0.10 mg tank with.a 0.400 mg tank which, if approved, will increase the total storage volume to • 1.4 mg.. Evaluation Source of Supply: Section 64564, California Waterworks Standards requires source capacity, that together with storage capacity, is sufficient to,safely and reliably meet the demands of the system. It further defines the minimum required source capacity as not less than the maximum day demand, unless , approved by the Departnieht. Adequacy of:Current and Future'.Supply. Table D-4 compares the Cotan sources"of supply with the°current and projected demands through the year 2010. This shows that the supply is currently-adequate and will be adequate through the year 2010 even if the SCWA is unable to obtain additional water.rights and iinprove production capacity. Table D-1:Comparison of-Cotati Total Source Capacity with Demands,Current and Year 2010(mgd) Supply Current 2010 SCWA 1.7 3.8 Local 0:8 0.8 Total 2:5 44 • Demand Max Day 20 23 Max Month 1.7 2.0 Conservation The City of Cotati's low maximum monthly water use.of 745,gal per connection averaged over the last seven years reflects;the?City's,efforts in water conservation. If the City is successful in implementing,conseriation measures(water use surveys to customers with large'landscapes and providing water"use budget information to customers with dedicated irrigation meters) and recycled water programs as suggested by the SCWA study(see Table A-7),the City could significantlyreduce its water use. Storage Capacity: The City must meet California Waterworks Standards defined in Section 64564 The Department has interpreted this standard for existing systems with metered data to require storage sufficient in • each pressure zone of thesystem to meet average day demand+25% of maximum day demand+ fire flow. This would require the City'to currently have a total storage volume of 2.0 mg increasing to 2.6 mghy the year 2010. 25 • 26 Table,D-5 compares the City's available.and plannedstorage, together-wlth.that available from.the • SCWA to the requirements of the California Waterworks standards. These data show that the City has more than adequate storage, now and through the'year 2010 to Meet the standard'. Table D-5:Storage Evaluation (mg) Capacity Current 2010 City Owned to ..._ 1`.4 SCWA 36.0 69.5 Total 37.1 70.9 Requirement: 2,0 2.6 Deficitisurplus +35.3 +68.2 System,Reliability: This is defied as the ability of the City's water.system to meet maximum monthly,demands with •their largest source or supply, SCWA, out of service. It also assumes mandatory(Stage,3)water conservation in effect and mdependeni,system storage that meets waterworks standards. Table D-7 shows'a comparison of the required facilities for source and storage capacity with what the City:requires in order to meet this reliability,standard. This shows that the City has an adequate local source!capacity to the year 2010. However, its storage capacity is less than required to,independently meet the'standard:, If the 36:0`mg available SCWA storage in this service area is included, the City has more than.adequate capacity to meet system reliability in the event the SCWA source of supply were lost. . • Table D-7:Comparison of'Cotathand Storage Capacity with what is required to meet system reliability standards,currently and year-2010. Facility Current 2010 Source(mgd) Requirement 0:7 0.8 Available 0.8 0.8. Difference +0.1 0 Storage(mg) Requirement 2.0 2.3 Available 1.I 1.4 Difference -0.9' --0,9. Conclusions: • The City'sisource of supply and storage is adequate to meet current and,projected production requirements and-the California Waterworks Standards through the year 2010. • Regarding'system reliability,the systemhhas adequate source capacity but is deficient in independent storage to;technically meet the requirement However,with the large capacity of SCWA storage in this zone,this is not a significant'issue. • • • 26 27• E. Rohnert Park • System Demands Historical Demands: • ° Table E-1 summarizes, hentmmber'ofservice connections and water demands in the City for the period 1993-1999 Daily metering-from the'SCWA is not practiced and the Rohnert Park users are not metered. Therefore, maximum day figures for the SCWA viere estimated using a ratio of 1_.17 maximum day-to-maximum month(based on metered records for N. Maria, Petaluma and Cotati). In actuality, this is a very conservative ratio:to use given the lack of metered water use in the community. It is assumed that-the records-provided for system(local).source for maximum day was accurate since the City does monitor their well production. The per connection use tduring.the maxirnummonth averaged 1215-gpcd over the period 1993-99. Table E-1: Historical and Projected Water Demands(mgd) • 1993- 1999 Year Conn Max Month Max.Day Annual Production,AF System SCWA aped System SCWA System SCWA 993 3221'. 5.5 3.6 1110 5.5 4.2 1950 2095 994 3231 6.0 3.7 1130 6.0 4.1 4880 2640 995 8295- 6.4 4.5 1325 6.1 5.3 5350 2515 996 8295 6:6 1.3 1315 6.6 10 5375 2560 997 8500 6.2 11.2 1225 6.1 419 5745 2755• 998 8589, 5.1 4.9 1200. '5.4 5:7 - -4370 2940 999 8700 '5.5 4.4 1138 5.5 5.1 . 4690 3005 Source: DHS Annual Reports - • Future Demands: The historical growth'in number of service connections in the City for the period 1993-99 was used to project the number of connections to the year 2010. This shows that the number of connections would grow to'approximately".9800'by the year 2010; a growth of 12.6%since 1999. Assuming a rate of growth in water demand equal:to the growth in connections, the maximum month use Would increase to 11.l:mgd,.the maximum day to 13.0 mgd and the annual demand to 8665 AF. Table E-2,suinmarizesithese projections. Tattle E-2:Projected 2010!Rohnert Park-Water.Demands Connections 9800 • Maximum Month,.mgdj IY"l Maximum Daymgd 13.0 • Annual Demand,A? 8665 Facilities- Sources of Supply: The City;currently has two sources of supply-SCWA and its own well field: The City's entitlement•from tte'SCWA under-the 10°Agreement is 1.0 mgd: However, it has a letter agreement with the N. Marin WaterDistrictrthat legally'entitles them to an additional supply of up•to3.6 mgd'from the N.Marin excess supply, if it is available. However,as shown later in Table H•4,,there was only 0:9 mgd available in 1997 and 1.5.;mgd available in 1999. With increased'demands.in both-Petaluma and N.Marin, no stiiplus'water can be considered to be available to Rohnert Part from this agreement In the future, the:City's entitlement will increase • under the proposed I1i°Agreement to-15.0 mgd for the maximum month and 7500 AF annually. 27 • • 78 • The well field is currently permitted by DHS for 39 wells with a rated capacity of 4390 gpm(6,3) mgd and,1 reliable,capacity of 4 O'mgd. However; the.production capacity of each well is based on unreliable estimates. Additionally, since the•rated capacity of_the new Well 42 was not_known at the time of this report, it was estimated based-%on the-average of the City's other wells. The City,has•been monitoring the groundwater table±in the aquifer from which it draws its supply for a number of years These data show a:declining^water table and raises further questions about the long term reliable yield of the wells. Each of the wells currently in production, with exception of Wells42,.are listed in Table E-2a. Sto'rage:, The Citycurrently:has seven storage;tanks with a combined capacity of 4.25 mg. Evaluation Source of:Supply: • Section 64564, California Waterworks Standards.requires source capacity that together with storage capacity, is sufficient to safely and reliably the demands of thesystem: :It.further defines the niinrmum-required source capacity as"not less than the maximum day dethand,unless • approved by the,Deparment. Adequacy ofCurrentSupply Table E=3 provides a comparison of the Rohnert Park water demand for the period 1997-99 compared with total source capacity,(local-sources; SCWA entitlement, and plus supply from the N Marinagreement). This shows that at least since 1997; there;has been no surplus supply• • from N Maia and that the City does not comply with the;Waterworks standards because of an inadequate water supply and has been using :SCWA water beyond its legal limit. • 'Tablet-3: Comparison of.Rohnert Park'Max Month Water Demand vs.Supply-for the period 1997-99. Year Demand Supply Deficit/Surplus- ._ local Entitlement N.Mann 1997 10:4 6.2 1:0 - 0.9 -2.3 1998 10.3 5.4 1.0 3.6 -0.3 . 1999 99 5:5 1.0' 1.5 -1-.9- Adequacy of Future supply- Under the.proposed].I .Agreement,_the City entitlement will increase to 15.0 mgd which.will more than meet existing demands through the'year 2010:. However, this increase;in supply is dependent upon SCWA obtaining,additional water dghts,.the:timing of which is very uncertain. In the interim,"the_City will continue to be operating:in„violation of DHS waterworks standards. Table E-4"surn,arizes. data fronathe previous discussion. Table E-: Compadiou of Roliinert'Park Total Source Capaelty(Endtlements, Agreements)`nithcurrentand;projected demands,Year 2010 ting0.- Capacity Supply Current. . 2010 SCWA 1.0' 15.0 Local'Sources. 5'5 5.5 Surplus Agreements N.Mario _o Total 6.5' - 20.5 ak rids Mi • axmum Month 9:9 11.1 Maximum Day . :.10.6 13.0 • 28 • 29 Conservation 0 Currently, the City is not implementing all BMP's.recommended for water conservation. Of particular concern.is the lack,oftwatermeters'with?btllmg:based onsmetered use The potential savings;from.this BMP alone may'.be'very significant given•tnat'Rohneit;Park.'s•maximum monthly per connection use in 1999 is:approximately 35%;greater than the average of the other seven contractors. The SCWA;has advised the City that it will need'to implement two additional. conservation measures. These include I) installation of water meters and metered billing on all metered connections and 2)'offersurveys to customers with largelandscapes and provide water use budget information to customers having dedicated irrigation meters. These requirements are being made as a condition'.ofreceiving an emergency allocatiom:ofsupplygreater than their entitlement. These conditions are supposed to be completed within.i.he next six years. Storage Capacity: The City must meet California Waterworks Standards defined,in'Section 64564. The Department has interpreted this"standard for existing systems with metered data to,_require.storage sufficient in each pressure zone of the system to;meet average day demand+,2a%of maximum day demand+ fife flow. This requires a total voliuneof 9.3 mg currently and increasing to 11.1 mg by the year 2010. Table E-6 compares the City's available and planned storage, together with that available from the •SCWA to the requirements of the California Waterworks standards. These data show that the City does not:meet the standard withits own facilities,but has morethan adequate storage, now and through the year 2010 to meet the standard. • Table E-6:Storage Evaluation (mg) �Cipacity Current 2010 40 . City Owned 4.25 4.25 SCWA. 36.0 b93 Total' 40.25 73.75 Requirement 9.3 11;1 Deficit/su ruins +30.45 +62.65 System Reliability: This is defined as the ability of the City's water system to meet maximum monthly demands with • • their largest source of supply, SCWA,;out of service. It also assumes mandatory(Stage 3)water conservation in effect and•'independent system storage that meets-waterworks.standards. Table E-7 shows a comparison of,the•required facilities for source and storage capacity with what the City requires in order to meet,,this reliability standard. This shows that the City has adequate source:capacity but lacks the independent'Storage necessary to meet the•standard. :However, if available'SCWA storage is included,the City has no problem meeting the definition Table E-7:Comparison of Rohnert Park Source and Storage'Capacity with that required to meet system-reliability standards,currently and year 2010. Facility -. . Current 2010 Source(mgd) Requirement 4:1 . 4.6 Available 5.5 '5.5 " Difference +1.1 +0.9 Storage(mg) Reglble t 9.8 Available 4.2 II.I 4.2 Difference -5.6 -7,9 . 29 • 30 Conclusions: • The<City's current,permitted local source of supply of 5.5 mgd from wells and 1 0 mgd from the SCWA is inadequate to meet the existing maximinn-day and month demands in,the system and fails to legally comply with the California WaterworksiStandards. As a result,::the city has been using unreliable excess supply from the SCWA, at least since 1996. The City's supply entitlement under the proposed.11,'h Agreement will increase.to 15.0 mgd. This increase;;together with,the City's local supply is more than adequate to meet the projected demands beyond the year 2010. However,-this assumes that the SCWA,will be successful`in obtaining additional water rights and'will'be able;to increase production capacity beyond its existing capacity of 92 mgd. The water demand in the City is considerably higher'than adjacent communities.which may be attributed:to the City's flat rate(.unrnetered policy. implementation of meters with metered billing within 5-years has,been made a condition by the SCWA for the City to'receive additional supply and the City has recently Made a commitment to accomplish this This should significantly-reduce the City's water consumption and improve their ability-to obtain additional supply. • 30 3.1 �. F. Sonoma System Water Demands' Historical Demand: Table.F-I summarizes the number of service connections and'water demands. in the City for the period 1993-1999. The City reported 3557 connections in 1993 with a maximum month demand of 3 0 mgd and an annual demand of 221 S AF. No?data were available on the maximum day demand, but using the same approach as used for Santa Rosa, the maximum day demand was estimated at 3.5 mgd for 1997 and 1993. The per connection use during the maximum month over the:six year period for which data was available averaged 890 gpcd. Table F-I: Historical and Projected Water Demands(mgd) 1993-1998 Year Conn bias Month Max Day Annual,Production (AF/Y) System SCWA gpcd System SCWA System SCWA • 993 3241 0:1 2.7 865 NA 'NA 20 1920 994 • 3310 0 3.0 910 NA NA 3 2100 995 3449 0.1 2.9 870 NA NA 24 2095 996 3484 0.2 2:9 890 NA 3.4 20 2235 997 3512 0 3.0 855' NA 3.5 7 2390 998 3557 0 3.0 845 NA `3.5 I 2215 • 999 3550 I' 9:5 985 2• 4.1 . . 12 2395 Source: OHS Annual Reports • These data arc questionable and were not be used in making projections. Future ,Demand The historical growth in number of service connections in the City the period 1993-99 was used to project the number of connections to the year 2010. This shows that the number of connections would grow to approximately 4180 by the year4010,a growth.of 17.7%since 1999. Assuming a rate of growth in waterrdemand equal to the growthin connections,'the maximum month use would increase do 4.1 mgd,,the maximum day to 4:8,mgd`and the annual demand to 2820 AF. Table F-3,summarizes'these projections: Table F-3:Projected 2010 Sonoma WaterDemande Connections' 4180 • Maximum Month,mgd 4.1 Maximum Day,mgd 4.8 Annual Demand,AF 2820 • • Facilities Sources of Supply: The City has two sources of supply including,an entitlement from the SCWA under the 10d' Agreement for 33 mgd during the maximum month and its own well+field. The SCWA supply is delivered through the'Sonoma Aqueduct which also serves the Valley of Moon Water District and has a capacitrof 8.0 mgd'to ensure delivery of supply under adequate pressure. Under the proposed l l Agreement the entitlement increases to 63-mgd)in the maximum rnonth and a total annual limitation of 3000 AF. 31 32 • As shown on Table F-2_. the city has five wells ofwhich three are permitted For active use. The .� three active wells provide a total rated capacity of 780 gpm or 1.12 mgd. The reliable yield of the wells(2/3,of rated capacity with largest out of service) is 0.4 mgd. Table.F-2:Well'data Description. Capacity,gpm Status 480 Active '- NO Standby 4 50 Active 5 180 Standby 6 150 . Active Active'Total 730'(1:12 mgd) Storage:, The city has two pressure zones wit h:5 storage tanks that have a combined•capacity of 3.162 mg. Table F-3 shows the details for the storage facilities. • Table F-3:Storage Tanks • Zone Location Volume;mg 412 Tank 0.412 200;Tank 0.200 Redwood 0.05 2 M. 2.00 .. 2 Thornsben 0.50 Total 3.162 mg • • Evaluation Source of Supply: Section 64564, California Waterworks Standards requires source capacity,that together With storage capacity, is sufficient to safely and reliably meet the demands of the system. It'further definesthe-minimum required source capacity as not less than the maximurn daydemand,unless approved by the.Department. Adequacyof.Current Supply In 1999,the City's maximuniday demand'was estimated to be 4.1 mgd with.a maximum month demand of 3.5imgd- The City's current supply entitlement of 3.3mgd from the SCWA and reliable independent-well:supplyof 0:4 mgd provides the City with a supply of 3.7 mgd which is notadequate to meetWaterworksstandards;. Also as discussed previously.under,:the SCWA,the demand'on the Sonoma Aqueduct is currently exceeding its capacity;for maximum day and month demands. This has been reported to cause pressure and delivery problems for both the;ValleyofMoon and Sonoma water systems: Recently,the City„together with the SCWA and VOM have developed an agreement to restrict aqueduct flows as necessary to maintain full.tank levels in the Sonoma and Eldrdge tanks. This will enabletheiCity to meet demands;in the short run but in:the long run, the'aqueduct capacity must be increased. The SCWA has plans to build a parallel pipeline but thisis not expectedto he completed-for at least several years. Adequacy of Future Supply Under the proposed 11°'Agreement,;the City's'entitlement increase,to 6.3�mgd'which together with;the reliable local'supply of 0.4 mgd;wtll provide the City with a total supply ofi63 .mgd. There are no restriction-con total annual use,in the City's entitlement This is more than needed tmmeet existing demands through the year 2010. • • 32 • 33 • Table F-4 summarizes the Sonomh sourcescofsuppiy"with the cunenrandprojected demands through the year 2010. Table F-1:Comparison of Sonoma Total Source Capacity with Demands.Current and Year :010.(mgd) ' Supply - Current 2010 'SCWA - 3.3 6.3 Local 0.4 0.4 Total 3.7 6:7 Demand );tax Day 4.1 "4.3 Mdx Month 3S 3.7 Conservation The SCWA study,on canservanonshows that'there is a potential for saving ISO AF/,Y through increased conservation(wateruse surveys to customers with large landscapes, providing Eto based water use budgettnformadon to customers with,dedicated irrigation meters, and undertaking a demonstration project;to,deterfrne the feasibility of irrigation tune"clocks for residential services) in cooperation withVOM Water District, and use of recycled`water. (see Table A-7). Storage Capacity: The City must meet California Waterworks Standards defined"in Section.64564. The Department has interpreted this standard for existing systems with metered data to require storage sufficient in each pressure zone of the system to meet average day demand'+25% of maximum day demand+ fire flow. Table F-5 compares the available storage capacity in the systeni'with the waterworks standard requirement currently:and tottheyear'2010. This shows thattlie City has a surplus that will take them well beyond the year,2010. Table F-5:Storage Evaluation (mg) Capacity: Current 2010 City Owned 12 3.2 SCWA. 10.0 10.0" Total - 13.2 13.2 Requirement 3.2. 3.8 Deficit/surplus '+10 +9.4 System Reliability: This is defined as the ability of the.City's water system to meet maximum monthly demands with their largest source of supply,SCWA, out of service. It also assumes mandatory(Stage 3)water conservation in effect and independent system storage,thatmeets waterworks standards. Table F-6 shows:a comparison of the required facilities for source and storage capacity with what the City requires'in order to meet this reliability standard. This shows that the City currently is 1.0 mgd short meeting this standard and will be short approximately 1.5 mgd by the year 2010. Regarding,storage capacity,the system currently;Sas adequate?independent storage but will be short approximately 0:6 mg by the year 2010. However,if available SCWA storage is included, the City has no problem meeting the definition • • 33 34 Table F-6:Comparison of Sonoma Source and Storage Capacity with what is required to meet system reliability standards:currently and year 2010. Facility Current _ 2010 'Source(mgd) Requirement 1:4 ].9 Available 0:4 _0.4. Difference -1.0 - -1.5 Storage(mg) Requirement 3:2 3,S Available 3.2 1.2 Difference 0 -0:16 Conclusions - The•City's current;permitted reliable-source of'supply of0.4,mgd from wells and 13 mgd from the SCWA is not adequate to meet Waterworks Standards as required for the maximum day demands in the system. The City's current reliable supply is inadequate to meet'projected 2010 demands. However, their supply entitlement:under the proposed 1 l'h,Agreementwill increase to 6.3rmgd,:which, together. with the City n' 's local supply, will be more thaadequate;to meet the projected demands.beyond the year 2010. This is dependent,though, upon:the SCWA being-successful in obtaining-additional water rights and increasing capacity of the Sonoma Aqueduct. The demand on the Sonoma Aqueduct is currently exceeding its capacity for maximum day and month demands. This has been reported.to cause pressure and delivery problems for both,the Valley of Moon and Sonoma water systems Recently; the City, together with the-SCWA and VOM have developed an agreement to restrict aqueduct flows as necessary,to maintain"full'tank levels in the Sonoma and Eldidge tanks: This will enable the City to•meet demands in the short run but in the long rum, the aqueduct capacity.must be increased. The SCWA has plans`to build a parallel pipeline but this is not expected to be completed for at least several years: With exception of current storage;the City fails to meet reliability standards under current and, projected year 2010 demands. • • 34 35 G. Valley of the Moon WD • System Water Demands, y Historical Demands: Table G-1 summarizes the number.;of service connections and water demands in the District tot the period 1993-1998. Tliema:(iinum:month use during this-period,was,4.8 mgd in 1999 with an annual use of 3575 AF. The maximum month use per connection averaged approximately 685 gpcd over the period 1993- 1999. Table GI: Historical Water Demands(mgd) 1993-1998 - Year Conn Max'Month Max Day; Annual Production (AF/Y) System SCWA. gpcd System SCWA. System SCWA 1993 6402 0 4.4 690 0.1 5:1. 20 • 3070 1994 6467 0 4.4 680 0.2 5'.1 20 3245 1995 6497 0.2 4.3 690 0:2 5.0 553170 1996 6507 0 4.2 645 0.03 4.9 12 3140 1 997 6555 0,3 4:1 • 670 0.3 413 515 3055 1 998 6577 0.4 .4.1 685 1.1 4'3 455 2740 1999 6609 0.5 4.3 726 '0.5 5.0 605 2970 Source: DHS Annual Reports Future Demands • The historical growth in number of service connections In the,District for the period 1993-99 was used.to project the number of connections to the year 2010. This'shows that the number of connections would grow to approximately 7000 by the year 2010,.a growth of,6.0 %since 1999. Assuming a rate of growth in water demand equal to the growth in connections, the maximum month use would increase-to 511 mgd, the maximum day t6 5.8 mgd°and the annual demand to 3790 AF. Table G-2,.summarizes,these projections. Table G-2:Projected 2010 Valley of Moon Water'Demands Connections 7000 Maximum Month,mgd 5.1 'Maximum Day,mgd 5.8 - ..Aonual Demand,AS 3790 • Facilities Sources of'Stipply: . The District hasltwo sources of supply;Ithe SCWA supply which is delivered through the Sonoma Aqueduct and includes an.entitlement of 4.7 for the maximum'month under the 10th Agreement;and a.local'well=field. The District's entitlement will.increase to 8.5 mgcl under the proposed 11th Agreement and include an.annual limit of 3200 AF. The Sonoma Aqueduct currently has a capacity of 8.0 mgd The District's well field currently includes,five wells with a combined,rated-capacity of 1 mgd (See Table G-3). The District is proceeding with plans,based on a Groundwater Master Plan developed by Luhdoff&Scalmanini(1998),to develop three additional wells over the next four • years that will provide an additional l3 mgd. This will give the District a total rated well capacity of 2.3 mgd. 35 36 •The,total reliable capacity>otthe-wells for long-temt'use (2/3 of rated;capaciry with largest well outofservice) would currently be.0.6'mgd with an additional 13 mgd fora total of 1.9 mgd by 2005. Table G-3: Well Sources Capacity,gpm Description Current 'Projeeied Status Agua Calic`nte I20 on-line •Donald 1'10 on-line Park.Avenue- 90, an-line Mountain-Ave 120. on-line Larbre 250• • on-line 3 new wells 900 Developed w/1.4 vrs' Total 690 900 Storage: Currently the-District has.eleven.storage:ianks=in the system with a combined capacity of 4.47 mg. There are longterm plans to add an additional• .1 m •of storage. Table G-4 summarizes data on the tank locations,capacity and status. Table C-I: Storage Tanks Description Capacity,mg. Status Temelec I 0.20 Temelec 2 1.00 Donald 0.20 Boyer Springs 0.21 Out of service, Crest 0.15 Replace w/0.5 MG in 2001 Chestnut 0.32 Nanny • 0.03. • Sonic Vista-low 0.03 Sobre Vista-high, 0..21 Replace with 0 16 mg tank in 2003 Saddle 0:15. Sub total - 4,26 mg Glen Ellen I 0:50 New=.long term Glen.Ellen 2 0:50 New-longiterm Sabre Vista 0:10 New.-iong term ,Total 5.36mg Evaluation Source.of Supply: Section'64564, California Waterworks Standards requires source capacity,•that together with • storage capacity,Its;sufficient to safely:and reliably meet the demands•of the:system. It further defines the miniinunt,requiredsoiuce capacity-asnot:less than the:maximum•tiaydemand,unless approved by the Department. • Current?W ater„SupplyAdequacy The City's•current supply entitlement of 4:7•mgd:from the SCWA and,independent reliable well supply of 09 mgd provides 5.6•mgd. This is currently adequate to meet the 1999•maximum• month demand of 41 mgd`and'maximum,day'demand of 5:5 mgd, • Future`W ater;Supply Adequacy Under the proposed 116 Agreement,ythe District's entitlement will increase to 8.5;tngd'and the District's independent.well supply will increase',to 2.2 mgd This will',be more,than adequate to meet existing demandslthrough the yea •2010. However the avarlability,of.the increased supply to the District,even after the-11th Agreement is signed,is dependent upon`-the SCWA:success inobtainingladditional water Eights. Additionally, the Sonoma.Aqueduct is above its capacity at the present-time and the availability,of the increased • SCWA supply is dependent,upon completing-theproposed parallel pipeline to serve.the'District. . 36 • t 37 ' Table G-5 compares•the Valley of Moon sources,of supply with the current and projected demands through the year 2010. Table Cw5:Comparison of Valley.of Moon Toni Source Capacity with Demands. Current and-Year 20101(mgd) Supply . Current 222010 SCWA 1.7 .3.5 Local 0.9 2:2 Total 5,6 10.7 Demand Max Day ' 5:5 3.8 • Max Month 43. 5,1 Conservation The District has implemented many of the conservation BMP's. which is retlected in the lowest per connection water use during;the maximum month.(685 gpcd) of,all the contractors. However, two additional conservation measures have been identified by the SCWA as necessary. These include water use surveys',to customers with large landscapes, providing water use budget information to customers with dedicated irrigation meters, and undertaking a demonstration project to deterrmne the feasibility of irrigation time'clocks for residential services in cooperation with the City of S6noma,rand: use ofrecycledwater. ThØe-additionaI projects have the potential to save,approximately+585:AFY(see Table A-7). .. Storage Capacity: ill The District must meet California Waterworks Standards defined in,Section 64564. The Department has interpreted this standard for existing systems with metered data to require storage •sufficient in,each-..pressure zone of the system to meet—average day demand+25%of maximum day demand+fire flow. Table G-6'comparesthe Districts-available and planned storage to the year 2010 with waterworks standards requirements: This shows'that the District has more than adequate storage to meet requirements beyond tfie`year2010. Table C-6:Storage-Evaluation (mg) Capacity Current 2010 District Owned. 4.5 5.6 SCWA 8.0 . 5.0 Total 12.5 ;13:6 Requirement 4.8 5.7 Deficit/surplus +7.7 +7.9 System Reliability: This is defined as;the;ability of the District's water,system to meet maximum monthly demands with their largest source of supply,SCWA,out of service. ''It also assumes mandatory(Stage 3) water conservation in effect and independent system storage that meets waterworks standards. Table G=7 shows-.a comparison of the required facilities for source(40%of the current and projected maximum month•demand)and storage"capacity with what is.required to meet this reliability standard. This;shows'that the District currently-has inadequate reliable source capacity but with its:plans to increase its local supply, will be adequate:before the year 2010. . 37 33 Regarding storage, it shows that the District is slightly deficientiin meetingthis requirement currently yLas well as in the future. • • Table G-7:Comparison of Valley Of Moon Source and Storage Capacity with what is required to meet system reliability itandards;currently and year 2010. - Facility ,Current 2010 Souree(mgd) Requirement 49 2.0 Available '0.9 2 2 Difference -I.O +0.2 Storage(mg) Requirement 4,3 5.7 Available 4 5: 5.6 Difference -0.3 -0.1 Conclusions: The Districts current permitted source of supply;;of 1.3 mgd from wells(of which 0`9 mgd is considered..reliable),and 4.7 mgd from,the SCWA is'adequate to meet the existing•.maximtmm day and month demands in'the'system: • With the.increased entitlement of 8.5 mgd!under the.Proposed 11ih Agreemen •and increased local well supply to 2.6 mgd(of which 2:2,mgd`.iscconsidered-reliable), the Dtsmct has more than -adequate supply to meet demands'beyond the year.2010: However,this is strictly dependent upon, theiSCWA being successfiui in obtaining additional water rights and completio6ofits proposed project to+increase the capacity of theiSonorna Aqueduct from 8.0 mgd to 14.8"mgd. • The District meets the storage requirements of th&Califomia Waterworks standards currently and well beyond the year 2010. The District currently,does not meet the system reliability standard for an independent source;of supply established for this study but has plans'ao provide needed local source capacity before the year 2005. • 38 . 39 1 H; North Marin Water District • System Water Demands }` Historical Water Demand: Table H-1 summarizes the number ofservice-.connections and water-demands in the District for the period 1993-1999. ' The average per connection use during the maximum month averaged approximately 788•gpcd and the annual use averaged approximately 0.52 AF/connection. I Table H-.I Historical and Projected Water Demands(mgd) - 1993-1999. I Year Conn, Max Month MaxDa'• Annual Production (AFTY) System SCWA gpcd System SCWA System SCWA 1993 17203 2'5 10:6• 760 3.0 '11.3 - 1713 7645 1994 17297 212- 11.6 798 2.0 1113 1097 9105 • l 1995 17125 2.9 10.6 775 1,2 . '.11,9 2009 7905 l 1996 17453 2:6 110 779 35 12.7 1377 3270 s 1997 17537 0.3 13:2 '798 0 15.7 - 1377 8613 1998 17620 4.1 99 795 3.4. I'(.6 3051 6137 1999 17936 2.9 11 i7 314 3.5 13.6 • 2255 3270 Source: North Mann Water District - Future Water Demand: . Future service connection growth projections basedon historical growth for the period 1993-1999, shows that the number of connections would grow to'approximately 19;600,by the year 2010, a growth of 9.3 %since 1999. - Assuming a rate of growth in water demand equal to the growth in connections, the maximum month use would increase to-;16.0'mgd, the maximum day-to 18.7 mgd and the annual demand to . 11,500 AF. Table H-2,suminarities these projections. -Table H-2i Projected 2010 North Marin Water Demands 'Connections 19,600- Maximum'Month.-mgd 16.0 ' Mnxlmom Day,mgd. 18.7 Annual Demand,AF 11;500' Facilities . Sources of Supply The District has two sources of supply, a local surface water source-from Lake Stafford and an entitlement from the SCWA. Each are discussed below. The District's entitlement under the 40ih Agreement,delivered through the N.-Mann Aqueduct, is 112 mgd for the:maximum month with a rate not to exceed 14.8 mgd in the Petaluma Aqueduct. To supplement this'supply'during periods of high demand,-.N.Mann has an agreement with Petaluma to utilize any of Petaluma:,s entitlement that they,are'not using',up to a maximum of 3.6 mgd. N.Marin-also has an:agreement'with Rohnert that allows Rohnert Park to utilize N. Mann's surplus entitlement of up,to 3.6,:tngd supply,if it's.available. In the proposed 11i'Agreement,the District's entitlement increases;to 19.9 mgd with a maximum day limitation'of 20:9'mgd and an annual limit of 14;100-AF. This District has an interconnection ,• with the Mann Municipal system which enables them to wheel surplus water from the SCWA to Marin Municipal or to receive supplemental supply from Marin when they have surplus water. - 39 40 The District's Lake Stafford source has an estimated safe yield of,2000 AFTY but it can be back fed from the.Russian River source to increase the yield. However; back feeding.is very costly and 110' not done under normal circumstances. The surface water treatment plant has,an approved capacity of 6.0'mgd but is normally operated at a rate of only 3 0 mgd duringtl e`summer months. The Distridtplans to increase the reliability of the Lake Stafford WIT by:upgi•adifg the plant Within the,next three years. To increase the peak monthcapacity of the Lake:Stafford treatment plant;.the SCWA is requiring in,its Emergency,Impairment agreement, a commitment by the District to improve staffing and/or facilities to allow 24 hr operation,of the plant: For purposes of this study; it is assumed that th'ese improvements will be made and the plant's reliable capacity would increase to 6:0 mgd by the year,2010., Storage: The Dtsmcthas a total of:26 storage tanks infourpressure zones. The total combined storage in the system is 28 mg. Zones I and 2 have approximately 90%of the demand and has the largest storage volume. The,District isplannmg to'add approximately 800,000 gallons of storage to Zone 3. Table H-3 summarizes the storage information for the district. Table H-3: Storage Capacity,mg Description Existing Proposed Zone I. 6:85 8.0 Zone 2 17.0 Zone 3 3.6, 0:8 Zone.4 0:55 Total 28.0 8.8 • Evaluation •• Source of Supply: Section 64561;California Waterworks Standards requires source capacity;that/together with storage capacity, is sufficient to safely and reliably meet the demands of the system; It further defines•the'r inunurn required source capacity as not less than the maximum daydemand, unless approved by theDepartment. Current Supply Adequacy The District's current SCWA entitlement of 11.2 mgd from the SCWA plus,1.5"mgd of excess , supply from`Petaluma-::together with the Lake Stafford reliable supply of 3.0 mgd provides the District with asupply capacity of 15:7 mgd. This is currently adequate to meet the 1999 maximum month demand of 14.6;mgd bin.inadequate to.reliably meet the maximum day demand of 17.1 mgd. However, the District has been able to.provide peak'day.demands through utilization of the,Lake Stafford WTP,storage,;and Surplus capacity from the City of Petaluma: Table H-4 shows a comparison oftheN.Mann maximum monthly use from the SCWA with its entitlement plus excess supply available from Petaluma for the years 1996-99: This shows that.the 'District alas{had to rely.on e*cess supply from Petaluma on two occasions. Ott one'of those occasions, 1997,the:District was within OS mgd of its maximum entitlement.. Table:H4:'Comparisou of N`Marin'`max monthly use from SCWA with its entitlement plus•.excess Irram Petaluma(mgd). Year Petaluma N..Marin .•Max Month Eicess Mai'Month Debit/Surplus 1996 13.4 16. 11.0 +3.8' 1997 14.1 2.9 13.2 +0.91 1998 14.7 23 9.9 +3.6 41, 1999 15.0 2:0 11.7 +1.5' 40 • 41 ,• Future Supply'Adequacy' Under the proposed I It"-Agreement,,the District's entitlement+williiincrease to.20.9 mgd which, together with its Lake.Stafford supplyof 310 mgd;,increases•the District's total reliable supply to 23,9 mgd: This4will be more than adequate to,meet projected maximum day and month demands throu h the year 2010. Table H-5 summarizes the North ;Marin sources of supply with the current and projected demands through the year 2010. Table H-5:'•Comparison of North,Mann Total Source.Capacity with Demands, Current and Year 2010(mgd) Supply Current ..2010 SCWA 11.2 20:9 Local 3.0 3.0' Total 14.2 23.9 Demand Max-Day 17.1 13.7 Max Month 14.6 16.0 Conservation N. Malin Water District has implementing good conservatiorr practices for a number of years and has largely.adopted most BMP'$ recommended: This,is!reflected in allow maximum monthly water use per connectionof,790;gpcd. The SCWA has recommended that they take additional,. steps in conservation including water;use surveysto customers with'large landscapes, providing Eto based water use budget information to customers with:dedicated"irrigation meters,and recycled water projects with a total;potential savings of 872 AFY. However,these conservation measures need to be evaluated locally by the:Distnct's customers: Storage Capacity: The District must meet California Waterworks Standards'defined in Section 64564. The Deparnnent.has interpretedthis standard for existing systems with metered data to require storage sufficient in each pressure zone of the'system to meet average day demand+25%of maximum day demand+fire flow: • Table H-6 compares the Distnct:s'available and plannedrstorage:to the:year 2010 with waterworks standards requirements. This s}owsthatthe District has more than adequate storage to meet current and projected requirements beyond the year 2010. TableH-6:Storage Evaluation (mg) Capacity. Current 2010 . City.Owned 28.0 36.0 SCWA 0. 0 • Total 28.0 36.0 Requirement 14.0 15.3 Deticitsurplus +14 +20.7 System.Reliability: This is defined as the ability of the District's water system to meet maximum monthly demands with their largest source of supply, SCWA,out of service. It also assumes mandatory(Stage 3) water conservation in effect and independent system storageltliat meets waterworks'standards. • S . 41 12 Table H-7 shows a comparison of the required facilities for sourceand.storage capacity with what is required tomeet,this reliability standard. This shows!thatthe District currently has inadequate source capacity(t2:'8 mgd) to meet the.reliabilityty'standard. However,:the.District has been able.to . operate the,tteatmentplant up to^S.S(mgd during critical;times and has not experienced water shortages. Furthermore,thy the year 2010 with Improvements to the Lake Stafford treatment plant, the system would just slightly (0.4 mgd) be under the reliability standard.. Table 41-7:Comparison of North Mann Source and.Storage Capacity with *hat is required to meet system reliability standards.currently and year 2010. .Facility Current .2010 Source(mgd) Requirement 5.3 6a Available 3.0 - 6.0 Difference -2:8 -0.4 Storage(nig) Requirement 14.0 '15.3 • Available 23 J6^ Difference +N. +20.7 • Conclusions: The,North,Mann Water.:District has adequate source,and storage capacity to meet the current demands: However, the Petaluma Aqueduct is currently at or above its maximum capacity to safely andtadequately deliver the,City's full entitlement. The CWA,has plansfto construct a parallel aqueduct to increase capacity, but that will most likely not be operational until at least 2005. The District has inadequate source capacity to meet projected demands in the year 2010 without an increase in its entitlement from the SCWA. As has been discussed previously; this is dependent upon the SCWA being;successful`in obtaining additional water tights and substantially increasing its production capacity. The,Districthas::inadequate.independent source capacity to ensure reliable,supply during+an extended,outage from-the SCWA. However;with improvements to Lake Stafford'WTP,by the SCWA, the District meet this requirement. The District has adequate independent storage now and through the year 2010 to meet the reliability standard established'for this study • • • • 42 • 43 I. Forestville Water District .• System Water Demands, Historical Water Demands: Table 1-1 summarizes the number of service connections and water demands in the District for the period 1993-1999 The maximum day demand in 1998-99 was.estimated based on the same • approach as used for other utilizes with unmetered,daily records from.the SCWA (ratio of max day/max month of 1.17). During this seven year period,:the average per connection use during.the maximum month was 880 gpcd. Table.l-1 i Historical Water Demands(mgd) 1993-1999 Year Conn Max Month Max Day :Annual.Production (AF/Y) System SCWA gpcd.. System. SCWA System SOYA 993 . 358 0 -0,3 930 - - 450 094 865 0 0.3 925 - - 465 995 868 0 0.7 ,305 - 490 996 377. 0 0.3 910 - - 490 997 377 0 0.9 1025 - • 500 998 383 0 0.7 790 - 0:3 430 • 999 . 839 0 0.7 785 - 0.3 _ 480 • Source: DHS,Annual.,Reports Future Water Demands: The historical growth in number of service connections in the District for the period 1993-99 was • used to project the numberof connections to the year 2010. This shows that the number of connections would grow to,approxirnately 475 by the year 2010,a,growth of 9.8%since 1998 Assuming a rate of growth-urwater,demand equal to the growth in connections, the maximum month use would increaseto'0,8 mgd, the maximum day to 0.9•mgd and the annual demand to 475 AF. Table 1-2,summarizes.these::projections. Table 1-2:Projected 2010 ForestvilleMater Demands Connections 970 Maximum Month,mgd 014 Maximum.Day,mgd 0.9 Annual Demand,Al 475 Facilities Sources of Supply The sole source,of supply 'for the Forestville Water District is the.SCWA.in which.the District has an entitlement of 1 5 mgd under the 10'h Agreement and no limitation on annual use This entitlement will not change under the 11m Agreement. Storage • As'showri in Table 1-3,the District has four(4)storage tanks'with a combined capacity of 1.6 mg. Table 1-3: Storage Tanks Description CapaeitY,'mC 1 0.30 2 0.90 3 0.30 • 4 0.10 Additional Tank.5 0.10 Total 1.70 mg 43 44 • Evaluation • Source of Supply: Section•64564, California Waterworks Standards requires source capacity, that together with storage capacity, is sutficient;to safely and reliably meet the demands,of the system. It further defines the minimum required source capacity as not less than the maximum day demand, unless approved by the Department. Adequacy of Current and Future Supply • Table I-4 compares theForestville"sources of supply with the current and projected demands through the year 2010. The District's current supply entitlement of 1.5 mgd from the SCWA is adequate to meet current and projected 2010 maxirnum•demands. Table 9-4:.Comparison of Forestville Total Source Capacity with Demands. Current and Year 2010(mgd) Supply - Current 2010 SCWA 1.5 1.5 Local .0 0 Total 1.5 13 • Demand Max Day 0.8 0.9 Max Month 0,7 0.3 Storage Capacity: • The District must meet California Waterworks Standards defined in Section 64564. The Department has interpreted this standard for existing systems with metered data to require storage sufficrentin each pressure zone of the system.to meet average day demand+25%of maximum day demand+ fire flow. Table 115 compares the District's available and planned storage to the year 2010 with waterworks standards.requirements. 'Thisshows,thatthe District has more than adequate storage to meet current and projected requirements beyondthe year 2010. Table 1-5:Storage Evaluation (mg) Capacity- Current 2010 District Owned '0.5-. 03 SCWA 1.2 1> Total 1.7 1.7 • Requirement 0.9 1.0 Deficit/surplus +0.3 +0.7 • System Reliability: • This is defined as the ability of the District'slwater system to,meet maximum monthly demands with their largest source of supply,SCWA,out of service. It also assumes mandatory(Stage 3) water conservation in effect an&independentsystem storage that meets waterworks standards: Table I-6 shows a comparison of the required facilities for source,and storage capacity with what is{required to meet this reliability standard. This shows that the District currently would have no independent!supply if the'SCWA source were interrupted for a long term period. `However, the District does have an emergency.6-inch connection with.the Russian River Water District. •- 44 15 Table 1-6:Comparison of Forestville Source and'Stora_ge'capacity Kith what is required to meet system •�'. • reliability standards,currently and year 2010. Facility Current 2010:.. Source(mgd) 'Requirement Available 0 0 Difference -0.3 --0.3. Storage(mg) Requirement 0.9 1.0 Available 1.6 1.6 Difference +0.7 +0.6 Conclusions: The Forestville Water District has adequate source and storage capacity to reliably meet the existing and projected demands through'.theyear 2010 without any increase in supply from the SCWA. The District has no independent'source of supply and cannot meet the system reliability standard established for this report. • • • 45 46 J. Marin Municipal Water District • System.Water Demands Historical Water Demand: • The District's peak water demands for the last three summers have averaged about 40 mgd. The Agency reports that it anticipates that the•maximum day demand will increase slowly io about 41 rngd by the year 2003. Table 1-1.stunmarizes the water supplied to the Mann Municipal system From theiSCWA wheeled through the North Mann WD for the period 1993-1999. The table shows the maximum monthly supply,during the high demand summer period(June September) maximum day°and the annual supply. It should be noted that the maximum day is assumed at the same rate as'the'maximum month.. However, since 1994, the maximum month/day for Niacin Municipal has occurred in;the late fall/winter periods when demands from other utilities is low. Table J-1:-Water Supplied to Marin Municipal from SCWA 1993-99. Year Max Month Max Day Annual mgd mgd AF 1993 6'.0 6'0 4540 1994 6:3 6.3 6610 1995 5.9 6:3 4680 • 1996' 6:2 6:6 6110 1997 1:7. 8S 7270 1998 5.6 9.0 7220 1999 6'r1 - 9.1 7770 Source:N.Mann Water District go, Future Water Demands: The future water demand on the SCWA supply is defined in the-10ih Agreement which will not change in the proposed 11th Agreement. This,provides-for a supply of Surplus water not-to exceed 12,8?mgd or an annual,supply of:14,300 API. It can be expected that Marin Municipal will utilize all of this proposed supplyifimprovements are made to the Petaluma Aqueduct and-the SCWA is successful is obtaining'additional;water.rights: Facilities Sources:of Supply: The District has two water treatment plants that canbe operated at a combined rate of about 33.5 mgd. Because the SCWA aqueduct is currently insufficient to reliably supply the additional 6:5' mgd currently needed, the District operates its Las Gallinas tertiary water recycling:plantwith a capacity of 1.5 mgd..However,the Las Gallinas recycled,water can only be used'at'the present time in the Corte Madera/San Rafael 101 corridor with very limited application. The Marin Municipal system receives surplus;water from theSCWA wheeled through the North Mann Aqueduct: The 10th Agreement that'the.maximum delivery rate'during the _summer high demand period(May 1-October,:I)may not exceed 12.8 mgd and the total annual ;supply-shall notexceed 14,300 AF:, These limits are unchanged in the:proposed Idi°Agreement However,.under current conditions,the Marin Municipal could not get its full allocation,assuming surplus water were available, because of thedimiiations in the Petaluma Aqueduct. Storage: The District has'81 mg of treated water storage,of which 9mg is located in the zone dependent • upon the SCWA water supply. END OF REPORT 46 • . ! O a9 , ql m „ w T W ;$' } L T-33,-L.-1 _<,-8 8 Y _ I.z < g _s ar!N ° W ® w 3O Jn tetra. ,... <0c7 3a a a F-.. a i y (/m a z z..a ^ - V , ❑i]2i O ^- \^ ' ° z sY Z i ao■ III\ s z \ O 3 BOO: $ Y W ° V - PR VJ c 3]73]3].7 .. ii i a =0 ^ <yN ° i 3 . z8 •< ea ° =®1 v z Cn N 1 3 Q `., ° z � '< 7 T s® ter, xl Lam'' ir Cr-1� Y I . a:a a - , II` JI 0 $; 2a Q z's ao 4 �m 8: 5 .e .� r: c. i I a + 0 ±`t� gum • �' rnnnib•V�2 ' a+ a7 a \ i u 8 O .0,\ h4 •s )+was Ss�� r .L•$ ] ... fin _/i`,� wed? Q 106 *13 uit o . ¢ fia a X � o in illiktit Sjdt: E-111 'tcr. ' S n' z 'O.:4 ti.�. ,. Yff90 :• EVy^ i Di "35 d 4w `\\ -gym >..+"m-w�ac��. ,.® 8V" 4.1 \333 _ .e aaa ] " now ° X OEM 0 ° "...ti z' 7 �. AI fib Ias u .- ✓$g a i a Y. 7, 5 Qt a 7c 5:,d SGWA Facility Guide 1 -25 • 11/Z7/00 AUK 14: 44 FAA 7Ul 344 lbzb 3cfA Lu.Nraun\11AL WJuu[ • F' -, . . . 15 •• CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Utility;Operations:and Maintenance 202 N McDoweh'Blvd.,Petaluma, CA 94954 (707)778-4560 Fax(707) 778-4508 E matt:;;cdingtont(a l.petaluma,ca.us DATE: 11/16/00 TO: Fred Stouder, City Manager FROM: Tom Hargis, Direetot of Water Resources and Conservation Steve Simmons; Utility Manager�----1 .: SUBJECT: Recomrriehdatiods"on: ❑ MOU Regarding Water Transmission and System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment ❑ MOU Regarding Operating Procedures for the South Petaluma.Aqueduct • ❑ Suggested Modifications to 11`° Amended Agreement for Water Supply ' MOU Regarding/later Transmission.and Syst r5 Capacity Allocation.Dur ing Temporary Impairment Staffrecornmends approval ofthe,MOU,Regarding Water Transmission and System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment. Approval of the MOU would serve,to further regional co-operation in shating:the limited,supply and capacity of the Sonoma County Water Agency supply and transmission system for the next five years (2000—2005). The MOU also serves to increase regional water conservation efforts. MOU Regarding;Operatinz Procedures for the.South':Petaluma Aqueduct Staff recommends proceedingwith the MOLT Regarding Operating Procedures for the South Petaluma Aqueduct. This agreement.will serve to preserve storage in the South Petaluma Aqueduct System's Kastania Reservoir by controlling;pumptngi parameters at Kastania Pump Station. Signatories to.th:.: a,rreement would be the City of Petaluma;:North Marin Water District, Marin V1u, icil : Pater District and the Sano.na County Water Ager,_v. • 11/Z/ / :1VP 144:44 J44 1020 .)1.11A UU\t1LG:V1IAL !eJ UUJ Suggested.Modifications toll' Amended Agreement for re Water Supply • 1.1 Definitions j / _ ( -„A- Q v-tiQt k50p cox a- - du 4-a. 47,1.4 e: ba t\-eQ d-cc,.(c_ Delete tare references to water-treatment facilities or make it clear that this agreement would not authorize the construction of a water treatment plant at Lake: Sonoma or some other location.Better define water treatment fa`cililies as ;meaning Chlorinationor;PII adjustment equipment. 2.2 Scheduling of Additions and Replacements to the Existing Transmission System Add language,requiring prior;written approval of Petaluma before a contract can be awarded for constriction of'the new parallel Petaluma aqueduct: This language would be consistent with the language requiring prior written consent of Valley of the Moon and Sonoma before a contract can be awarded 1y`the.Agency for the construction of the new parallel Sonoma Aqueduct. Add language requiring that each contractor maintain local storage (excluding SCWA storage) equal to 1.5 times.the average daily delivery during the month(s) of highestliistorical use. This would be consistent with"what the SCWA storage target is. This would helptinsure all the contractor's equitably share SCWA system storage. 2.3 Furi her°Modifications to Transmission System Santa Rosa has the option:of taking 40.mgd of water fropweither the'Santa Rosa Aqueduct or Reach 1 and 2 of the Cotati Interne Aqueduct while their total maximum combined take is!56.6 mod. Using this logic, I would add language to allow Petaluma the Option of taking our entitlement from either the existing Petaluma Aqueduct or the new parallel aqueduct regardless of whether or not we increase our entitlement. C ., . 2.4 Water Conservation Measures Add language that would allow all contractors the option of non-participation in SCWA.water.conservation programs. Require separate accounting of funds collected by the SCWA for each contractor and reimbursement-w-itlrinterest at the time a contractor decides to-opt out of participation in such programs.This would allow more control and opportunities locally. Add language that would also allow funding of programs that reduce Future demands or theneed-to expand water rights or diversions. j e; — n„t, 3.1 Delivery entitlementsof:Water Contractors Staff recommends either`Pctaluma not:have an annual limit or that it be increased to allow for storage and recovery opportunities. TI'Petaluma were successful with an aquifer storage and recovery program, we would not need an'inaease in ... ..c• • .., ..�� iv.v owf:i w.Nr lucid taL IQ'005. • TEMPORARY OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR SOUTH PETALUMA AQUEDUCT 1.0 BACKGROUND The Sonoma County Water Agency's(SCWA) Ely, Pump;Station serves SCWA's Petaluma Aqueduct customers (Petaluma, North Mann Water District (North Mann) and Marin.Municipal Water District(MMWD))by pumping water into the southem porfion.of the Petaluma.Aqueduct and stored in SCWA's Kastania Tank In south Petaluma SCWA's Kastania Pump Station receives peak period water supply from Kastania Tank and/or the-Ely Pump'Station and delivers water to !!! North Marin and MMWD. It Is recognized by Darnes to this procedure that at times the Ely Pump Station may not have sufficient capacity to meet all of the waterdemands of.the+Petaluma Aqueduct customers. At those times, Kastania Tank'niay-reach levels that will reduce the reliability of water service provided by the,fadlity. 2.0 KASTANIA PUMPING PLANT"OPERATIONAL.CONTROL Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the AgreementAmohg'the[Sonoma Counfy Water Agency,North Mann Water District and Marin Municipal Water Distriat forAhquisition of the North Malin Aqueduct and the Kastania Pumping Plant, dated April' 13, 199_ iagrth,M • arin shall maintain operational control of the Kastania Pumping Plant for the purpose of delivering water to North Mann and Mann Municipal. Operational Control means 'starting: and stripping the pump or pumps either automatically by a set point established by North Mann in Noith Mahn's hydraulic First Zone storage system or manually. North Marin will install further operational control to automatically start and stop the pump or pumps as set forth in Section°below. _ 3.0 ELY PUMPING PLANT OPERATIONAL CONTROL SCWA operates and maintains tho transmission system including Ely Pumping Plantin accordance with provisions of the Tenth Amended Agreementlor;Water Supply and Construction of the Russian River— Cotati /nterte Project dated' October 125, 1974 and last amended on November 14, 1997(Tenth Amended Agreement). SCWAShall rnaintain its operational control to start and stop pump or pumps as set forth rin Section 4 below durinq the months of June throuoh September_ SCWA will maintain in stock a spare pump and motor for replacement cnWP,ncwtts=x• ac..v"ulsasmme o- a71700;eoc 1 Last orinttd 07!17100 12:51 PM • 14.: 40 !AA /tit 044 1tiZt SC CONFIDENTIAL •I 1 of pump/motor sets at Ely Pumping plant as may be necessary from time to time to.assure reliable operation of the system, 4.0 ACTION LEVELS • Level 1 - 5934 feetat Kastantter lc The.SCWA will operate all pumps at Ely'Pumping'Plant whenever kastania tank reaches this level and will•continue operating all'pumps until Kastania Tank;level,.reaches at least 38 feet. Level 2.-20.feetat[Kastania Tank • At this stage North Marin will turn off the 4-56400 horsepower pump at Kastania pump station and utilize only the 250 horsepower pump at Kastania pump station. • Level-3i-15 fe t f Kasta ank Alf pumps at Kastania pump station will be turned off until such,time as Kastania tank regains storage level to 20 feet. 4.1 Drawdowmfor Water Quality During low demand periods f 44e rrlb ,y gh-A4.x<;pjwheri a;party to this orocedure requests, the SCWA may draw down the Kastara tank level to 15 feet to preserve'water quality • upon notification of the Petaluma Aqueduct customers. 4.2 Emeroencv Action Levels Dunn ;oeriods of transmissions stern timer ernes the SCWA will consult with the •arties t• •titer?line altern fve oseretin• crltera and action levels. 5. PROCEDURE MODIFICATION AND TERM On or about Aprl 1 of each year„the signatories herewith agree to review this'procedure and make necessary modifications to,avoid•operational conditions which may be injurious to any party. The signatories agree to consider modifications to this procedure that increase compromise positions to provide the maxirnum;benefits,while minimizing adverse effects on each party This procedure shall remain_in place ddrind the period that the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding 'Water Transmission System ,Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment is effective and shall end upon said Memorandum of Understanding's termination. The undersigned concur and agree with the abcve operatin g-procedure:- G�YN]I�CH�1\SCIVA,'r�1C3NeVlvunu Glteb C]1TS1Jx 2 • Last 1rinteg_O7 h 710012:51 PM • • • WATER.. �1U07 • Oi,%lb%UU 1'4 $.1?ST LS 892 8043 N. 1[{R I'`f 11:9IEA. Z004/004 - �v1;0:. • CITY OF PETALUMA Tom Hargis, Director of Water Resources and Conservation Fred Stouder, Crty Manager NORTH'.MARINrWATER DISTRICT- Mike McMaster, Operations Superintendent Chris DeGabriele,General Manager • MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Dana Roxon,-Senior Engineer/Operations Planner Pam;:Nicolai, General Manager SONOMA.COUNTY WATER AGENCY Hody Wilson Randy Poole, General Manager/Chief Engineer • Last printtd 07/17/00 12:51 PM • CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Water Resources and ConservdtionDepartntent,700:+Englis/r St., Petaluma CA 94952 (707) 778-4304 Fax(707) 776-3635 E-mail:dwrc@ci.petalwna.ca.us DATE: December 14, 2000 TO: Petaluma City Council FROM: Fred Stouder,.City Manager. Tom Hargis, Director, Water Resources & Conservation Steve Simmons, Utility Manager SUBJECT: Discussion and-Possible Action on 11thi Amended Agreement for Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation.Ddr'ing Temporary Impairment and Operational • Memorandum of.Understanding At theNovember 20, 2000 City Council.meeting a memorandum with staff recommendations on the following items was presented for discussion. ❑ MOU Regarding,Water Transmission and System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment ❑ MOU Regarding Operating Procedures for the South Petaluma Aqueduct ❑ Suggested Modifications to 11th Amended Agreement for Water Supply The MOU recommendations, were discussed at length but'due.to the lateness of the hour the Amendment 11 recommendations were not discussed. Asa result of the.MOU discussion the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment was approved with the following three additions 1. Section 4: Local'supply not counted against or not'be deducted from the allotment or the impaired supply: 2. Section 4F: The highest priority is storage. 3. Excess unused water remains in the river and is noesold.as surplus. S/SB/SS/Draft Criteria • • A letter from Fred Stouder dated November 29, 200.0 was sent to Randy Poole,of the Sonoma County Water Agency informing him of the Council's action. A copy of the November 20th City Council packet staff memo was also sent. At the December 4, 2000 Water Advisory Committee meeting there was a lengthy discussion of Petaluma's:approval with additions to the MOU between the group and Petaluma City Council members.Patttela Torliatt and David Keller. As.a..result of the discussion additional information came to light and on further review staff recommends that items 1 and 2 he deleted. Staffs position on item 3 is that it is raises legal and governance issues that may be beyond the scope of the Allocation MOU and should be worked out as part of the next'Agreement for Water Supply negotiations. • Item 1. The 10th Amended Agreement, which we are currently a party to requires local supply to be considered in the event of a system impairment. The Allocation MOU defines this to include only,the.,existing local supply at the time the MOU is signed. New local supply would not reduce the allocation to Petaluma. Item 2. Storage as the highest priority can be viewed as a local or system priority. Under the existing 10th Amended.Agreement for Water Supply there is no new system storage. authorized..Randy Poole of the SCWA says that additional storage is included in the expansion project. Mr: Poole also stated that the City of Petaluma should go ahead and build more storage locally if it so desired. Concerning item 3. Randy Poole stated that the Contractors have no water rights. Water rights are vested with the SCWA. After the MOU discussion Randy Poole also distributed the November 20th Petaluma City Council packet staff memo to the WAC Tom Hargis made it clear to the group that the memo contained'staff recommendations and that the section'on suggested modifications to Amendment 11 had not yet been discussed by the Petaluma City Council. Mr. Hargis went through the Amendment 11 discussion items at the request,of the WAC with some discussion by the group. • Fred Stouder also participated in the discussion. Petaluma City Council member Michael Healy was in the audience. • S/SB/SS/Draft Criteria .l SONOMA , C O U N T Y digAi 08 - '10 WAT E R . cool g A G-rE N' C Y FILE:We/60-2-7 PRIMES—CITY OF PETALUMA January 4, 2001 David Keller c/o Petaluma City Council Post Office Box 61 Petaluma, California 94953 RE: CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST' • The enclosed report was prepared by-the Sonoma County Auditor's office, and is provided to fulfill Item 2 of your information.request of December 12, 2000: The report identifies all current Sonoma County Water Agency-non-prime customers, and includes water delivery amounts in acre-feet, as well as revenues received from Fiscal Year 1995/96 through November 30, 2000. We are awaiting further word from?bu=regarding Item 1 of-your request. Sincerely, 1/).CA-e-eig-}- -7 Linda Holzapfel Records Technician - Enc. c Fred Stouder, City Manager, P.O. Box-61, Petaluma, CA-94953 (with enclosure) I:\u\cl\linda\records requests\keller.auditor s.rpt.doc • P.O. Box 11628`--Santa Rosa, CA 95406 - 2150.W. College Avenue-Sanra'Rosa, CA,95401 -x(707) 526-5370- Fax (707) 544-6123 l O O co a co h 0 l0 N C') N 0 V CO 0 m CO '(J h CO CO N 0 Y r 0 (O O O N O M O N 0 0:0 V CO '0 10 (0 O h 0 N O 0 V p ✓ (0 M r ' r Cr) 10 r (O ' ' P ' CO O 'Cl, ' 0 M M ' CO r O O r r CO 0 CO M r C) : : : : : : : : :. : O OO O D o O) r 1G O N vi cO Ni @ t7.r Ih r Y) N C') ` p N' r C) Cl r C C . 0 U O`(O CO 0 - (0 Q 0 h CO CD ' C) W CO,01 CO. CO N 0 r 0 N N.MSO 0)"0 N O O CO.N r W ` h 0.N CD CV CO CO. O'0) Q CO CC '1- 0 jCI CO ✓ V) 0 LO ' N N N c0.1-/' LO '" C4 SO. O I Q 0 0 ' 0 N M N. CO:!N N'r r r Q'(O N M r, IO M r: LO. U5 CO- 0 O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0'. ". 0 M'N I r CO O N ' CO O CO r N O r CO O CO O,, b • r r C.) (O co r- C D 0 Cr) r:'N h < CO N C),N r CO r r O.O N CO Q N.4N C) 0 0 0 0) Q CO N 0 M, N .Q Q O 0 r'(0 CO ' ,0 0 CO M N. N . ' N CO.Q . N I h O CO N r.h N:C h r Co co(O' ' Q N O) 0 Oro 0'Q N r Q'O r CV rID r r'Cl C') M'C') oo...CC (V O 7. Q N OZ C' 0 N N O It O 0 O O O O Oi'..., :O O" O O'O O O O O'O 0 0 O 0 '0 an r r CO O N r r CO CO V U) N r O r ' O CO O O'.r co y r r N. r { O N (D N '0 E Cl) • C.) M c . 0.V' 0 O 'O CO N :0 O' Q CO, "CO O 0 C).Q V N N N 0 h f0".0 OJ CO CO M O CO 0 0 O O O,CO O,N ,N II O Q O N N O. a) O ' Lc- Q M i N ' Y') O IO r ' O O ' N O. C O Q P O ' co c o.co. co co N. } r Y N r N M N M, r M. r r IO N ' EO V". o Qo) m U (9:O (" 0 CD C U M) O • W(W y 0 O O O O.O O O. 000-0 OHO 6, 0000009-' " W I- 2 O ' ' IO h r r ! r M Y N+r r vi " M N n"CO M O W. '4 d r e ' r N, to •r= 0 4 0 'U. 2'OZ 2.n' Z .J. d 6 r f0 U O - O IO O C) IO h fN O V10 O h N h M.CO 0) 10 M CO m co "Cr O CO.Q 0) 0 M":h h en CO IO ` N in b O'h O ` CO O Q CO N M. V- W < F m ' CO CO T ' CO 0 N,h ' co''O h ^'O Q 0 CO O ' Q .0 ID Q CO O Y O' O .0 CO N N OQ .h 0' .r O' C) O:N"0'r0"r W, O .3 O W , - m J Z 0 LL ` rn N N L K 3v W H O O O O O O O 0 000000 0 00'00,000 • O 3 C r N Q ' r O O T ' oi co r N O Q Q r M ^ r s N r.O N4 CO - CU N N M N.,'O r. N.'N N Ch,) E o T - L. a) C 0) O Ill 'E. 0 CO 0 0 h 1I C O Q O C O O/0 Or N Q Q 0 6 0 U„Z co O O h co r' co 0.^ co co Nr0 'CO'OO O CO N co Q.O O A ' 0 ' ' M M"'O O a 0 M CO N 0 CO 0 r (O oO ' N 0 N N Ni-Ni-r IO r r M Q 0 Q y 0 M V N O 0 t0 E 3 ..• O M CO N. O r CO'IO h V O N N 0.O Q N O co V 'N 10 pO O 0 h 0:..r Q.O r CO 0 N 0 N Q co - 'M Q CO N O E 0. o Iq a) N 0 W V 0 S O m _ E CO I-. Y) n ¢ m OO (0 ¢ K z y 0) o v ,D . z 't k ¢ _ w d -0 0 O m $ ¢ '.Z a • Z CI, N m A 0 C v w W 2 ¢ M J Q a. z .` J• W r• O O Y z'O 2 5 z ���¢ E O w w ¢ c aq w 3 O ,• 0 0 w 01711- W 0 --- in a W wY --I 0 w CC Z w 2 0 �. � • x 20 0=r6 w g g'w c+o z`'W 1 2 in 2'< o = i k o ° = ' = i- " D' t d - 0 Js'Z 2 O O I O O.:K O„2 W.: O H K O.O Z 0 � 0.O f f O O ¢ Z:.2 Z Q 'U. ] x -I SU _ WWY _co 0� ¢ OO' F,0 EC- W W ¢.,¢ O.C 1•cc ¢,CC CC Q M �'.W Q NE v K Z W CC_D O J Z Z'.Z J O ZqW Z Z I- 10 O Y+1- =1 0 02 Z Z Wr,� C C.:4' j O ]!� Wd' O x W W J ¢ w Q;O W W 0w'< ¢ W x O O O O ¢ O O 1 ¢ N ¢-�¢ CO,COAL O O '.O”O O O Y Y Y _.f O 2 4'K K Z z M N N O I- 7. • I 0-"O O M N' N'O co O _ N M 0 Q 0')IN N O N CO:.0 C) O N;O N CO N 0"0) N40 01 0.1 O O N CO OiN N ;• w _ o .c 3N O CD co a`o 1D'o o n"W Y' co m'r CO CO w fl o o'rn o W o 0) C 0.,n Yr Of W a Y N' r 0 c W W 01 N 00 0 0; �'n`0 w M •° 0 o D - . E col o 0 R M,¢ r h ad N'- o'o0 0 00 0:0 0 0. °. `, a n .- N.n W O L W N n'LL N d. W co O N p . 0 0 0 r V 0l N CO 010 1().W V N CD CO I,- O N 0 «'r « ID C O ON N 0 01 0 0) N O.r.r_(O.Vb CO COCO NNV1'IN O 0 j O(N W'.'.'co '0 CO N r'10 r co T O a r O CD N Q ¢ r N (7 01 C' L ., o•o o“o o' o O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0. a 10 V'M O N r�:N t0:'` W 01 N• O O. _ VJ. N - LT, 10 0 r r O1 Q , ✓ (D r,;o O V W ,� rr YJ N N r CO Cr, th'r 1n N 'it r- N;N b0 N 1D t+) 1D (0.10 C,1 .t- N N 0 /D t” N'N C.f0 O) V tD N jQ O;W b &0 CO r r'a r W N O E 0••.. "n r r m a v N W▪ Q N N . co co y 0 o 0-00 0 0o'io 0.0 •o' o o ' 0 LL `, r.CO O CO') CO') 10 r r'0 ' a iN r I� 0 W a t0 N C1 N m co LL r I W a ce U o ¢ I- yir, W Y co ID fD V'..W n o:N f'l Cr. Q QU W.O C)'10 V 0 10 1 1 t 0''N to 0 W C') CO U R Y,O t0'N V t0 f0 Y b N N N V fD n 1� Z I- o' 0 W r (r'1O 10 O1 r (O'..N n 10 p W Z 0 a N N 0 Q U.p C' ¢. N N Lu• • W N O o Oo`O O O O Lo- 3 a m a ^ d v,m,;p 1°n ° °go c'mcOi to 2 r Z Z `a o y Q 0 U N m N▪ O &0) o N .O°1D 0 O'n- C)vtv, n. en N V. co N'W W N N O'N<C) W.CO W O Q ~ W W W 10 nr W t0 C 10 r O.0) M M W OW W O W co n .r N n O W or L6 J N O r a O r ON LL n E N 0 N W ¢ N w W m Q } 0 0 0 O:O o O O O OO O O O LL Q N m'� W r r r co .`'r co N N I; r a m r . 'L r 1c OJ a `a ¢ CO 0'' o to on co in 1n r- 0 i t o) 1n D' cc ' iO N't0 na0 N' co O' t.0 N.M 0.0 00 n n • W C) O.O"W N' t0 0 wt 0 O) N O CD CO 7 d r ^ o'C) r n;of ` vi o O 0 ' t0^t0 N N W F PI CO 0 0 W Q r N N O .O OHO O O O O O:OO O co L }.. rC1 t0l N 0.10 CI r r r I b W L W cn et O OU >K 2 w'.w .a 7 K W o CC 6 U ¢ ¢ w zO aW Ya'.0 N Q 0 La aF ag, D3 U Z � o � z � zw a ¢re• co 2'W� W a w Q < u_ I- > U F F 0 ❑ ❑ W > U J f N w 0 to W,'0 U'"0 J. Y J O m a W: .:) O J O Q 2 J O O' ¢ S ¢ w ¢ Q Q a E a Y 3 z'�. O j ¢ o a 0 0:-0 0'o �, 0 Z Z in w Z ZW Z Z O U-U U.Z W K K • W' W W'i O Z Q ¢ 0 O'O 0 0 LL U. LL� Y'. IT 0 Q U.0) N h.,0 to o) 0 2 0 J � Y: 69 lit ID NON C' N CO COIN 0On n•C) n o .* it * * 4 %-n it,* `*)t *At * CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA • • POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR,RANDY POOLE, SCWA, REGARDING AMENDMENT 11 AND THE PIPELINE PROJECT 1. What is the relationship between the March ballot;measures':of Prop 12 and Prop 13 to gaining additional water`supply to make full use of the proposed pipeline project? None. • 2. Petaluma's request of an increase from 17.0<m.g.d.'to_21.8 m.g.d. is based upon the existing General Plan population projections and existing domestic consumption. It is anticipated that the new General Plan will reflect a decreased future population and on-going water conservation activities will decrease the per household consumption. Question 1: • If the City revises its requested new entitlement'downward, what revisions in the ongoing:process including time delays will result? • There is a section in the agreement that allows each entity to request an increase or decrease in its entitlement. Question 2: What is the proposed timeline for Amendment 11 and construction of the parallel pipeline in relation to the City's anticipated three-year timeline for completion of the new General Plan? The EIR process will take approximately four years, and then a two-year construction period. Question 3: Will Rohnert Park's ongoing general plan potentially revise their requested entitlement? Rohnert Park is not requesting,any additional water from the Agency as part of their new General Plan. The Plan suggests the City will rely on additional wells. • 1 3. The City of Petaluma is interested in pursuing, either as an individual agency or as part of the Sonoma County Water Agency contract, aquifer storage and recovery of • off-peak high Russian River flows for recapture during the summer peak months. Question 1: Will the proposed,Amendment 11's annual entitlement, as opposed to the existing contracts daily peak, restrict the potential for aquifer storage and recovery? No,..it does not restrict. However; the process will try to cap the acre-feet usage. 4. As part ofathe.Ci y's General Plan process, can some of the consultants proposing to participate in assisting the City are suggesting a groundwater study as a component of their work. The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) is also considering study efforts in this area How could these dovetail in order to maximize the effectiveness of the expenditure of public funds? Yes. The .-Agency is willing to participate as part of the City's process,and potential contractor for services. 5. Should the City of Petaluma decide that, with the development of additional groundwater supplies and local storage, offsetting potable water demand with reclaimed water from a tertiary treatment plant a continuing commitment to an aggressive water conservation program including and industrial efficiency and instituting a rate structure that encourages water conservation such that we do not want to contract for additional entitlement? Question 1: What does, that do to the process as it affects other agencies and their need for additional water supplies to meet their general plans? The City will still have.to approve the amendment,:and then could request a_decrease. Question 2: Will the City of Petaluma be,able to receive,its 17 million gallon per day allotment through the existing pipeline? No, because all the entitlements cannot be handled through that pipeline. • Question 3: What is the relationship between the new pipeline and the ability to increase diversions from the Russian River to fill the pipeline? In effect, the new pipeline is setting a.cap to everyone's uses. 2 r a. Impacts of Eel,River/Potter Valley.-diversion losses. • P There is almost:none attliis point: b. Process for increased taking! of Russian River flows with the various endangered species listings. The process includes two,years-forbiologieal assessment; one year for biological opinion, four years' for EIR, reaching seven, years to decision for design. Any increase in delivery is ten years.avvayl 6. What is the potential for'state mandates for water treatment if the existing rainy collector intake system is ruled a surface water,system and what potential costs do the contracting agencies potentially face? • It will likely take eight years to discover the answer to this question. - 7. What is the potential for a pipeline from the Lake:Sonoma Warm Springs Dam to the existing intake system in order to mitigate, environmental constraints or maximize effective use of stored water?- Also, if the above water treatment issue becomes a requirement,rivhat°is the most viablelocation fora treatment system? • The cost is $250 million to$500 million dollars: • 8. Will the contractors' rates'be increased in the upcoming County budget in order to fund additional water conservation and •wastewater reclamation projects and, if so, what is the current estimatedoainount,of theincrease? Yes. Wholesale rates will increase 30 to 40% over the next,four years. The increases will fund conservation programs, remediation, Section 7consultations, the entire project will. cost $140 million; that is the cost todmplement Amendment 11. 9. Is there an estimated additional cost per acre-foot or cost•per million gallons per agency in order to fund'the:pipeline:project? Yes, about $75 an acre-foot: $30/acre-foot in debtservice=with net of$40+/acre-foot 10. Once Amendment #11 is approved by all the contractors, what is the anticipated timeline;until'water flows through the pipe? Seven years at least. 11. What is the timeline for construction of the Mirabel Collector #6 and what will be its impacts on the impaired delivery system and what obstacles are preventing its construction? • Approximately' 4 years. It'will be completed in phases. A negative declaration/EIR process will be completed in April on the pipeline. , 3 12. Under the, proposed( Amendment 11, what additional amount of water is available • for Rohnert Park, North Marin Water District, and Marin-Municipal?' Rohnert Park: l to 15 m.g.d. North Marin.Water,District: 4 to 5 m.g.d. • Marin Municipal: 0 - 13. Is the City of Santa Rosa the only city other than Petaluma• that, under an unimpaired system, has surplus*ater available? Cotati has some excess as does Forestville, Santa Rosa, and perhaps Sonoma. 14. If the City decides not to part icipate in the parallel pipeline at this time, what potential,is there for the-City to receive an entitletnent.in the fdture if-they shoUld so desire? The Agency needs to know fairly soon. 15. If the City decides not to participate in the parallel pipeline expansion, what implications,or ramifications are there-for the City in its water'deliveries under the existing contract and deliveries and water supplies through thaxisting pipeline? The City likely could then only -in the future have what we have now, including impairments in the old pipeline. If pipeline is constructed now, others will be paying for the new pipeline. The question would be how and when and if the City (at what price) • could purchase into it later. The old pipeline goes through Rohnert Park and Cotati; new pipeline-insures-water for Marin and North Marin along Petaluma River. • d:/nanager/scwa/potential questions for Randy Poole/kc • 4 • Questions and Facts .on,Water Contracts A resource for citizens'and elected pfficials o$.jurisdictions negotiating water.contracts with the Sonoma County Water Agency Compiled by Sonoma County Conservation Action I) Finances The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) has repeatedly described the ratepayer obligation involved in the now-defunct Amendment 11 as centering around the 1140 million" expansion to the Agency's collection,storage and distribution system approved by the Board of Directors known as the Water Siipply,Transmission and Storage Project, or WSTSP. Facts: 1) . This figure is in•1998tdollars. Given the extreme surge in-local construction, inflation of this-figure will be very high due to steep competition for the services of construction contractors. .Additionally, fair-market price for rights of way have:also jumped significantly since the-1998 figuremas created. • 2) This figure does not include financing for the project. The rule of thumb for bonding of a project is that the real-dollar,cost will be roughly twice the listed project cost. Suggestions that the project can be built on a cash-flow basis rather than financed are questionable,at best. • 3) This figure does not include operations and maintenance for the WSTSP. 4) The figure does not include the likely.necessitytthat the SCWA will have to construct an infiltration plant to treat water due to accelerating failure of the • • Agency's-collectors at Wohler Bridge to meet water quality standards, which will be exacerbated by construction of riew collectors under the WSTSP. Estimated cost of such a plant is $450 million (see "Water Quality';below). 5) Amendment 11 contained no ceiling on rate increases to pay for these projects. When.a cap on overall expense to ratepayers was requested by officials of the city of Petaluma, the request was rejected by the General Manager of the SCWA. 6) Some contractors with the Agency will already receive enough-water to meet projected demand through previous contracts with the SCWA. Other contractors,particularly-smaller population contractors such as the City of Cotati and.the.Valley of the Moon Waters District, are likely to bear a disproportionately heavy burden under contract provisions proposed by the SCWA. 7) Amendment• l required contractors to bear the expense of defending litigation against the SCWA on environmental grounds, as well as lobbying expenses and ahy`finestssessed against the Agency due to violation of environmental regulation. 8) The bulk Of the projected demand which is cited to justify building the SCWA's. • • project is new development,both urban and agricultural. • Created by.SonomaCountyConservation Action, the countyslargestcitizen-supported conservation organization. 540 Pacific Ave:, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. (707) 571-8566. 'wwiv.ConservationAction.org 1 • • Finances,continued • Amendment 11 was a literal blank=check from ratepayers to the Sonoma County. Water Agency. Had it been signed, contractors would have'been locked into spiraling costs of water supply delivery,for the next 20 years. The steepness of the cost of pursuing the.Agency's.current course makes it logical and 'appropriate that contractors and ratepayers consider' other approaches to water "supply which reduce expense, safeguard the environment, and require greater accountability on the part of the SCWA. • Questions: 1) How much is the Agency's approved'project really going`to'cost? 2) Given the'high ratepayer expense of this project and ongoing uncertainty'over protections for endangered and threatened fish,doesn't it make:tote sense to pursue aggressive conservation measures and reuse•of tertiary-treated water (see "Demand", below)prior to saddling ratepayers with this expense? 3) Since new customers are driving much of the demand for this new.supply,doesn't it make sense that the bulk of these costs be carried by fees for new,;hookups? Is it right that existing-ratepayers-+should;be asked tolpay escalating:rates for a systemadesigned primarily to deliver water to customers other than themselves? 4) Since it is proposed that ratepayersbe on the hook for costs oflitigation, lobbying and fines, what incentive does,the SCWA have to conduct itself in an environmentally responsible manner? The purpose of fining is.to create • accountability. If we aretta be wade accountable for the A gency sactions,where are the checks and balances? .. • II) Supply Facts: 1) Amendment,11 would,have,funded the infrastructure which would have allowed the SCWA to increase by 40% the amount of water it removes from the Russian River. ;Ibis:allocation has notbeen approved by state;regulators;but Pseveral',hundred,thousand dollars:of ratepayer funds have been`budgeted by the Agency for.lobbying purposes at the state and federal level. 2) Amendment,11 would have;required that ratepayers support,and shoulder the expense for the SCWA's intended purchase^of'the Potter Valley Project(PVP), which SCWA describes as necessary in order for the Agency to meet future water demands. Federal regulators have been highly critical of'the PVP's impact.orvthe endangered<and.threatened'.fisheries of both.the Russian and.Eel Rivers, and litigation:is pending totclose'the PVP entirely: • 3) According to SCWA documents,water diverted from.the Eel.River through the Potter Valley Project,.though constituting the bulk of the flow,in the lower Russian Riverduring:the.summer,of some dry years,is still only 1%of the Agency's available water supply. • Created by Sonoma.CountyConservationAction,, the--.countys largestcitizen-supported.conservation organization. 540,Facific Ave.,'Santa Rosa,CA 95404: (7071571-8566. www:ConservationAction:org 2 • Supply, continued: • Facts: 4) Currently,the Agency does not draw down the supply it has available in Lake Sonoma because a surcharge must be paid on_each acre"foot so drawn to pay for the construction of the dam. Water from,the'Potter Valley Project is considered "abandoned"by PG&E When it enters the'Russiari River system, and is captured for free by'the;SCWA and sold to contractors. 5) The National Marine Fisheries Service, charged with creating a recovery plan for the threatened and endangered..saliiiohid'species'in the Russian River,has been highly-criticalofthe Agency's plan to use:DryCreek as a conduit for water releases to the Russian and thus to the Agency s system of collectors at Wohier Bridge. Yet the Agency s priority continues to be acquisition of the PVP and construction of new distribution lines and collection facilities, rather than construction of a pipeline to draw on the supply they already have at Warm Springs Dam. 6) The tributaries of the Russian have been declared.fully appropriated by state regulators except in the wintertime, when rains provide plenty of supply throughout the system. Atbest,the amount of-new supply which SCWA would be able to dehver to contractors during dry months is highly questionable. 7) Wastewatersystems-throughout the region-generate very large quantities of tertiary-treated.wastewater, yet no':effort has been made on the part of SCWA • to require contractors to reduce their projected demand of fresh water and use reclaimed water to meet part of their projected,demand. One result of this has been the decision on the part of the City of Santa Rosa-to devote billions of gallons of high-quality-wastewater annually to geothermal electrical' • generation at the Geysers, a questionable Use of this limited resource. In the,face of political forces .which are likely"to reduce the amount of water which may be allocated to the SCWA for delivery' to contractors, it appears: that the Agency's strategy is to force the issue by creating ratepayer obligation and building infrastructure which will create a fait accompli. If pipelines' and storage facilities have< already been built at ratepayer expense and new development has already been approved based on the assumption of available supply, state and federal regulators will be-under much more pressure to allow the Agency to have additional water, whatever the impact to the health of the Russian River watershed. Questions: • 1) Given uncertainty over the amount,if any,Of new supply which will be available to the SCWA-fordelivery, does it make sense to do anything now which assumes access'to-more water supply than!is currently available to the Agency? Doesn't it make more sense to limit new infrastructure to maintenance and improvements to existing systems which do not,assume delivery of more supply,while working;to reduce demand and increase reuse so that the currently available supply will stretch farther? 2) Given how small a portion of the Agency's available supply the PVP provides and the damage it causes to the fisheries of the Eel and Russian Rivers . • according to federal agencies, why should,contractors support the SCWA in • acquiring and continuing to operate the diversion? Particularly when this requires-ratepayers to shoulder the costs of defending lawsuits and lobbying to keep the facility running? Created by Sonoma County Conservation Action, the county's largest citizen supported conservation organization. 540 Pacific Aver,'Santa Rosa, CA 95404. (707)/571-8566. www.ConservationAction.org 3 III) Demand • Facts: 1) Water:demand projected"in the General Plans of the jurisdictions contracting with the SCWA is subject to the`limits•of available water supply: if water supplies available:are lower than originally projected, new development (both urban and agricultural)must be reduced from original•projections.. SCWA routinely certifies that;it can and will deliver water to these jurisdictions, yet the facts outlined above indicate;that this is by no means certain. If water supplies are limited,estimated'deinand must be curtailed. Figures in General Plans alone_do not justify the construction of infrastructureto,deliver water that may not be available. 2) The California Water Code identifies a list of conservation:programs which Must be undertaken by all water districts in the state as-a part,of,an emergency plan for drought.conditions. These include,for example,a-requirement that new-consumer(such'as a-developer.of aproject) identify,andretrofit with conservation measures enough existing users to reduce demand such that the new consumer's supply is created through conservation. Each water district must have such a plan in place. Such practicescould be implemented by water districts to reduce projected water demand even in the absence;cif a.drought. Some.water professionals estimate that mandatory,^implementation of the measures described in the Water Code could reduce the;projected demand used to justify the projects to be funded by Amendment 11 by as Much as 95%0. • 3) Weather patterns worldwide are increasingly unstable and unpredictable. Global warming phenomena such as "El Nino'' and "La Nina" can.radically • vary the amount of•rainfall received by our region in;any given,year. In The • past decade, we have seen both high and low,record seasonal temperatures. Given this trend,-the-likelihood oft another:lengthy drought—aniiotbe discounted. Increasing demand on an already-overtaxedsystem enhances the probability of a serious water crisis in our region when weather,patterns turn dry again. 4) Given.the high uncertainty of available future supply,;forrpractical purposes, Sonoma and Marin Counties can reasonably be considered to,be in a water crisis despite the fact that drought is currently in effect. A return of drought conditions would be likely to result in a true water emergency. ' The water situation of the North Bay is fundamentally different:than •it has been in the past. The existing build-infrastructure-and-grow-to-fill-it approach to water policy cannot successfully meet new•conditions involving the degradation, of the anadromous fishery of the Russian and Eel' Rivers, burgeoning population, expanding agricultural demand and increasingly chaotic weather patterns. • fb • Created by Sonoma County Conservation:Action, th'e county's largest,citizenr supported_conservation organization. 540 Pacific Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95404. (707) 5t1-5560. www:ConservationAction.org 4 If • Demand, continued: • Questions: . 1) How does the SCWA's project help us to live within our means? 2) How do we build incentives for conservation into a contract when the SCWA makes its money by.selling Water? 3) How can we create a dependable system built around;the smallest possible water supply ? What kind of system would thatbe? 4) The WSTSP would appear to place the region further out on a limb with regard to water supply by creating an illusion of supply to serve new development. What does the Agency:suggest we do when the'projected development supposedly to be served,by the WSTSP has been-built and•we have another drought? IV) Water Quality Facts: 1) Although separate on paper, in fact the Board of Directors of the SCWA is the • Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,which continues;to approve permits for gravel minuig.operations upriver of the Wohler:collectionsite. Aquifer gravel serves as a natural filter,scrubbing pollutants out of the water pumped from the River by the Agency. Although in 1996 the county stated that it would phase ' out river mining over a ten-year period, the Board"off Supervisors approved two ten-year mining permits for pit mining-in 1998,the'first of which was subsequently stnick down by courts due to inadequate analysis of impacts on fisheries. 2) SCWA pumps at Wohler Bridge now regularlyfail water quality testing due to increased siltation of the collectors. 3) In the summer,SCWA routinely erects a rubber dam below the Wohler pumps to artificially raise the level of the River, because without this dam, the Agencys pumps cannot produce enough.water: The dam serves as a barrier to salmonfd fish,which can-be observed stranded below the dam during migration. 4) The WSTSP would build another.Raineycollector at Wohler Bridge, accelerating;pumping from the aquifer at that location, This can be expected with near certainty to lead to even more frequent failures of water pumped at . Wohler to-meet water-quality standards asiincreased suction pulls even more sediment from the gravel-depleted aquifer. 5) In theevent that water,quality standards cannot be met by SCWA's facilities, the Agency be required to build an infiltration water treatment plant to • treat water prior to delivering it. The current estimated cost of such a facility is $450 million. Created by Sonoma"County..Conservation Action, the county's largest-citizen-supported`conservation organization. 540 Pacific Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404. (707) 571=8566: wwaw.ConservationAction.org 5 • Water Quality, continued: •' What is wrong with this picture? Clearly, the natural systems of the watershed cannot continue to deliver drinking-quality water through a mere expansion of the old system. Questions: 1) Can-the SCWA guarantee that we will not have to build a water;treatment plant over the next 20years?: 2) If not,why should contractors agree to fund the building of a'system which is likely to accelerate the need for such a plant? 3) If not,shouldn't we forget about the WSTSP as art expensive step in the.wrong direction,focus on minimizing demand for new supply of freshwater.and start planning for the water treatment.plant? • Recommended criteria for a new contract: 1) Mandatesrconservationand reuse on the part of contractors. 2) Mini:aides ratepayer financial obligation and sets firm ceiling on rate increases to • consumers. 3) Mandates reevaluation of WSTSP with full participation of contractors: Includes examination of alternatives, 4) Eliminates any obligation for contractors to support acquisition of Potter Valley Project or to pay for litigation, lobbying or fines related to PVP. 5) Does not assume`continued supply from`Eel River diversion. 6) Creates accountability to contractors and publfc.on the part of SCWA. 7) Does not build infrastructure for delivery of additional water until allocations of new supply have actually been approved. Does not assume that proposed 40%increase in • water allocation for SCWA will be approved. Until then, works within existing supply (minus PUP"diversion) to live within the means of current systems through conservation mandates,reuse and reevaluation of projected new service. • • • Created'by Sonoma+.County Conservation:Action, thecounty's largest citizen-supported conservation organization. 540.Pacific`Ave:;,Santa Rosa, CA 95404. (707) 571'-8566. www.ConservationActioq,org 6 c'-' T Di en tn A ,y co," 0' YE O h.D o04. 3 O . 04:0 � b '3^c 0.0 • o ._ . '." a. C 0 . pp 'a�ow �y y ' O N Co- C. O N C in 0 0 a o �'� 3. `v o v y ,a a.o- 'c.E •o zr� V.�a.� 0 3 �� a To. C op w ti v,0 o0 3 vv7 en0 c... '� o 4 Q°, v'rob a o. m. — E d:.0 y:3 ° v ° v '.°a^ > a c o w H.r. :..04.x, 3:,sa_ e 2 . :? o °' O o— > 3 E^ w3 ° 'v°. m3cE E d d .c • ❑b A' O U a .E o'.0 4:. ° .Q' ° o 0 '0 .= t ; vi 0.o,yp 0.. cn o..y .0o o c o ,_. �' w c 'ob m w ° _a N` m y vp - O c !C Grip' G.d�p: m30 0`0 `0 oag..�b 'Oyc °a'.a 3 E C' �` O v-;,,^. O L., aJ as ,-' " ,T.,,0 OD: ,7 y d E'a d w •r E =_ '5Q 0•ca ot.o 1"... ..'47> � .vc. u ,ro .EA.o'rn v ti o . t E Ga b' U rn ro,N U co aai y y'G' c.1 �' c,0 y tO m > o �w h t 3 ^`°� mt ' �5° a vU qo a;ao O c3 ° 3 F. ax° y " 3 -Ca > o .:.• p `°'3 0 i °:� E'—a,3 3 0._ " o :8 vo2 .?:c 3W,;;'p ao.^ yrayv �ro.O X'kb:a -S,.d `� • •5 p.� 6 y :�U i o.°',,i m 0.0 3 a r. 3 E[�1 Q y'vUi Q ro w° a o•CZ a c4'c� o f Q G 0 d Z3 Q y C:.,q 2' p,,a, °., C N'.2.a 0 Gam`' 6 04 v"3.' rd h.U 0. C ' G �U LOU D° Q�vi °'V i.... F. aXi .'7 0 u yy {Q U O O �Cj° O •U W. '_ G O.� y. .0. O N c?V t co cc. AT " a o • 'W`b en 73 • c � cnv u to I./ It Q 2. 04.04 ti c 0° is .w'•; a c Cry O. 0 Cw▪ a C Ya.0 a. U ... 'O r3 m ,E c. v ° 3 0 'E o �:'- aci'.v a' `1 u ... c $ 3 o Q y 1 3 8.0 v v .3 E o . o .e ..= 0 .>°.b .0 ,.U.3 '��- wna `,_ 047 , >.w.17 �>>°a c? E o a T�VJ�0 . d O. ` Nfl . b.a C C U,g 0 U C K O.y c...6 04 O' •O'.� U 0 E' 'C du.. '-0 • C ° ..'.^ v E N'a p b0 Ow a .,; .. a a'i s,m d b 8`., b c., ° C3 y" 0 R E 06. c 8 CD 0. o .d. ti a b�� a w U.v` c.v ra. 3. Iv > v U `t • C . U. •E c:3 3w 3 coa� ° ° ac raro ' o" v � o at tt,.E Ems. and c 00-is c•o-o7 a v .. Z• ' ° EA A w C O 0 i-. .. 0 a C y "O d �Q o f t C. E il O w '� U 0.c U0. O.E O �...>. E °y c■ , 0 c ;.o b co°.v «° .. ° o 0 E as v E 8.e °' y m ,,C 0 cv o 0' 01 6 3' v '.3 g ,E .0 °a.ea C =.0 U • a y 3 3..? U " Ed'U E v..y a L c or , w B v a C@ O E ^O C Y o o m E L y.0 0 e7 U C "y O ° C 0 r ♦ t 02.04 Ub..0 6,en. � 0 0 N A U n cc C U G O N c C° E° o O ° O [ c 3 p a v m• y' C �' o E7° " i ` t ' °' a t ° k v .. rts E � 50 E on cis O ° C C p N O o.� E Q abQ c = .., .vCLaU aw gU v.�_ o o e, o . W U 0.00 V _ tl ❑7y a" E E a.t 8 - :_ 'a o m z d a c s E =a a 3v� �° Q'7 . F7' to•o . 0 O a • • C C 0404 C et ° E o G7 v v a v E o w °' 0°c 'L = " •8 aoN'' '= v v W F m P. �,�c, P• x F w CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNI f..: A ro GENDA BILL Agenda Title: Discussion and.Possible Action on If`" Amended ; in Date: July 000 ;Agreement for Water•Supply and Memorandum of Understanding ' 24, 2000 Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment (continued from Council Meeting oft April 24, 2000) and Operating.Procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct. Begin Discussions of Possible Acquisition by Sonoma County Water Agency-(SCWA) of Potter Valley Project, and Presentation by the SCWA Regarding 6:6% Water Rate Increase to the City. - Discussion of a.18% City Rate Increase'for Water. Department: Water Director: Tom Contact Person: Phone Number: 778-4304 Resources and ' eis, Lector Tom Hargis Conservation I 0 r� Cost of Propbsal: Undete fined Amount Budgeted Undetermined Account-Number: Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: .1)Executive summary of the 11th Amended Agreement for water supply,2) Packet of information prepared"by the Sonoma County'Water Agency (SCWA) for 1/10/2000 . workshop, 3) Russian River Water Supply Report dated April 1, 2000, 4) Potential questions for Randy Poole, SCWA, regarding Amendment 11 and the pipeline project including answers, 5) Press release dated November 5, 1999 declaring the water,supply system as being impacted, 6) Copy of memo dated April 7, 2000 to Fred Stouder, subject impaired water supply - memorandum of understanding between water contractors, 7) Water numbers and acre feet per year from a presentation by Bob Anderson at the Russian River Symposium, Council is referred to reference material: a) 3-inch black binder with transmittal letter dated September 15, 1999 to the Mayor and members of the Council from Fred Stouder, subject Sonoma County Water Agency water supply and transmission system project, and b) 2-inch red �binder with transmittal letter January 12, 2000 to the Mayor and members of the Council from'Fred touder, subject Sonoma County Water Agency agreements which included the proposed Amendment 11 Agreement, 8) Copy of handouts prepared by°SCWA regarding water rate increase, FY 2000-01 Water • Rates 9) Correspondence related to Potter, Valley: Acquisition of Potter Valley Project, 10) Copies of handouts provided by SCWA for April 24, 2000 Workshop, 1'1) Final MOU, re: Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment.including,lay person fact sheet, 12) Memo from Steve Simmons re: City Water.Rate Increase and draft resolution and"rate comparison, 13) E-mail dated 6/27/00 from Steve Simmons transmitting;operating procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct and minutes from Water Advisory Committee, May'15'„2000 and June 19, 2000, 14) Weighted voting clause. Summary Statement: The City Council met in a study session at Lucchesi Community Center on January 10, 2000, with the Sonoma County Water Agency for a workshop on Regional Watershed and Basin Planning and Setting Future Agendas for.other Regional Water Issues. A second study session was held April 24, 2000 for discussion and providing direction to management with an emphasis on the proposed 11`h Amended.Agreement to the. Sonoma County Water Agency for water supply and draft memorandum of understanding(MOU) regarding water transmission system capacity allocation during temporary impairment: The meetings of July 17 and 24, 2000 are a continuation of those discussions plus SCWA and proposed City rate:increases'as well-as the possible acquisition'of the Potter Valley Project. Council Priority: THIS AGENDA.ITEM IS CONSIDERED To BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY To, ONE OR MORE OF THE 1999-2000 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30,.1999. Priority(s): These -issues will effect "implement and revise General Plan” and potentially impact the "Central Petaluma.Specific Plan" and the "Economic Development Plan', Complete Wastewater Facility Plan Process; Water. Conservation Supply - Issues; Organizational Change "& Growth, Support Reorganization. Recommended City Council Action: Discussion and provide; direction. to management. It is _recommended that Amendment 11, operating procedure and temporary impairment MOU be approved. gbrThe SCWA water rate increases will be implemented July 1, 2000, by the Board of Directors of the CWA. Further discussions by the City and SCWA are anticipated re the purchase of the Potter Valley . oject. It is recommended that a 18% City water rate increase be approved at the August 7, 2000 City -Council meeting. - Reviewed by Finance Director:. Rev', , -.c 'attorney: X '0 bv.City Manager: `ru ;,< Date:b-15-c'c Er ire: - \ Date: Today's Date: /8/00 Revisio -.:i.`9 ate Revised: File Code: S/WR&C/Agenda/Yk #1=6/29/00, 6 31 3-7/3/0u 2000/6--19 SCWA Amendment 11 -#4-7/7/00 - • ,• CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JULY 17 AND JULY 24, 2000 AGENDA:REPORT FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION,ON 11TH AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR WATER SUPPLY AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CAPACITY ALLOCATION DURING TEMPORARY IMPAIRMENT (CONTINUED FROM COUNCILMEETING OF APRIL 24, 2000) AND OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR SOUTH.PETALUMA,AQUEDUCT. BEGIN DISCUSSIONS OF POSSIBLE ACQUISITION BY SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (SCWA) OF POTTER VALLEY PROJECT, AND PRESENTATION BY THE SCWA REGARDING 6.6% WATER RATE'.INCREASE TO THE CITY. DISCUSSION OF A 18% CITY RATE INCREASE FOR WATER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council met in a.study session at Lucchesi Community Center on January 10, 2000, with the Sonoma County Water.Agency for a workshop on Regional'Watershed and.Basin ' Planning.and Setting.Future Agendas for other Regional Water Issues. A second study session was held April 24, 2000 for discussion and providing direction'to management with an emphasis on the proposed 11th Amended Agreement to the Sonoma County Water Agency for water supply and draft memorandum of"understanding.(MOU) regarding water transmission system capacity allocation during temporary impairment. The meeting&of July 17 and 24, 2000 are a continuation of those discussions plus SCWA and proposed City rate increases as well as the possible acquisition of the Potter Valley Project. 2. BACKGROUND: After the watershed discussion&from the January 10, 2000 meeting, a second workshop was held on April 24, 2000 with an emphasis,on the 11th'Amended,Agreement for Water Supply and discussions were begun ondhe Memorandum of Understanding regarding-the impaired water supply. If the Sonoma County Water Agency and the contract..purchasers of water supply can agree upon a Memorandum of Understanding to,allocate the impaired water supply, this will avoid the State Department of Public<Healthstepping.in and determiningthe allocations for us.' The Impaired Water Supply Memorandum of Understanding has gone through 12 drafts to arrive at the attached final MOU. City management is satisfied that the MOU provides a fair allocation for • the City of Petaluma as a participant in the regional water.system. The memorandum also includes a provision for a minimum water tank elevation in Kastania.tank to insure the Sdownstream,users on the Petaluma Aqueduct system do not deplete Petaluma's aqueduct storage or severely impair the Petaluma,aqueduct's pipeline delivery capacity to our city. The agencies on the:South,Petaluma Aqueduct have developed the attached operating procedure. These procedures establish the:criteria for various stages of increasing impairment of delivery capability. City management is in agreement with the operating procedure agreement. Beginning July 1, 2000,the Sonoma County Water.Agencywih increase its charges to the City • for wholesale purchase of water by 6.6%. Sonoma County Water Agency staff will be making a presentation regarding the rate increase. It is important to note that it is anticipated that each year, for the next five to seven years, a similar rate increase will be,passed along to the City of Petaluma and other agency contractors. It is also important to note that the City last raised its charge to customers in 1995 even:though we have had passed rate increases from the Sonoma County Water Agency. Since we last raised our rates in 1995, our wholesale costs have gone up by20%, not including.the new 6.6% effective January 1, 2000. The proposed 18% rate increase to City customers will do the following: 1) Pass along a.portion of the rate increase from the County Water Agency to our customers, 2) Slow the'rate Of depletion of Water Resources and __ Conservation Department reserves currently being effected by absorbing wholesale water rate increases, 3) Fund the Water Resources and Conservation Department component of the five new positions approved in the City 2000/2001 budget for the reorganized Department of Water Resources and Conservation. Sonoma County Water Agency's Possible'Acquisition of.the,Potter Valley Project Included in the packet are attachments regarding recent correspondence regarding the Potter Valley Project. Past discussions by the City Council regarding the Potter Valley Project have been in the greater context of overall wat& supply issues and Federal energy regulations. Acquisition+of the project was discussed,four or five years ago when.PG&E first considered divesting themselves from the project. This meeting will.be the Council's first opportunity to revisit the issue in the context of current acquisition opportunity. ' 3. ALTERNATIVES: . - A. 11th Amended Agreement 1) Not approve. 2) Suggest revisions which will require other contracting agencies to approve any modifications. B. MOU Temporary Impairment 1) Not approve. 2) Suggest revisions. 3) Suggest revisions such:as require Rohnert-Park to meter on.an accelerated schedule or Sonoma County'Water Agency to turn off agencies taking water in excess of their entitlement. C. Operating,Procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct 1) Not.approve. . 2) Suggest revisions. D. SCWA 6.6% Water Rate Increase. Provide Direction to Staff to Convey to SCWA and/or Board of Supervisors SE. City proposed 18%%Rate Increase 1) Not institute. 2) Modify the amount of increase. 3) Phase timin •of increase. 4) Institute rate increases in steps. F. Set date for continued discussion re' Potter Valley-Project. 4: FINANCIAL IMPACTS:- Many financial impacts are undetermined at'this time and are very complex. The 6;6% increase by SCWA will raise our wholesale purchase price: (See attached memo dated 6/28/00 from Steve Simmons for a detailed.discussion of financial impacts.) 5. CONCLUSION: • The future long-term water supply,,as well as the next five to ten year impaired water supply and delivery issues, is extremely complex and significant issues that will continue to be brought to the City Council in order to provide the-most redundancy. The City should participate,in the 11`h Amended Agreement's pipeline and added entitlement project. The.City should also join in equitable sharing of water resources during the time of impaired delivery capacity by operating procedures that help insure our fair share. 6. RECOMMENDATION:, A. 11th Amended Agreement Pass Resolution authorizing City manager to approve amendment. Management recommends approval for the following reasons: • 1. Amendment 1 t provides°a redundant transmission pipeline. The existing pipe is into the second half of its design life. • 2. The City can decrease its requested take from the.pipeline. Currently, the City requests 21.7 mgd,,an increase from the existing 17,0 mgd. This matches the existing General Plan. 3. If groundwater use becomes impaired,,consistent-water conservation goals are not • met/or maintained; and.water recycling/water efficiency goals are not met and/or maintained, additional Russian River water will be necessary. 4. Current Russian.River water quality is good. Most groundwater has iron and other impurities that will necessitate more expensive•well.head treatment in the future. 5. Engineers support redundancy in utilities both source of supply and transmission facilities. B. MOU Temporary Impairment Pass Resolution authorizing City manager to approve MOU for following reasons: Equitable allocation of impaired resource. 2. Avoids State Department of Health deciding allocation. • • C. Operating Procedures Pass Resolution authorizing City Manager and Director of Water Resources and Conservation to sign operating procedures for South Petaluma Aqueduct for the following reasons: 1. Developed by users of systein. • 2. 'Provides operating criteria to benefit of Petaluma. • 3. Will develop closer working relationships before.impaired delivery becomes more critical. D. City Water Rate Increase Bring Resolution to increase charge for water to August 7, 2000 Council meeting for adoption for following reasons: 1. Passes along to consumer increased cost for purchase of wholesale water. (Our costs have increased,20% since 1995 but we have not raised our rates in that time period.) 2. Provides funding for additional staffing for new Department of Water Resources ' and Conservation requested in budget subject to-rate increase. (Funding for four of five positions is split equally between water and sewer revenues; one is fully funded by water revenues -- $210,000 of the $900,000 generated by rate increase is for new employees.) 3. Slows rate of depletion of Water Resources and Conservation Department budget reserves (without rate increase, $900,000 loss of reserves). 4. Water rates have not-been raised since 1995-while costs of providing service has` increased. The rate increase will also support General-Plan preparation, new Geographic Information System, water rate study,.and expanded water efficiency/conservation programs. • .11 Mailing List S Frank Aker, Mayor of Fairfax Chris De Gabriel, North Mann Water District Randy Poole, Sonoma County Water Agency Pam Jeane,Sonoma County Water Agency Joe Gaffney, Rohnert Park Joe Netter, Rohnert Park Diane Reilly-Torres Ron Thieson, Marin Municipal,Water District Zone 2A Flood Advisory Committee Members Ray Peterson, Gossage Avenue t . Ilb ATTACHMENT #1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ® 11TH AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR WATER SUPPLY • . • r Li 7 rin 5t17.17ea r of. r- • - r_ evecn = — , -"" C.. • 7 r • The Tenth Amended Acre=mont for Water Su721:4J! a-r1 CZ-et-"-- : -- of tte. =iver-r--,-' in'=-- : = (7=-th Amended Agreement) waS enterst trItt 1-274 and was Last amendedi :I:Vol/ember 14i. 1997. Tte Tent hAmended Acreemon: Cot-rides 'for the finac,ng, construct;on, cceraticn and maintenance of t:.= water transn0 == =n system d: the: conoma County Water Agendy (Ace-'r oyszem authorized ty the Tenth Amended Acreemeht ' as th= to deliver and averac= cf 52 _0 callons of water ter day, durnz cc pe : demand month. The "e-t h -.Monde :c==ement e= = =b0= en-' -' =ments each cf the eiCht :water contractors and: delivery cf 14 , 206 acre-feet Of:Watflr annuallv'tdMarin:Hniciza Waz=r Cistrict (Mari.' Mun: ^ ta ) at a .;. Ow rite not to exceery 118 m'.114 -:- cf water ter day dur,nc th= mer' -d f‘oM Mav through:Settember. The transmission syStem which ;•= aUthcr*Zed consista or : e Santa Rosa, Forestville, Petaluma and Scnrma Acue4uOtt, the Russia:: River-c-r= 7 ';•■ =, water produotidn .emerdenCV tranSmission system storac0, t 'e War= Zorincs hvdroelartr' r- trdje,t, wator treat=ent faci°'os, -ui‘cincs and aopurt=nando=. • The, ==nth Amended Agreement establish-a= a ate: committee whose members obnsist of reorisentatives of the eicht water contractors. The Tenth Amended Acr=ement also, authc." -= -E= acouisition of the t-at=---°- Valley Project uton a deto-mnation by the Scar d cf' p; -=-----c of the acT•• =, --^- is r=r==sa-y to insure the, Acency' s cot'nu=-: a-- 1 • -y to ca4.e th= wato- atorized' by the Acreement for nets: Supply and uton the a _.7=1. o' the Water Advisory Corr m:.‘--== It the Acency, rather than ac- r: no tho 1,^7-07--Vall =v Prcect, to make annu= carets to the owner of the P-ojedt to insure the cchtinUed cceration c= th= Project provided such cavments are annuallV .„__ved by the Water Advisory Co=="--== The Eleventh Amended Adz-cadent fOr Water Suctly sutereedes the Tenth Amended Agreement for Wato=. Sutttv and Construction- 0f.,.3uSeian R_fer- ,^cject, damn, Noyet-er 14, .1957. The Eleventh:Amended Agreem=nt obligates the Agency to (1 ) conszudt or -at:mire additions to the existino transmission system sulYiont, td meet increased deliver7-i_enzitlements established tv th= acr==meht to 'ena" it to reliably deliver to each cf mho water contractors sudh ent4ttgmMentiand to make the deliveries author4med to cc made to Merin Munic;tal by tho acreement; (2) construct additional Ps= =er water producttn fact,-' == cult to a t-ta cf 16Z.S moo) co that the total wator tr.:duct:on Ca'adtv ava-lat'e at ail times is nct === than the aver=ce daTh; d=1 ;1,,,g0-v to t9 raculer customers and Marin Muh ,- oal nc surtlue we't=- an - water 'n excess cf ,en-?-lomen-s) curio- th= . o:: Uc= 10 Mr." ; (3) construct emerce=cy wels cata=4 - s whoh cc 0= te to te determined .ty tne Water Advisory -c_ addititnoi tac.,":" == (-, to c ti=es the. average daily deliver? to te - 7 --c---°-- Ntrth- Har'n duro the mtnth ofynichest. historital use; =n.: ( i ) -=71 =r= existo conetruct additionz' - '-`"" ' -h of tho t==nem ==:,-n =7=.-_== and to insure that the =4aLity of :he • The new delivery er-' - ' =-0--= ac-='' 'shed by the ELeventh Amended Agreement are set forth• in the follting table: Averace Curing Any 41111 Water Contract:: Month Yr. Santa Rosa (exouzin; From Reach 1 and 2 tf the EntertLe Aqueduct 40.0 'mcd water • From, the Santa Rosa .Ac-aa--- 40.0 mod • From the Sonoma Acueduct A.0 mcd Maximumtombined' totai - :tom all acueduCts 5E5 mcd North Mar, n From Petaluma Acueduct 19.9 ,mgd 14, 100 Petaluma , From Petaluma Acueduct 21.8 mod 12,400 AF achnc-t F=ck. • From Petaluma Acueduct or Reach 3 of : : -t;= 150 mot 7, ECO AF Valley cf the Moon From Sdnama Aqueduct 8c S mcd 1, 200 AF Sonoma From Sonoma Acueduct 6.1 mgd 2,0P0 AT 4111/11 • C--=-, • From Petaluma Aqueduct or • .Reach 3 of int=-", Acueduct 11.8 mgd 1,.E20 Forestville's 4e1 ;ve-v remains =chanced at .a 1.5 mgd average mer Month. The delivery of water taken by North Hazin cannot ax,--==,' a • rate of more than 19,19 mod- dur'ng more than 14 can cf any me-nth; arr a raze of more than .20.9 Mcd.du,-ina an'; day 65 any -month,. The additional fac'14` aa by. the ,Eleventh Amended Agreement ic...uce an aqueduct genrallv pa:alien:1g the Aqueduct; an acueduct generally Marallell■nrtne south tact CO the PetalUMe ACueduct from tha' Intertie Acueduct to aastania Reser701r: er. .4quedUCt generally- maralleiLho th= Sonoma Aqueduct; an Aqueduct connecting the .Kawana .Spzings andRalohi'ne reservoirs; transmission line gumming +plants neciseary to regulate :lows to storage facilities; 55.a m41r4on gallons of :additional reservoir storace; tor.. of additional auesian R;ver water .7--^"-':^n c=mac4 -y; wa-ar-,—=:--0.-- 1 , t' =a; and groundwater wefls. The Eleventh Amendad Acr=eMent tec-mes é0--' va • 7;1: the Icat-tLes and r=mane in =f'.=rt unzLl juoe20, 202-E or, if any rev=nu= cc:nts afe cu-lal,a...d'nccn 'jun° 30 05, until such date as all revenue co-ds snail hava za.'^ fla 7'''=v=nth AMended AoreeMent on:vides th2t the .1.cancy ahacl Pnzt: nto =^-==mehts for teriods -00 to exceed forty years eacn %.-"Lt.h. any ca- aLL c the Water t-nt-"---J "= 2a7= '-- -ater -omatic 0 t cer-7' `. --tfTE syatam, at a c.t.st!. nc Cr==r=± than the : c- - 's mointontnto. toot: - a-= ccc bs The Eleventh Amended AcreemenzflrecuireS the Wc.._.__ -....... - , and with lbrespect to other ACancy cusztmez-j, tAhe, AcencY to -iMtLemen: cruse their best _ :torts to secure the ';moleMenmation ,Cf: Urbah water ccnservation best anacement prac- ',-== as the, =a-ea;.ta ed--- eha= by, t'a Cn-Hg : = Water Council, or s-all imcamanr. or use the:2r beetr,7--= -- .==.----= -'-. imolemen-n"-n cf' a' -arnazive water Ccnsertaton. me-=u-== -'-=' -- , == =- the same Level cf water savincs. The 'Waiter ccntractCre and Agency must also. Lmolement or use ther best 'e."---s to cec_re zhe imr' --a.----:- : -- conservation -==-" -amenz=• t-n- mav be added as terms cr c--o'- ' --= of t'-...". Agency' s accrctriazive water -,cnt= termite. or litsee, or with. which the Agency must =Moly under crmou' s'on cf raculazicntr law. Ehtl.:LS ths water Ath-Lscry Ccmc1; --=a de*ormna and co notifY any -watt: C-r--n,---- !" n= efforts to ac- e ve coM,Il-z. ca ,.ltl. tha -ae-I' --^ water ccnse:vati=n are unsatisfactory, than such contractor must bring its water cznservaticn trocram into com=7 ; •=nc.= w 'h' n = :c =nth's after such t--' ''a, or Within such cnal tie as ma'; be crnnt=.;.: bv the Water Adyiscry. ccrm'T-fla c.....-,, .‘ such •water ccntractcr's ncnctmoliance as determined bv the Water Ad...LEL-n-7 Committee continue for s .:( mcntha after such notice cf nc..--.......Liance, c_ bevcnd such ad.'' ';onal time as Mav be cra-ted ty he Water AdviscrY Ccmm: --=a, then the water contractor must the-==f-n-Irc.ay a surcharge or all water delivered by the Agency curcuant to the Eleventh Amended Acreement ecal to ten cercent of the ote •. and maintenance charge until the Water Adviscry Ccr-' 1 -fla det=-7,:nes that such water contractor is in ccmoliance. . • . rft-. C:....-7..i.,,,,...%,,-,,■,..-cr.n..... • illi • . . . . ._- . . . . . , . . • _ . . . • . . . . . . • S ATTACHMENT #2 PACKET OF INFORMATION PREPARED BY THE ' SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY FOR 1/10/00 WORKSHOP S • ` LL7111 :: vvu jt7 1A1 .± rneijl, ■s i' resen dcn for the lam ? o }" • r n Ja u r�i j D . 2000 • • Sonoma County Water Acency • Presentation for the City of Petaluma:. JANUARY 10 7:00 — 110:00 F.M. Regional Watershed and'Easin Planning INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION A. Provide status update of activines Scnoma County Wafer Agency is invc vec in that benefit/impact Petaluma. II. WATERSHED ACTIVITIES A. Ncrihbay Watershed Association 1. Eackcrbund, current status and future role 2. Norhbay Dischargers Association — California Toxic Rule recuirements E. Funding of Projects 1. San Pablo Eay:Proiect (Corps) 2. • Napa Salt Mersa General restoration'projects in Petaluma C. PaCiiIC CCastSalmon Can=_eniat cn and Restoration Initiative 1. State Water Bond and Parks Bond 'III. FLOOD CONTROL A. Funding of Petaluma Food Centro) Projects 1. Subvention Funds a) Trapezoid Channel b) U-shaped Channel c) PyranStree! Eridce IV. POINT/NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION A. Urban baseline Program • E. Opportunity for joint.NFDES Permit V. WATER SUPPLY ISSUES A. Impairment Process 1. Petaluma Aqu-educt delivery problems E. Recycled Water, Urban Reuse, New Technology Process for Commercial and Industrial entities (Le_isiaz cn:) VI. SUMMARY AND REQUESTS FOR ACTION •�. Paf;iC paiICP]n NCa(ibc i Watershed Manacerrer: Association AssoC:2:■Crl C__ _ c: r C ore Council member as liaison. . . _. ,ecuest uctcit for Uroar Rs-use Procram C. _=c n discussion for joint NPDES Agreement D .e.due_st s car, far creating a eat onwice cernonstr at or srce,'a inn _c c 1C:a voluntary y _o;furs,'=',/ oc^.mer:'al are ineust. ai enti fie increase 'Ne e c ^se^/a on._renuce cischarge _i C improve me cua ' i or wastewater - _ treatment eat _ L.. NC',1 c.•rec treatment worts • • DFp FT l . ,:.. North Eav Watershed.A.5,5 4 ion . . STRA- ECY' E•AE E • E(ECU T IVE SUMMARY The North Eav Watcrshed'A.sscciation.(NEWA) IS being created.to bring tdcether Government acerc:es within the North Eav watershed to discu=s issues_ of scrimcn`interest arc concern. Sucn an crcani<_:icn is needed to help local ac ides address a trend in State and. Federal agendes towards regulators which increasingly affect areas beyond traditional ctndoal tourda.Res. Faris:oaticn in the INE,'/P,iA, would :rcvice loci covemmeht acenoieE:.'Mth,the opportunity to-work Cooperatively with other acer ties ' within the North Eay watershed on issues of 'common interest such as Total, Maximum Dail,' Load recuietions r. DL . Endancered Species Act (ESA) compliance. habitat restoration, reclaimed water . use, NFOES permits and studies, pollution prevention, source water prcted:icn, public education, aro others. The NEWMA Would be a form to allow local entities to: - • • Work cooperatively and err a:ve!y with other acenc:ez Cr w tersned based re_Ulaa:.ors. and issues. fb • E-ciCre coordinated efforts on projects in order to !e e ace limited furd,nc and resources; decreasing their costs:and Inc easing awe !mFat.:S of proIEC.S. . • Maximize success in-secunlro State and Federal Grant funding for the new Water!!ned . initiative programs. • Efficiently share information about prCle_ts. regulations. and technical issues. In summary; the NEWA would sucpiemEnt. lifter than duplicate local ccvemmert prod er:s. Par icipation In the NEWA Would allow adencies to increase their e!loipiiity for fundlnc, Cain a hignef. rrcflle with federal and state regulatory agencies'and Iecisiative'bCCies; and'reduce their coats to c:moY. with various:reculatorf requirements. In this gay of less government and mcre !coal' control, wry does a 'new. ri tcnaai groanida:ion ice NE'ii7.,IA make sense? The idea.for the.N PL work because it,is`he yh : kitu of regionzi ailiarc Lie . 2`t. time. -_°ACXGROUND AND„FURFC E �I ose :his si azecv :ace c ov d r, crra to local end managers not E r I. _: - c a a oauCn r `le NEWA. Most r'ccr_ iJ, „ IS c _._,;y _c__ s Into .ce_ .., _ „ ai :r7'J a- local government acencies'gout bereft c'J --,-42 Cc:!nc I w : ,=_:G^al wate1°_hed ^ICrn Eat',yarde acct-,=crszic., DRAFT The concept cf the a recicnal watershe c, raach for the Zan Paolo Eay was to cut of an int=rest to protect and preserve the water quality and conserve^he water rc_turoa s cf the San C bic,Eav The Las Cailinas Valley Sanitarr Cistnc initiaated an effort to Prins to-Sather the CCve.T.r-e.-t ace.^.c:es in lf:e Watershed to tad I_c,<S{C_.mmCn interests. Farli cpart_ ricc .uced n cave mren t aCerCES with ti 'fesponsip liiitf Es fcr wastewater treatment and disposal, storm Water and hood control, 'wtersbed pclluticn'. prevention, Water supply, and rec./dad water disthbution. In a series of meetings in mid 1992. discSSCns fccused` on the potential opportunities, tenants, and challenges in Creating an umbrella c arizat!cn that could facilitate land and• dater resource stewardship throuchout the watershed. • The Watershed Aocrcach • The ccntemcc:ar[approach to water management-a and planning is increasingly fccr'sTC on Watersheds', Which are Gene ally defined as the recicn or areas dining to individual sucaca^rater bodies. such as rivers, creeks, and lakes. Water resource ranacement decisions are more often Watershed-based and take into conside.atron a vinery.of environmental, political, Insdtutcnai, scent, tecnnicl, ecprcmlcsano. pudic positions related to,proposed reculatcry aarcnS; as Weil as Me related needs icr water and and resource uses in watersheds.. Fccusinc rinanacement decisions on an entire • atersned balances:efforts to control pcIlut;cn and protect_drinking water sources grid sensitive natural resources. In addition, a watershed focus helps!to Identify cos t-e'e five pclh:2cn control strate_ies to m=et clean water coals. • T Ile watershed approach consider all of the land, natural resources; and ac.:vities•within.this ceccrcnic space and is a collaboration- of the agencies and the cubiidstakehcicers working toWare common resource:-goals. The-` ate.rshed approach is used as a tool to iaciiitate planning, maan-acement, inventor/, monitor-r°, and impact assessment. Federal and state governments are moving tc•1ares the watershed approach to reculaie resources quality. The cl:S. Environmental Frctedcn Acency (ERA) has es:apushed eudance for Naticnal Pollutant Cischarce Ellminaticn System' ($4F' EE`) ;pe.rmitiinc based cri a watershed approach. In addition, future .reauthcrzaticn of the Clean Water Act (CWA) may require the use of a waier_he: approach. The State of California's State. Water Re`_curcess Control Ecard (S•WRCE) and the nine Fecicnal Water C'ualiti Control Ecaros (Rt/CCE) have ce`eicped a '.Naie'zhec IManacement. Initiative (WMI) to achieve the ccai of cecc:ccnlgaily;tarcet c pE.^liirc. Reasons fir .anicfcaiincIn `he" Jateraned '_ca- o Effcriveiv re°crd arc C m:i! with These watershed"foased raa.oulaticrs, cat a ent:es' nE=C :c bE , iiary st Cure !VC arc ^'"^^zrs. Je y to re.socnt to recula:ory of is and envircrrlentai ues would ter. fit CoVemmari aper.das by 1) improving Car nu iC.::on among Ico`i acerdes. NCR:, Ea/'Iyc.C=Lam'.---.�<T • . CFA FT a) educing the expense and time red ire^ o comply ith: ec ruiaticn$ t rou'cn cost-srahnc, a C 3) by 0pr iicinc a united etfdtt In addressing I_sues.within the waterQ_red. I morovinc ccmmuni=ticn amCnc local acenciee within. the Csatershed wcuid''oromote the si.cu,,.. of research data. build consensus on how to respond to. issues within the water=net, and increase the knoWiedCe ant experience base of local agencies in respendinc tc recula:cr;"atoms. Thin iNE'NA would provide a forum for these exchanges. . Local gcvemment acendes would benefit:eccnornillv from pa- c:dating in the NE WA by sharing the cost ir,cured to comply with regulations and protey water resources. .St:crt economic benefits could include reduced expenses for.base:ire. studies.,and reduced staff and'consultant.costs by utiiiz:nc the skills and experience of the staff cf pardcipatinCigoverlment agencies. An additional economic benefit would be lie"increase+_' eiicicllity for watershed-based funding. Individual local agencies will find it'irce tinciy Oif�iot:lt'in;the future to coMpete.-for cant fuhcinc without work:no collectively y with other crcucs`within th eir',vatershed. At both the EtateFand'Fede.al level, there has be=_n a dramatic shift in grant funcinc favoring w tenhed baste croups and prcieats. Potential sources of frefunginc Include the Clean Water Action Plan the proposed. Calm. .c Verf ACCT onaticns. Water Resources Development A.c Eecticn ,.0 , Clean Wate. A.C. p(cC ams, Eef e Cnrxrng Water Act (EDWA), Public Law 105-575, and CalFed. AIthcucn iccal government agencies, such as Water sueci`:ers, are eligible individually for financial assistance, many prcerm=-croVide only a portion of the total cost and the local acencies must generate additional funding either t(ouch operational budgets or combining procms and funding sources. Ey preparing joi a nt appiicticns for financiai aszistance, Ico21 government acencies will be elicible for a greater vasetj of funding programs and will`,ir..crease the likelihood of sccurinc funding frcm watershed-based federal anc state prcccros. , Participation in the NE,NA.would create a larder base of constituencies in comparison to the seniioe areas cf individual load government agencies. This would increase the lmpanence of the member aacer..cies and thai('prclecs to the. rc_ulcicry agencies and the s:ateanC fcn_E aHecisi2:ures. Issues A rre-lnc°L^'.al coiernmen:.=can cies.WNithin the Waie75`cc. The activities +coal ccvemmEntagent:es, regardless of the char__ of the agency', are re 'uiateb under mart' of the same rCu.aiior. anc:stct.: °i(see Facie 1). Ecr.e of these iaricrs rciude n e Safe_ Water Ac (c.DV'/A.) rear} "Water.Ac (O WA.), Res:I.:roe Conservator.' and Recover! Ac. Sl r 1 C ` / °Vlrc -i sE' C c Lability _, C _. 1 c E :::_.,,.,o1 Federal Ira d_. hc,cice and t.. and California Eu.'.ac°_ ii'/titer Treatment Rules. NPD'ES, National .Ervircnmertal Pciic: Act .,NE Nat:, .5.7,/7.r _gin=-T " • • D F▪ FT California Environmental ,Quality Ac: (C ;A), Coastal Zone .Mar cer e t Act (C NIA); arc a!' iicabie sections of the 'CaIIICiTIa Water CCCe As stated pre`JICU<lV the acenaries that are Cnc c°"- with Im Clement.nc these regulations taking an Incre3_irc1,j recicnai and SVcte.'_-Ce^_-based aco•'cacn. A.c:Ivities that are regulated by these regulators occur throughout the North cal 'watershed and sre conducted by e varie^y.OClcc'-.l covernment:agencres. A few examcl es of issues within the North EaV watershed that affect acer.cies partplpatinc ih INE ''/A are described be!cw: Total Maximum D'aiiy Loads. T r e.RWQCE.desicr ates beneficial uses for the protection cf surtate dad • ground water quality based an historic water use. Eeneridi 1 uses of `ester resources include drltki rc and Irncaticn water 'supplies, habitat, redreruon, transportation, and aesthetics. 'Water bodies with pollutant levels filch enCUCh to negatively imn_ae a. beneficial use are des:onatec as -impaired `titer tcdies"with respect to thcse paricular pollutants. • Section :203(d). of the .CWA requires. California to .dE`Je!op a list of impaired surface. water tcdies thtcuchcut the state and''tc.,submit"tie list to the 'EFA for aCCrccvai. It further requires that TMDLs be 'h deJeicoed fcr each df these water bodies, to control and',limit the discharge of t`e listad pollutant. The RWQOE develops and submits a list of imbairedriwater bcdies within their regicn toi the SWFC _ The. SWsCE,then submits the statewide 303(d) list of impairer`crater bodies to EPA for approval. In addition, • the EFA may also place impaired water bodies cn the 203(d) list at its own initiative. For each region, the RWCQE Sct5 water quality objectives.to protect the most sensitive beneficial users_ of the receiving water.. ObjeClves (referred to by EPA as 'later quality Standards') are parameters desicnen to ensure the continued benericial used cf the water. The EPA has developed. the T?ICL method to relate assimilative oscacit/ cf re ceNing water to the 'der quality objective,. T`+ICI;`s have• been„esiabliehed.for numercuslchemigal and.bialccicsl constituents that threaten beneficial use. In the North Bay,TMGLs have been proposed for'seveal constituents. T fie proposed T'VICL.for cccceri is an example of one constituent that Will affect most local government acercies. All. 'Hater didoharcEs containing oo:peer will be regulated, including potable water, reclaimed water, _.orwster, and wa_w. er. be'adl �" LCC .I government agencies may .. E to tCCefher to establish programs. soot as a pollution credit trading CroGram, t0 address;the &gaper ITNICL is_aue.. Without a pollution credit wading it i .. . . _ _rCC cm, It is conceivable than all clsChaiCefS, fnC:cC:nC stCT'�tEr and pCiap:°_ 'water CsC-cic dirt would be recuirad to treat even:ismall discharges to remove Copper cr mit:care its effects. NFDEs' t• nni.:'Issues. While the-issue 1�MICL s Ir'C Erne 'tc C . s a ralativeiy netri issue, the Jan FrardiSzi-',,:EaY Are= WCC. has hirocricailyrtakeh a:reciCnal accrcaoni to issuing. NiF S,pen Its. Norm_Ear:vo r:tic c-cn DRAFT �NF permit crovis Cns. p2-nc lane VI(rlr see nC cr C S.Ci the c/. are ^/ClCcll`/ C pIIC pent its Issued during the ire ante pence: In the south`poorer cf the Say, where C e _ arc:=. rescurees are aVallacie to the aC dudes-serving mere uroa, tzec areas, lcel e ..r„es have t:fully Used watershed-t`'.a_esi=open-den to.sec'ure mere;re senable and ariie`iable`c:ripllance me-hanis,ms in NFOES pen nits. Althcucr there are distinct: Chys;cl differences between ttie south and ncrr :criers or San =•ancact Say`mu on war,ant,cir'e:e_'"t reculaiory approach.es, the :VOCE-_ has typiciI`/ seeded the same rerulaicry aapereaches ti rcucncut iihe.Eay, In't a case Ci copper, fcr exam lE .the FANCCE listed the entire bay as an impaired water body, even though the available data ieary indicated ih at the . San Fable Say corncn'Nas.nct Impaired:. C ece.-ticn amend NEINA agen.C:es:.vculc give individual acencies a greater voles to aadhccste more:reascnabie reculatcry approaches. Park:caller in the NEWA'NCuld aisc ailow Ncnh.Ecvrace-'c:es to pool`resCUrCSs fcr many Ci de sruc;es required In NFOES permits. There are several reculaticns pending at the RWCCE `Nricd Will present.sicniri=.7.compliance issues for Ncr .h Say agencies, parculany these icrcoeper and merry. In adclticn, storm.Water recjlaticns . prese ntly being consider.' at the EPA will most Ii<eiy recL'ire agencies to cecome partners in storm Water NFOES permits. Parccpattcn in.the:NEW,,will become even more valuable as these re:ulattons . feare implemented. Endangered Species Act Compliance. A number•cc historc curs C salmcn and stea_!heac native tc the Pacific Northwest and ncrthem Calircrria are berg considered or have been listed fcr pre;e-...ion under the federal ESA. N1 maid%rter.vays flowing into•the Facinc Cc-eat, inciucinc the Ncrh Eay watershed, are direr ly afered by 'these listings. Ir additich, the North Say watershed has many teresthal seethes that 2E2 listed cr proposed to be:listed under the ESA, I 'Ie,burden of recovery efforts Is likely to fall on cities, counties, spec ial districts,• and other units of local goverment, Irc:uc nc water and wastewater scencie_s. Responding Individually to these listings c-'n be.'cver,Vh&mice and the consequences of non-compliance cari'Ce serious. The fundamental"approach for species recover/ is the ecca JSEm r IcVNci ar&'Ed manaCEmentptun that`CCrnChes with the ESA.. Awaie!Si,E!d-_c°_-ed aCCfCadr to.SEA compliance would benefit ;coral cbve.rrirrem ac=c:es'by providing increased e'1cibiiity ;cr funding (see above), Cccrdlnate'd legal standards and time frames for compliance, and establlshnen.t C= achievable standards and mechahisms to address- sped:es recover',. Habitat Reston on. htect ;deal:covemrent Eder pies are involve_ in :enst:ater of orc;ecs :ha res'uii in sfcnlr:Can: irr pates to Kcal envlrgnments and usually require me sures :c mitICate ti-C :mpa.,C • � a c than Stn'7c.ant !eve!. LodZi, state. and federal resource ac 'C es often, rat_. err cr C:E-ic er habitats ei s lia :-,/.7.-e and Cue:I / :c those that t have teen im:c_ __` _storati - - ncies Habitat rc_.� c.iCh can ce an'eXC S°si'lE and anCt.`.'i-_,�:.cs5. p°-I CaGV ter�^„ail gC'/Ef'f`E... 3_° . `:err, syWar.e-r: ___ �.;n, . . s. DRAF Until recently, suon midcaton iwas performed on a prole`- ty orejec basis 2T 1C erten res,uft"--, in 'mall,_ Iccziizec areas_ car prcteced habitat survu iec by areas or defelcEre.^t There I row Via focus. en ac crcac-mc nacitat•,r estoranon on a rectonal car watershed basis thrcugn miticaticn barxirc. iM iticatldn banking allcwe, cr habitat're_toration or prctec on Cn a Iarcer.scie..and often.prcvices.c:eater ecdlcc:eai value than individual miticaticn prefer—E. A 'rrtersned Croup, such 'a5 NEWNIA, c uid jcird/ ce`ie!C0 habitat restoration ,projer_s, such as mitioaticn thanks, to reduce costs and increase the ecdlccicai importance of protected areas. Recycled Water. The CLCo°al and use CL treated wastewater et-fluent is an issue that efie':SS hEanV alI water and waste• ten aceneies Ncr' day wate.rahei. Wastewzter agendes are restricted by seasonal discharce requirements and-the allowable use cr1re^;c!�ed'water. The use cf re yciad'water for IrneatCn Cr acnculturaat.coos Cr landscacinc, and'use in Inc'urcial iprocesses benefits '.vater agencies by decreasing. the need to develop additional freshwater supplies. Lac:! government acencies can cccrcinate their'effcds to develec solutions to the,recycled-water lwde within the watershed. Peterttial solutions include deve!Cpine.. habitat restoration' projects that use recycled water such as march restdrticn and deielecirc a:systeni of aacricuitural and indUStnal users of red•/Ced water.. CONCLUSION . State and •Federal re_uiaticns have shifted their rezulatcry emphasis tcorards watersheds in order to more effectively manage water quality. The NEWA iS can. association which would allow each participating entity.td e mere efficient ent and effective at cpmcfyrne with these recwabcns: The NEWA. i i would provide Iccal ccvemment agencies within the Ner`:'Eay watershed with Imccrlant economic and CCeraticnal benefits. Admittedly, part c:paticn in the -NEWA Wilt,require time, staff, and `Inar,ciaal commitments•-from, member acences. However, each candidate agency already "conthbutes a substantial amount of staft'and economic resources towards addres_eind the same issues'the NEWA would address, and the NEWA would prcvide'an. ccpertunirt to pool these resources and reduce the • compliance costs for-ail.paahicicaatinc'agencies. A.lthcuch the tired: costs, if any, of participation in the NEWivtA have not yet been determined; they are experts to be substantially less than the amount ace-des are already spen,Clrc on com,pllanc°_"wit Irate=Ter' regulations. The benefits Ci pate:paiten t0 CO2 II CCve.mment agencies. small and lards:. will be sicniilQmt and.:meenant to ever the In the NC:7.7 'Ea,/ watershed. • • T.i c 1 >. • '• 0 0 0 0 010 0.. • U V-.I V C 1.1 I .- ICI Q.] 0 010 0 01A i• ,0 .01-0 '0.'0 0'0 0 CI°I m . Z.l ^!3 ml a: _ 0 _ • I -t`I ci a CI U UI` = -I 71 r.: N = cji0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 04 .63.1 yl a C `I >13 C CI _I al` O ..=I C U - 3 � 1 . 1 >1 _ c) •. Epee 0 0 0 • .0 0 '0 0 0' SCI .I 47 C ` C C I ,_ _I CI 3' el 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0, 0 0 4 '0 c ' 0 `, m • ?di cni- =1:1.2i..CI ^y-1min :, C! mi _ CI I UI I N C CI n -1 C FIcI MI jl Ill I :CI -i PI 41 ,lt C .I � <1 3 t TILT �'_ ,,.`' I _ m >' C ' I =' .-I _IaI L CI '-I. In' C I Cr..; MI I i' _ I CI -' ' C� IQi : c.l ' I, ,Cl' �I I .ii _ -I :.I niWI-L c n1 i< ;>'' -I n z: ^I 7 -I 'CI r, ^.11 - " 0t J -Iyl ,C.I 1 a -:CI II U1- _ CI C 2 a!71101 cii G qb ,,, 3 _ 5I � " v1 - I, a _ $ 1 ^I c C] : _ I 1=:`. _ ;.Z:i.i: .L' MI CI 1' I -1 CI _ • Pacific CouetalSnlmanidhConser;ndan:and Recover;L^itiarive Jc n c 993 the focal uove-,ine `' ci s a. treat::: r cs ofCalito California_ Croton, Wa:ninmtcn 5%: -ac: __c . e r b s ;regional C ❑ son :O. Y a fc _.all ^llrltrr t ref':aV ^ di 1116 -tlr'o•. and _ e h •C^ e Zrs 7.n d•e•r ST-:cc and ag c fa C nl_.. t L C ICCil;1C..OLIt 3 J this erifon. The oL sot/ottani of di:'F1c::n Coos ta i stares jointly reouestczi ?resident t Clinton.,._/e. a . . .__d Cc.<�. _zi cme Conservation tone. ,=.c Res-.cration .:... .:vet As a result of coordinated leaislariv cut-tact earth, the final-i ^ al buds. L -a. year (T ) 7000 estai iishrs .t° Pacific Coastal Salmon R.ecoverj Fund (SFP) wit_'..rl 33.million allocated.as Kilo vS.yV` _ .._ A Jaslta t 314 million. 1Vashineton, $18 Million Crean • 39 million California S9 million Trccxv Tribes 36 million Cclumaia River Reg<icn 32 million U..S CanadianFishin_ Treader 320 million int. SR1 requires a 75% non-federal tgateh. The State o. California has allociteturnatanz2 funds ti'irnuah the California Ware- Bond (A3 564iS.B•5:0) in the:amount of 520 million, and die'Par-.s, Coast:., ? cat:coal and Natural Rccocrces C' Bond (SB 57) in the amount of 325 mtilien„cent n=_avcon,vete:scnrcval`iirtifa:�...20 � tai o- - 0- :aus, me rota' t roan_i and state funds available for salmon restoration and C.• +I_enution activities in the State ot. alimn:a is estimated million. 2' - c activities I, C C to be 'California Coastal Salmon Conservation a R ove ..: Act (SB 291) Which has yet to be.adopted, was introduced in alifen:a legisiatnre to allow for oistr,ouricn of federal finals in Califdr.a .a _.sure c[,e^v e^dinar: of funns or a re_icnai approach to salmon re ov ^;.-;SD 291 desiana-es the California Resources Aoenc, as the esocrs;cie Star_ A_e::1CY (Or allocating the ;c:.irl funds. - � - � ' The 13 California counties with tributaries to the Pacific''ava coilabaraiedl,aver the pas;;ear, par!ic! to the Pacific Coast Salmon Conser,atiea and Recovery Initiative.efforts, to reach a consensus `or'oouesaag distribution of the ccmhincd federal and state funds in FY 2000 Is this region: This coalit on of counties hat ' ^feed tat each cough recicn rceccst approximately 3750,000 o the annroxi atel'J.,S10 =ILien to be used car:funding project that can belt: soh lave immec at.'.. results in habitat brat:a:ion and restoratior to maClmii•_.the benefit O falls historic cro.io. Re.• •+ y. ,ands that are in excess of the approximately 510 million recuesr oy the l2 counties c L a oc.'utilized by rcr --u-- a.^d ether entities for restortian work with ro'riew and approval by the:California Itersurc_s ."-.o:ncy, • To dcmens.-to the t unordinary level cfcooCratian and Collaboration aClicv o+ the coastal California C cl u,. fries in the development of the Ftc ti a. c'Salmod Ceasern_t:on cad Recovers initiative, a or _',... c for submission to 'he Caii Cris Ra ou a'genc° - include o s c Ca: l Bd -.< Lest will l n � - sn _ district Oarr - - `is a stork. nit... .;, s i t; the rzooetted allocation Ct _tare ancl fa-1=mi finds _ ctive ...U✓.i r c:cn: Fr- to ncsencc of SB 79' be'r :e�-�•_.; .-.. :_ _ _ of - _ ..a _ s � a - c _ _,loco. -n - —i doilnr,ve innnerliaic within .ite next.yfisiar die ; rn _.. .._ ... illthis c al Ir I _ tun nett: I J _s..consthrc. . - : _s_°__ 2 _ C .. _S ._ S'R'..d_ h p"cs _..:vii tC ICC e.::::"25 es 'A'C_._ ,_ - ` _ on-the-sr: --otizot: 2Z7 r. • ® CALIFORNIA DOXICS RULE Introduced in .1997 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and expected to be adopted in early January 2000, the California.Toxics Rule (CTR) proposes numeric water qualify criteria for priority toxic pcilutants for wastewater dischargers to bang the State water *quality standards into compliance with the Clean Water Act The proposed rule 'inc?udes a provision for allowing existing dischargers additional time to comely with the new water-quality based effluent limitations based on CTR criteria once it has been adopted. The CTR was proposed by the EPA to fill a regulatory gap created when the courts remanded the State `Water Resources Control Board's Inland Surface Water plan and the Enclosed Says and Estuaries Plan in 1994. Eoth Plans are required by the Clean Water Act. The CTR will replace bath' plans until the state can adopt new plans. - The CTR could present significant compliance problems for Sanitation Districts as they induce nine specific effluent limits which typical sanitation districts may be unable to reliably meet; these include copper, mercury and several ardanic ibchemicals. A consultant for the Agency has determined a range of structural and regulatory alternatives which would be required for the sanitation districts for which we are responsible„in order to achieve•compiiance.with the proposed new limits. They may include, but are not limited to,, treatment ,plant upgrades, year-round land disposal system, and regulatory aiternatives that include several studies targeted at dilution and other factors that would justify more achievable effluent limits. The. Agency's approach in recent NFDES ;permit regulations has been to pursue these regulatory alternatives as far as possible before contemplating expensive treatment plant upgrades 'or a year-round land disposal. system. If we increase our use of recycled Water generated by the Sanitation Districts we can help reduce discharge and possibly:avoid costly treatment plant upgrades or year-round land-disposal systems: • III FUe: c.%ci;va:e e_e 1enicetaurdc !r xicscc,a.. aca r. - • An Analy sis cf',the Reliable Capacitl ,41b of the Sonoma County Wate ••Agecy. Water Trnsmiss.ich System November 1999 Introduction The Sonoma County Water Acency (Acencv) operates a water-transmission system- pursuant to the Tenth Amended:Agreement-for Water Succiy and Cons:;ut:ion or the Russian River-Cott InIerae.Project Tenth Amended A.dreement dated November 14, 1997 'Cerween the'Acencv arc;eitht cities and water cistr ics°in',Sonoma and Mann Counties. iris acreement authorizes i!`he financinc, construction, rnalnt mini ice and .operation of facilities with nominal cacacity to deliver hales at'+an averace rare of delivery dunne the maximum hi°nth of 92.0 million canons per day (mcd). The;purpose of this analysis is to•cuantiy the 'current capacity of the.Acenc/s water transmission system to reliably meet the-,Ace"cy's water".delivery cciIcations curiinc tit= oencd prececlnc the completion of construction and Collector No e, lc the principal remaininc un r'ct ucted'.component of the Russian River-Co aii Inie.Je Project Reliability. Prior to artemctine to cuantify°the;waterr delivery capacity or='the.Water transmission system, a definition of u e-tett n'eiiable" is necessary. In ordinary lancuace the term "reliable" is nicniy subiective. however, in the context of the---Water transmission SJSte.T, the definition of"reliable" must:Ceanfemed'ircm the terms or the Tenth Amended Acr emeat-ror Water Succiy and Consir ucicn of the Russiian.River°Cotati Inter-de Prejec:, and where the acreenient IS not clear, from the succoring documents CNnic,i Icd to the contract. • The Tenth Amended Acree,rnent.oClleates the Agency to deliver waater to the water contractors at a :aximLm a)eraace mdnthiy rte of 90.4 mod and aUtchzes the cerg-; is ce!Iver 1 to mcc to other A.cency customers. The Tenthi,Amented Ac e., ores,'ES, In ctriSider=ttie thefaciiities 'Nnich:are autro nice to be construct=r'. operated and maintained:as ccmccrentS of-Me N2 t_. 'u_nsrr ss cri system tt. 2c0 .,,lie= :his. These iaci ities Incijdc the crioii'al Wchier Collectors INC. 1 and 2 which rat 1:47 asc_rye^. cornCined croc::c:ion capacity of "3C mod. the Edditicnai iMirabel Collector= N c. 4 and E. 'Nnic.,, had a _ molnec ceGicn c=ecity of 60 Too, arc a yet to constructed standby Celle :r_Nc e'with, a design c8 e :r/ of 20 Mgt'. The it _c` iroa. e nsmis :ci scot n :c 0i million II s arc : C ..c �.0:2.: rt_ri:e Finally, .he _fit., Amended i_ C_C AC _cm�cr _ .:Ir S e c. .= r_.❑ and maintain the transmission system in a "good stare of :_pain' ' • With the const ucticn of CCIIec or NC the Wafer tray si Isdidf system will by de `n tjcr, h • ave a "reliable" delivery =cacti eft 2TIcd While one micht moue ;bap t e C CE Ce Cr acme Ci the Criteria 'ucon which,the transmission sistemi ce<ien Tests, such as 'ac:' oT crcviscn for stancbv:;pumeirc capacity at Warder, and the adequacy cf the 1..E to 1 rand of storace to daliy delivery at:Heatton upon which the 118.p mllhcr gallons of transmission system storage is Pasco:, the decree of rella:itity crcvicec by the transmission system is that level deemed necessary by the parries to the Tenth - Amended_ Agreement • Temporary Impairment The Tenth Amended Agreement defines a "ternperar/ impairment" of"capaC^y of the tiansmiszion•system as a situation which occurs "due to natural visa& era sa et-dae cr ether'causes,beyenc the control of th_e.ACenc/_." ''Other causes'' Ino:u'de soon events as the failure'of a major component ci the"transmission system and the impcsitien of _constraints.by regtiiatcry-acence crthrouch.Ii-deaaden, which eitherprevent+ehe full Utii Zatien of existing components ct the transmission system or impede the timely construction of additional authorized hCC:linies'. A;temccranf impairment May cc:Ur In either-water prcducion capacity orrrsmission capacity. ----- Water Pfoduddon Improvements • Ourrg the WeeE of Aucust 11-17, iS o-L e'tcta l"Niter In storage in the A.Ce.^,Cl S h transmisslcn system'Ceclined':Co.less tan a total`or C million"cailens,or 7Nater in atCraCe, - VyniCh Is(aboUt.a i :hour suably. Inetczal'system storage capacity was 105:5 million cailons. In chelate eveninccr Tuesday, August 13, 199E the waterleyel;reacrec a low Of 99 feet in the Ralpnine reservoirs, 11.3 feet in the Cetati Reservoirs, and 1615 feet In the Kasiania Reservoir. This situation raised concerns as'to the adequacy arc.reliaoliif! -oiithe"Ageht'/s Water prbduccon taacilliles, and the decree of risk of curtaiimentin deliveries to the Agency's customers. An A.gency rector dated'te_cruaafy'1997 examined the capacity or the Agency's `.eater prcductien'hac IRies to meet the water demaands.CT the ACenc'!'s customers, assessed_":the risk that water deliveries may have tc be curtailed in the future cue to inadequate water prcduc:ICn,capaGiy, and identified <cnes ief measures necessary to improve the reliability of the System. These recbmmendaticns were larceiy.impiemented. The Agency e:::edenced:a c_..,, C_ac:ire,in total water in`-storace dunrc the Week of Jure 12-2E,. 1297 to '46.7 million lichens. This triggered a sec -nc'ACe"c! resort dazed July 1997, which examine bee :t =i.Imclementatien and _r_eC ivene<_. Of he heasures rs- emmended_ in the :_t uan/ 19cr recorL arc made ideriain additional reccmrr erdaatjcns. • fl C rc in water.n.-:1072C'. 1 c !a5 analyzed n he te July 1997 report. was =7 h to a Combination Ob Tall While be-seie geoine in storage !C lC Faye been avoided if :n-4, • ub<ec_u_ntiv < ed Russian er _.erg (FRVVF) had - u_Ct.._ _fail ,v,.."J'!_ l (F„!1 • been fully,ope addnal.anCif.at least some bf tne'RRV/F pun0=' co been VaIVeC to :um: car s water c • into er prodution System Cefidre dies. m1= �Cfl.sVS 1 r'June fed/EaIE^ =cm= ne • The.most serious of these dencences wcs.the ceo:Ihein'Ihn tfatiion razes in the \f1;2_e! Infiltration ponds which was e`licent.in June. one aye age -t 0.10 foot Cer hour int irraticn::,ate actually e periencedCunne i�/1av, June and eo y JGuiv is''Ne.l below he 0.17 foot per hour neeclec'to Croducc ED mcc witn'the largest cone our Ci service (ascunirc 25 moo Of direct Russian River inniTazion, now). The e:pene. ce With Ron,' C in July'incicatec that this deficiency might be correct-ad with a range I Operational practices. Since the 0C u'rrehce of infiltration problems experienced.CUnnt' he summer of 12R7, t`.e infitr aticn pond ode atiatd practices have'been'substantially,modified With craiirjlrlc results. Eecinninc in 1998,. the ponds have been rotated In anC;Out of service on a weekly basis, which prevents'The ce/e:COment of alone:and other biofcci Cal`crowtr5 that reduce Infiltration. This rotation'ha= s g'ii lcantly Imo oved'infiiL aiiOn C pac:F/. The -observed avers°e percolation:razes In 1999 for the 1Miabel ponds are shown in Table 1. The area we:chted averace•,cercoiatiOn fate for the INllrcel,perclaficn pondsis 0.2= f==: per hour. This is 2.= times the 0.10 zee*. per hour percolation Pate Observed in 19E7 odor to implementing the ne.v operating practices. t i;IChCC a iaGOf in the JUPEs2CfaCe decline, the ac<•ci a Standby pump at INC'llcr'.Vcs also identified as a-senoUS.'water production system-deficiency. A.standby pump has since been purchased. Also, the restoration of the Acency's emer'yenoy well pfCCUCtiCn 02020 W 'CO al least 7.0 mgr which 'wouio'ado ai'least 9.8 mCC i emer_enc; production capacity and waifs identified as Important This is s0 eduled:to be acoomp fished before next summer. • TAELE I 1999.A) ERAGE,PE cCCLAT10N 'RATES Area Rate Pond (acres) (feet/hour) 1 E.0 a.1a .2 l.5 i._ -„na:l'J _a. ,air .7..:727C=': CI" "c and or—rational _ a_•i Ccc .. _c .:� ,'P,:_ ..v=re _ -. :ter-it-Fiat/4- ';-' c-1ainl li-.IC_` recommended Chat The-yells bc eolumb � .;hey do not • CURD to waste in the Uhiabe.-'nilii'ilCn ponds, winch imp-aired the'.=.CEn Cy's to maintain ii ie ponds. Also,. It'Na5 're comm ended that the ele`cio I curer E t at the !.Vellg • which was suclec- to Camace 'Nf InUnea ec be rc jade_ in the spito in a timely manner so thaf the Wells are ad fully OCeratlonal CunnC the summer rich water demand cehcd. These measures have been imelemehted. Water Frcauction?Caoadity The Aceney has developed total dynamic head Vs. flow curves for botht t e IMirabe! and • Wonler:collectors. With-iMiracel ou raiind tour pumps wit two standby cut ics'', as contemplated in the Tenth Amended A,Cree ment; 'U mcd ist crccuosc art-delivered through the Cetati Interne. Wth Werner cce atincl With'if cur pumps With nc:starloov (except spare motor}, as contemplated in the.Tenth Amended Acree pient, and with the FFWF dedicated to pUIDOinc to Wcnler to succlement In5ittaticn, 34 decd is produced and detiyered thruicri u e Santa Rosa r1:cuecuc for a total Water productcri rate of 84 mcc. If'one or"the standby pumps at Miracel is.added, the Miracel orccuc:1on. rate.is Ino easedr to.45 mce`ior 2 total 'hater prccucicn.rate of 42 mcd. The 92 mod: waiter production rate, however, odes net .meet they re1iacilirj'standard deemed'. necessary in.the Tenth A:mended,Acreement. When one Of the.,.Weiner pumps is out of seriice, 2S occurs from time to time, the RRWF may be revaived so that Wells NC. 1, 4 an 5 pump to Miracle! and Wells lNp. 3,..6 and:T pump to \Pichle . With this RRWF ochficutaticn, 55cmce is produced and delivered throuoh.the.Cbtati Interne The ler production rate isi educad to hdwever;: the total water production rate remains at 84 mad. Conclusions The reliable water producdcn'.cacaoity of the Water transmlaicn system is cumenthy 34 med. The water productJonCpacw of the transmission system has been tc-.mods^IV impaired by reculatdry constraints and lineation which has ceaveo the c nst uc:lon.of Collector No. a, the construction cr wnicn is authorized by-the Tenth Ameneec rcre_melt'ror Water Supply and CJrsr::cion Of tie Fustian River-Cozad Intcnie Project. • —__..J:'x.....!'x......^.inclf?!:a C:e • • S SUMMARY CF SS'iNCLUDED IN RESCLU I TON NC 99 & 3 :ArtRGVS: a'oa Pre^ared November load Resolution INC. 55 7CEEE included eleven "Items of direction in response to the immediate Cctentlal icr a readrdaav water supply snortaoeand to address the CCtentlar ctcnirc=r i dzi ays in c:nstrtc-on of adclilcnal Wale's'UCCivmacliIles, The'fcUcwtnc summarizes process reitztde to thcse.iterns. - 1. Request that `each Water Col-I actd_r provide the Agency With the best estimates and supoortinc (a) the amount of water, in mod, needed an peak days during the summers of 1'9299 through ,2003 for human consul-notion, sanitation, and fire protecton (b) the amount or potable water 'available from sources ,besides the Agency's"transmission system an suchi peak days (c) the amount of totalrand acdveestor'ce provided on their indiVidual systerns. ' Status: The Acency sent a letter to.the water contractors an August 23 1.9.9R. recuestir c that the aatcve Information be prcVicec".within%one-month.(copy of the letter is attached). Cv October 20, 1959 _ . , ._ _ .. I...,.,, only ti,v0 water contractors had 25c6riCed. Acency Staff placed fallow-up phone calk to the renaininc Water contractors cunnc the week of Gctocer 1E' 1995. Ev November 2'% 1959, a total cf five cut of eight water contractors had responded. TC daze, the remaihinc throe contractors have not rescCnded to the request for information.. a 2. Develop contingency plans .with. each Water Contractor to address potential transmission system shot-zaps for peak days during'; the summers and other potential water delivery shortage periods through 2003., Status: Contingency plans are in place for-all water contractors: except the. City of Cctari and FCrestviile Water District. I net water-tch doss that have ccntinc=nc;i'plans review and u'date their respective plans cn an annual basis. In the letter sent to the Water contractors cn ,\.r,ni.'ct 22, 1999, the Acency offered to :asoisl'She respec5ve water contractors develop Continuer C✓ plans to address potential :transmission_ syttem shcrtaces rcr ;peak days ,durinc the summers and other potential water deiiverf, Shortage' periods throUCh .2003-,and beyond. The Water Agency and the'Water'contractors, are ca_innino the process of modifying Contingency clans as an Update to the Urban WaterlManacement Clan. 3 Develop plans with each Water Contractor to address potential transmission system shortages for peak days during_ the summer and other potential' water de!iver^y sharraae periods beyond 2003. • Statue Please ..zeestatuz for item 2. 4. Assemble and review the relevant data and information 'received under 9c. 1 through 3 above and then evaluate whether cr. not a "temporary impairment cacacity of the Trnsfnissian System." under cace 1.6. lines =-13 of the Tenth Amended Water SuDoly Adreemenz, may OCCUr during the summers of 1992 through 2001 .SSus::.. . ie c e c atus r it is 1, 2- and 3. In aC C three r cr s y _pr his r ctcn ( i). to mays o t the ,;e/able Cacao ty or ,7e. Scnc, c C^L-N Iii/ •c, (Water ers„ds_,on VSI. rn„is Cr. analysis Ci. the reliable `.ME._r cacaca/ of :he ,z:cency water transmission SVS e.r,. The anaivs : ccrc odes `riot, he r e facie water ccuc icy' : - C he ,'Iat,er trarsmis Ion syst_m curentiv Is E= ^.cc and ha, the V2:er crcc..c-,cn ;” ca the trarsr-('sic" sVSf ra ee'i n::,an,, impaired =1 ;.plat / cp7Strairir arc Ili° . which has delayed the C nc ,, cpr of Cc:fleeter No. 5, the cons-JC-ion of which is authdrid=r4 y the Tenth Amended Acre°^ent ( ) SnCraCe of Water and ACCCronne rr cesc it s the prcVisrcns included in the '.vater s_.,.,IV at,eerhents Ce^Neen u e A.Cenci and the OuO.iiC acenc:Cs served by the 4.cencl's water transmission system re arcing the allocation of Water in the event of a..temperarr 'Imoairnent of"'CapaC:ty' in -Me-water transmission, sVste.rn :and (3) Preliminary Analysis- Temporary Impairment of the Capacity.of the'IWare!I:ransmissicn,Svsre.m .focuses on•:the provisions-contained in the Tenth A.creement:ono conduces that there .Is no c iective: means Of limiting water deliveries except uirouCr judicial or rec:.Iaiorr relict • These reports are attaclments tC the ?Cencys December 7 1999 Eoarc Acenca ten Summary Report recarcinc Reliable Waaier. Prceucnon Capacity- of the Water Transmission System as a Result of the temporary Imoairment'(12/07/99 Item). d. As needed, develop a recommended contingency plan; to prepare for any such tempera ry impairments to be brought before the;Eoard for consideration. Status: F1ease sea(status for items 1 �^,and J:" In,;accillcn, the Agency is recuestinc that the Ecarc direct the Acenci's General Manager/Chief Engineer to implement Stage 1 Level as included in the water conracers Water Snoriace CCntincenc, Plans', as Included in the Acencyls 1996 Urban:Water IManace:nent Plan (12107199- Item). The Stage 1 Action Love: recueste voluntary reductions to achieve a 15 percent'water savings. Stage I generally bract ude such'measures as: • • voluntary rationing and conservation, indludinC_ 'use Cf Water saving'kits distributed by water contractor • 'erecurage"use of alternate water'sources„such as reclaimed water • encourage right-time irrigation and With either naand'heid hose or ono system.irr'catien • encourage-customers to wash car from buckets • • pursue viperous enforcement of water wasting regulations and provisions • request restaurants to'Serre`Naier only upon request • ' In redc exists. .,CnlnCn of the iemCC2ry ImGcin'e!li,ln W'acrifanSmisSCn system capacity which EXais. the Stage 1 water conservation measures ICenri e,d in the Water SnCrtage CCnilneeney Plans snculc be '.implemented by the water ccnTcors, other Acency customers. ono the Mann • Municipal' District 6. Where existing storage in ::individual water contractor systems is insufcient develop plans with affected Water Contractors to provide additional =race. Status: T ne Acency roc estc^_ oe`.•nert in crrnatier mom the.respective watere:nL ccers In. L u - its rUCLSi 'CCO IEier. The ACErC! will gCGti u� work with. the water CCn�c Cr, other . r-er” customers; and the Mahn iMunic:cat Water Disthc - 7. Develop and implement a fccusec puitlic,outreach campaign accres_ir,c: Beak-use i.. This nee^'s with the -a5al5�nnCe Gi the 'water Cont7aC:Crs: InIS pea}(-U52 reduction rocrarri should be initiate summer a9 p d gunny the unmer o. 1___. Initially, the peak-use: reduction goal would be to reduce demands CV 15% during -e e'-deg high"demand periods. A< de ,ands Oh the transmission System increase with .. time, Me-Me-dim rer'uce'dam-area by 15% wiil occur more rrague tiv. S The A.cancy has r c.ese he 'water. Contraccrs tc re.cucs peak use cn <e er_i' cc_osiers. c:ntlnuaticn cf his ecr is being requested i?.mere cc!arl •Ira 'tr e L t'cer 1 , 1999, ace.nca. tern, • Sc.^r,.ary c, !tent !ncuce^-in.;_=cc::icr. As part of the public out-each camoaicni 'advertise the peak-use reduction ty. program• via multiple memo sour.. s such as television;:news'„aaer, bill Irisert_°. radio and billboards:: In addition, to implement the billboard advertisement authorise the General ManacerfC-uer Engineer to execatetthe proposed Agreement for Production and,Rental Services for Prublic Information and'Water Paluc.aticn in substantially the same#cm as p ropcsea and as approved by taunt/ C ours2!.Status The Peak-Use Reduction Camcaicn cot: _ on.Acverasinc, c .s S Get, ch, ant Public Outreach ounnc the summer of 1999. Specific acuvinesr are.summaaTzec Ce:cw: • Adverrisinc ercrs inc. 'ced . '!1• cageacvemsement ini the Press •Democ-ai Sunday Insert on June 13 1999; a ratio acvenitement co-meal= on KZS acvertisinc wat=r ccnseriati on and washing machine drawing at Sonoma County arg:,.SCncma-:'viarin fair= (Jurc=.Ucus: 1999); and a billboard on.; riwv 101 (North-aacund,s!ce) with message "pot Summer pays, Water at I■icnt' (July-Gcaccer, 1999). Planned future'. acve"Ising ;efforts Ino"uce a full- ace advertisement and 12 water oorse iatien tips in the 20 Wi 00 ne Ceurrry Home. S Garcon Guide (published• by KSRO, to.be released: March 2000); a Spring billboard conservation. message with an emphasis an fisheries enhancement ant re:um of the peak-use reduction message in June 2000. • Press Outreach efforts inclUded several press releases to a'-list of apprcximate!v TO loci! and r cicnal press acenc:es' retarding demands on the system and water conservation torpor ams. Press interviews reccrding consemlanlcn issues and demanca Crl the system we given by Randy Poole (Press Democrat), Renee, Webber (Channel' °U), All Davidson, Channel SC`and KSRO• Public Outreach efforts included staffing exhibit booths at'.SChoma-:Mahn Fair, the Sonoma S County Fain, and the Sonoma County Regional P-cr.<(s Day at Sonnc Lake Pal k, where water c:nservaticn literature and shower timers were cis nouted (July and A.uCUst,. 1999) and the _ AA.Cency's en-going Water ESUCaticn Frocraam that incitices acy!iires and lessons teacninc the value of water and,the im"ccrtance of water Cc nervation. a. Explore use of advanced, water treatment'technoioeies to increase useable water supplies through a variety' of methods including reverse osmosis and/or other advanced treatment prcdesses to `treat tertiary recycled water to the quality required for potoble reuse. Agency staff is proposing initiation of a pilot prcoram to evaluate the use of these advanced treamnent tecnnoicaies. The pilot program will include tests with mobile facilities at three or four wastewater treatment plants Status:- The Agency solicited and received proposals from CCn<_uitinc rinks. A firm has been se'etted to provide engineennc Services to perorm ain,acvcrce^_ water tte.st ne t Cilct study. A. professional services acreement'tC petiorm This wcn,Cis m=ine iegod teal `Nish a tentative scarp action date of April, 2000. 10. Continue'studying the.,use of recycled water as a 'mean5 of decreasing peak water demands on the Acend-i s transmission system and request. that each Water - Contractor assist the Agency in identifying water reuse sites within their son/ice 21- :".1c.•rictus: A._=rCy staff have :r=oared a P-a.'lrfnar,/ Ass=szrrenr 'o Uteri �Wara , S. . a ( < r't) ni< < ^< b o g s information f a i s J us l 1 reuse sites.s _C C.. Ne:_r .+� os _cvcec water C s tu !o and tc. to Agency's _nt 'Nater C:rtircC;C,-a. The Assessment con:tuces-.:"at ale .:s= cf :e ..tie Svc fbr !r-c=t;ter-.' in -roan areas to be a feas:b e alternative for reducinc peak,s-„ mer demari s or t; repro,.' s transmission system sy __ ._ -erpant The Scarp nac .,eeh. r-- e---- -- - !tem= Inc:ccee in Fe_oiu::cn:.`:c.'=-- -s:, with the recommendations contained in the Assessment anc to d r rt the cency General ®, ManaceriChiet Crigineer to p ocean with the st cs- nec ss ark to Irc'ame^t. the rec rme-cec r_cyden water procr:m,(1210 /99 Item). The urcan recic edwate „r:iec-s as ;Jest-ter; In the Assessment, weulcf"result.in a.peak month water savings or•ac r umateiy 6 rnco: which wcuid. decrease demand from the Acencr's transmission system and=minimise cote-mitt tenoorary irncalrmerits'events:, The would be provided via annual wholesale water rate Increases ci aporcximately 7'- 10 percent per year over•theAnext 3 to 4 year-. (i his includes a.3% per year general increase in ode atfon'cc t_ and additional wcrk;cn the ESA Section "/ prac_§ •.) it Negotiate, an agreement with the City of Santa Rosa to -cbnnect the`irfication system at the Acency's West Collece.Avenue, Santa Rosa office site with the City's recycled,water system.. Imaaticn of the large turf area at the Agenc'I's facilities•on West College Avenue with 'recycled' water wiil contribute to reductions in peak water-demands. Status: _ - - its Ouf7n the summer of 1939, ttte'ACEnCy converted lawn. Ifhdat(Cn' at Its WEST Collece Avenue rac:IIN to use recycled water from the Cityor Santa Rosa. The Agency and the City Cr Santa Rosa are negotiating an agreement regarding the use of the recycled water from the CIPy'ss'/SiEm, I ne system Is eXceLied to C8 Cn-ilnefor ihe;'year 2000 IriCc:ICn'sc3son.•• • • • • • •• Serfrar/ Zr Items Incuc=_c i- 2.escce:c NC._c=___ _ • • ,1110 Snartece of Water and Apocrtitnrnent November 1229 Tenth Amended Acree:nent'ioi‘Water Succfv Seozicn 2.1 of the Tenth.Amerce -,=.0 cement for Water Supply, a d Ccn5t uchcn of the Russian River-Cctatt Inter'.ie Project (Tenth-AmendedACteement) estabiiS es Ilmits on the maximum c:e of ce'ive-v 'o earn of the water":. jac- _tcr ie a'. IMarlr Municipal I 61 uc}..CfS anC:d'tC1Er C_°.n Cy C � Water Districts (MMWD) delivery linnit la Siattil°nec cv separate " nt,Gr s terNeen the =.cency and MMWD. I ne entitlements ci'Nat r cent ac:Cra to take.deliveries;Ci'water ir:rn to e •Nater . transmission system, and the iMMWD delive.^i'limit, are shown,.in: able 1 . TAELE 1 WATER CONTRACtORS'.AND MMWD S ,ENTITLEMENTS TO WATER DELIVERIES FROM,THE WATER,TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Maximum . Water Entitlement Contractor in moot Santa Roc2 30.0 - North Mann Water Distnc. 11.2 Petaluma 17,0 Ronnert Fark 1.0 Valley of the Mccn Water Distnc. 4.7 Sonoma Cotati 1.T Forestville Water Distnc. 1,3 Other AcencrCustcmers i. Mann Municipal Water Distnc: T.= Total 99.1 • suant to ci on ._ of the Tenth Amerced -� men _ revniar _ _� o Tay take ce' ver/ ,la.=r In xc_9c,'oi ..._.i ma.. „ urn entitiemenz only If eacn.of the follc.yino -or-tit:crs t5 sat ed; . 1. That such excess delivery does not impair or delay the C_ilver'/ to any other eculcr customer of its enutl=Tent. 2. That the i ecuiar customer'takinc the cess deiivery is t`' =r,., :nc in hoot faith: with plans and runclnc to oeve.00 a re lacieJwater sUCC1J suffidtent'to suppiv its neecs in EXCESS df its'entitlenents set forth in sec:;ons 3.1 cr 3.2. 3. That either (a) all the water contactors approve such excesb deilverl; or (b) such excess de ivery:I5amiade dunng'a period when another-water contractor I5 not usiha its full entitlement sub'veXcess de!Ive^f toes not excei=ofithe Unused amountiof said contractors entitlement, anClsacc CCflt accr has notified the Agency in wn5nc of its cdnsentto said deiiv=_try. Marin Municipal Water'OistrictAgreements MMWD,maytake,deliven! of water from:the Agency's transmission system pursuant-to the Third Amender Gfioe4k Water Succiv creerent in an amount net tC exceed = 3CQ- :acre tee oa_r fisoat fear -and CEi1 Ven f fate_ not tC exceed !CQ acre-feet (cpGfCXl ^c:E V aQ mod) per O2ienCcr month. -Durinc the five Tonic cenca May 1 iii rt,UC'1 September 30 the-de iven/'rai°_ • may not exceed 250 acre-,fee: 05r t• le idar month (accrcximately. E.incc) without the prior written Consent or the Acenof and the total quantity of water delivered snail not exceed 1,200: • acre-feet. MMWD may also take delivery of water front Adendy's transmission system pursuant-to the Amended Agreement for Sale of Water in any rascal,year in an amount not to exceed either 10;000 acre-feet or MMWD's MaXilturri delivery limit for that Fiscal Year Upon request ov MMWD and suciec to all or°the terms_ or the Amended Agreement for Saie or Water, the A.cenc i must take such-wai=f;available tc'M MWD at Acenc/'s,:Kastania Reservoir at delivery rates specified by,MMWD, 'tut not to e- ceec rates calculated by divicinc MMWD's maximum r =.ivE^r limit by 10;000 ace rec''and,multiol incthis.quotient by the rcllcwinc amounts: '(a) mnllc gallons Ger day.Cetween May and CCocer'3.1 of each year (b) 12 m iilion gallons`Cer G=! curing the months or A.Gri and November ore Ch''.year and (c) 15 million 'gallons per day • L'rinc ;ail other times. The maximum deeliv=r7/'limit:is 4,0000 acre-feet duhno the current fiscal p==r. A.CCCrdi ciy the maximum de!Iverj ate;:under'the Amended Agreement for Sale of Water will be 3.5 mop berween the dais of May 1 and::CC::ober`31, 2000. To the E.ni:Ce^Issibie under the Truro' ,'.'tme.nded O teak Water Supply Agreement.•the:fig=: • ..e- ac ccC?oi waver r E ..v_c r''0,11WC"from AcenCy in a w month'is. act : urtec for as .. ins receiver' 'ur uant to..nai emer•:. IMrd\JO may not eoeive any waiter pursuant - td CC the A.menc cre . lent for t= tit Walsh any month of less c ^;:I cne or re folic J6^.c - /C evenic,'as n c e__ (I�a J J1Jr' :_. __d/ as i n=i e. in mat month at _c __Q acre-feet Cur:ue to ,, E Thiro A.m. r .. r Cf _k Water Succ1v Ac e nenc Cr (_ �JI I�JI\l�l lV.a.i - -i has • received in that r=::scat Year the maximum amount orwater :hat t : icy'rec le c::rsua . to that act=errant. The. Amended Acreement for Sate.of Wa:er berveen the ter y and :MM/Sy[', origin c.Iv ent=rAirf Into in 1991 and'arnencec in i99_, recites that the .cenci's tra: ::Salon .sv=t=rrhit =Xo==s capacity to Supply MMWOUnderthe cgreementrat the pre ent.time arid under riCrTia'i circumstances: The acreement also rec ze°_ that ladomonal-tGans r: ieslon rac;i Ries are -=Clare_ for the c ,., li tic future to CCnS1f)li°,tp'-ile le';'SAC : excess C-GcE:Pf Ur1Cer rIC u. a) o:fComsiar C_°c ('., udin__ new parallel aqueducts rrcm the CCtan Into tie to the; V Eccster and'from theiE i :caster to Kastania Reservoir: . Apportionment ' The Tenth Amended Acreement establishes the following pnc Goes in the event of a emocrar, impairment of the capacity of the transmission system: • First, the Acency delivers toeach.of its regular cusiomerE The quantity Ci water, not in excess of the respective en.Gtlements set fcch in sections 3.1 and 3.2. require_.by it for human consumption, sanitation and fire protection as determined by the ,Ace-c;'alter taking into consideration ail'cther sources of potable water then aavaiiable to said customer. Second, to the extent additional Transmission System capacity is availadle to the Agency, the Acency defiversta,ouanti w of water to`tne re Ular customers in proportion to their respective entitlements setforth in Of/sect cn 2.1 anc se_ion.2.2 croVice^, . however, tat no regular:CUs:crier snail receive under these paracraphs "first" and "second" a total CUart.:y'-o'water'in-excess of its reas:ra le ie__clrene!-S or its said entitlement whicheveris less: Third, to the extent ccdWor.al Transmission System CaPaacity is avaiiatie, the .Acency -delivers water to recuiar customers in excess of their entitlements pursuant to subdivision (a) of,sec:icn FCur:h. to the extant addTCncl Iiransmission System-capacity s, aVacllabie, the Acenoy delivers water to'IMMMINO nor in eXCeSS'of the delivery limitations in section 2.1 • Fifth, to the extert,additional Transmission SVste.m._ac cc ty is:avaiiaZle, the =cencv delivers surplus water to the water contactors, Sixtri. to the extent additional Trarisniszion System ... = avail the -_ deliver_ star us water to other Agency cud:omers. . I'ne - ency is contractually Cd■ica._a^_ io make :llis2Scnatie efforts to C='ive water to i'vi;.,:',�;L tame=V i - a._ _ .._.__ l.Si'_ ail a6Ll::d_.:c lolcC.c .... �.,.., ,+c'. ••.. '_, -c, i i o .. iJ�,c._r __ �VECI=S u ' '. ..c a..,c._ _ _ .r over deiiveries to the IMM'E cut :niy u_ to the _..iiverj e . .._ -e -c S=C::::7E and 3.3 cr the:Acre=Tent for Water Cuacfv, Cec"don'3:•i establishes the entitlements set`icrtit in Table 1, and Se'' cr 3.2 establishes a procedure whereby \ater contractors cart, snare their ' entitlements uncer certain ccnc;uons. An entrancement a fists=whereby Fetaluma s-unused;entitlernent is avallable'to Ncril Nlat:n. .Any corner unused by North.Marin is.avaliable to Ronnear.Fark. Once the full =_rtitiement;or•these three water'ccntr -ors is utilizec hawever,.oeliveries to the MMWD have crientli aver-any rusher deliveries to these three contractors., Deliveries to the MNIWO a1sc nave`pncrri-ever • celivenes to "tithe Agency cus`c � mE5° ineexC°saAi e monthly aver-ace of mCC =nditothe renaininc water contractors in excess of their entitlements. • • • • • • • ":,LtWrr 1po-l'.vS C:aLfinC'i'[C�C^ ars • • JsotioM444 WATER ful G.F. N MEMORANDUM 91e:_.:C-0-t Ac^x:?^ic; `eC4C:-I urr.ai'Na: r M;ra- .-e.^.-B.-❑ wce0 I WST_' • wG'°_i:=:- rrtTttes MM`NC 'Sanu7C_-t,l,'r_an=. c:c c'Na:er.Se_e DATE. November 16, 1999 TO: Rana/ C. Poole, General Manacer/Chief-Enc'.neer FROM: Fame:a 1 r cal oncineer V • SE: PRELMJNARYANALYSIS aE!1FCRARYIMPAIRMENT,CF r'ECAPACIT" CFTrE WATER TE '.i RAN5MISSiCN SYSTEM In response to the 'card's dir °cn on June 9, 1 ac9 an analysis Of the?,elie t le{'a:ac:r, Cr the Sonoma-C.:L'r;'/ Water Acenoy's water u`ansmIs ion'sj!siern; as'Ceen'Cornpie C. The a—aaP/c s tiled An Analysis of tha Reliable Cacao ty of the Sonoma CCUnN.Water,"-.cent Water Transmission Systems-Ceterminec that ule Acenct s current, re iiac e'Prater tans Iss on sJs em t—cecc.ty.15.84 fnttlhonf ca ICns'ppr gay (rncc) It sac concludes that the water produc:on Ceacay or the'''ansmissfon sys,errn has ce i.,emcoranly"Iiimocirec 0`J regulatory constraints and Iiticaadon that hat deiced the.ccnsructOn'Of Collector No. S The hicnest 2C-day average demandrrecofdeo by the Age.^.c/-duMO the Summer,or 1999 was _^prcx'ma:&C/ :1 mac. Althoucn year-to-year increases in.p=_ax demands are inie_nly vcriacie, average;rnual incr_ac_s ,Vera ;uci over 2 mod between 1.994 and 1999. If tic it re or inc lean `Hater demands—continues. a 1C,-ages on `i:_ A:arcl a water transmission System could co:_r over the next few years unui,Ccilec--Or No Is Cpc.a,c--a W25 CO'IC:Lde+ in the above mentioned recur„ it is the opinion or„aft that sup `-a sncriaC cot-1stiU:as a • impairment or the CCa . or the Transmission System pursuant .r,SeC:C' 'Srora c ' "temporary 7 ` P raver and Apportionment!Or the Tanth Anencec -creedent for Water Supply'aro'Construct:on -, „ - ? s-,a, ver Cctati interne Proiec:(Tenth Acreement). SeC:tort 2.E or the Tent Arner:ded AAreement ceaonpes =ix-steps the =.Cent snoulo :a:!a :r tree =v=n: :e.^. ,a7 ■moat-E'-L The .lr`i lour sicCS a. !.sic^- below. These ° s's-C ovcsion rC,-Cap i,. „ _.3 of the Tenth Amended Acreement oh the :Ca=s of'H,:r=_.iminar, analysis. First, deliver ::_ -_c cuctom=rs ` l:an07/ of water, no: n excess of t= -en:tenet_ - forth—in s- i a L - V it :or V_"c su o as it t ate ater takirC in:c :0-:cons:CereiCh ail _ _ :c:a_T_ . atar:hen a/ails:e to 5510 Se - d to the to the.ex tent additional trans tnthstnitsionjtystern. pacity 5 va lab l e to the ,Aconci. deliver a CL"cntlw Cr water iC he recular'c.s rners In ptpqrtion to the f respective nntle'-'en;S • s • c, forth in section 2.1 and =action-12 provided. however, tat:no regular customer snail r_ce^ie under these paiacrdhs 'first" and "second' a•tcrcl Quantity of water in excess of it recuir ements•cr ii< said.ent'htement,whichever IS less; Third, to the extent,additonal I fan= mission Svsten-CHCac:ty is available, deliver water to rirujar c:scmers in.excess of their ehndenents pursuanfidsubdivi=_ion (a) of secdcn 3,3, CaC'CIP/ Sc Jclacle, deliver Niter to Jahn F urh;to heextent addicnal ransmiSSion $y52m Municibel not in excess of the delivery Iirhittions in.Secdon 3.12. As you know, ail,Ci uhe'Water conticatcrs and the other Agency customers were requester:to Crcvide info nadcn re ardinC the amount' water lne tied through the'year 2003 for human consumption, Sanitzton`are me protecton and the amount Cf pera:le water available torn sources beside_ the,Aceflc,'S .t aansr mssicn System. A fUrlcer of the water contras crzh arc other P.cencyhcustoners responded to the re^ues,i icr information. but provided water.demand projecons that include_water r .,f mitoses C[h°_r than nL'friarl C ns Ul7rctlCn =cr Itaggn, and ffire'pror -on. In crderto es„rate'.wnat each'c s,eners health and safety needs are winter war= delivery records:including the TCnths of;Det:SmbEr, January, and February `or'the lea,two years here'an lv ^. .It should be note^.That the de'ivery records utllzee wefe limited to the Acenci S.records nd.represent cmv wafer de'iverlec.:u-on the Adency'a.ucr= JSSicn Sja:em, After•c nple ng an analysis following the St= S _hied above, I have come-to the:fdllcWino conclusions. 1. If we assume winter deliver ee from the AcencJ's thar,smtsion system are a fair representation of t regular austmers' needs for human ccnsunpacn sanitation;and `re prof cton from the Acency'a - r nsr 11 'ion system, t1ete demands total approximately 29 mod. • 2. I ekinc loclal tourcevintotacozunt, the resulting human consumption, sanibdon, aand:fire protectdntieeds from the:Acencia tlensmiSsion system in accordance with:the"first' paragraph, above;,tor is accrox:mar_iv 20 mad. .. 3. Addinc the entitlement prper ion to the approximate 2O rndd;bfhealth and safety needs and,makino adjustments for' reasonable recuifements"-results in a tc,d of approximately 70 mad Of Identifleddemand in acooroanoeWithuhe'?Second' perracrccn above. There appears tC tetacne additional Gcacaylthhat could,Se alicosted in accordance wiu9 SUCCiVIS;Ci (a) of Section 3,3 of the'Tenth enth Anence^'A.creement My preliminary analysis indicates tnai'there'Ia accroximately 14 mad (84 ncd fellable oacac.fy minus 7d mod of Identified demand) at this tire. Secton O. -of.the Tenth Amended A creement seesYforih the`aoecnc.mechanisms Which can'.be,utilizec for regular oustrnersto taki=deliver! of weer in excess of their entitlement, and't the.recourse the ACE C/ ^ha=_ if a water contra or take= deliver! ^r ,v ter in:•VIC oon'or subsection (b), (c), or(o) or section 3,11:or subdivision (a) of _ect:C^ 3.3. Accord:no to Sector'3 '(p) the Acetic/ is euthorzed to'.cdllec liquidated damages our:I:ai f :: a nClauon or theaocliCaZie sat-dons, but is not i_st C.ed 7Cm'fakina tin Jsical steps or le_al.acton.tO deliveries.. As a:a oracdcal'matter the Ace_nG will,inor'be ha King physical steps (Shutttnc valves)',to remedy ViCI tons.Ci the acrcement,-.uniess clr_c-c too so cv the Agency,s ocar Cr Directors. Obtaining udic:ai; chef JC id fop probably 2tlre�C h=:nr d :JCJIC ie= 'It%In no IImIG tiCrS in C_!IYEr;es until. stem time that c ', al d sion was rnahe. ., Hefner me .ns"..v ,ynlc celvenes Guic be Ilmitec,but which the "C --'cy has no control over, IS re:theory enforcement .. -_ We ve r sc =.e one moume of t,. Cn c uiC be taken by the Acency and tat wateroonztotors is:to. C J a..`; r ds :irc .= 11C C'S c?ther Currant transmiszion,syszem Coca: J It / ulc crud- t to include Marti Munlcoal (Plater Dish o. _nC the I Cwn of'Mndwr in, e_e cis:!s_Ons, ii _1 __ .a..: . • • place. It'A/CLI.iC alsth be ::- dent. cccrrilee 2r.0 reacma :r. Cr Er June 2000. Ibis, cf.Me.4.Cent, I WE:ter cznmac:crz, cmer ce, c cuszmerz; Mur:C::221 '112:ar [ism=%%rill have acre=e-42tc 5c=r:frallcc-tcnspricr c delivene.s. Pe-Mc:T..2;E arrc If ycu neec any acciticnal infcrmatcn,..piez-seler.me kr,cw. S . • • • • • • .-z.Ziwac=ntiurartwazar suor.:yic:ar, a'.1,,cCP F•.l.f�RN1I:.1Ei171,aI10 MUMU1 SeAVI4JGc�C.' �• /—I OE?AFTNIENT OF'riE:ALTrI SERVICE_ DRINKING WATER'FIELD OF°_9A10N5 3n. NC:? c hl TA 9C°A, CA a_a03 1 s �CCd , • _ • SONCMA COUNT/Pit: TM"'f - - `Ndverncef^=. 1FFF Ecare of Director 5enCma Ccur ry Water ACency . . •i. F.O. cox 1182.8 Santa Rosa, CA 9.8406 Dear Sirs: • In a letter dated November 2. 15G, the Sonoma County Water ACenov (Agency) notiieri the ❑epa-errs that the:ma,timL ,r month'daily demand on,the Agency's water s rciv s's:crl Cunnc 1999 was within 10 percent cr the'AcerbC,a total Water succiv Camp'-v. This rictifiC-tion was in acdcrccnce with recuir_ments in:Te A.den0V's Water sucpiv permit. .. .. At this time It is our understand rC that the A.cency has determined its liable errduc:o and transmission capacity to be 84 m11licn Gallons per day ((VIGO)'anc that this limita:ion Will remain untii accincnai`scuroe,are transmission lac Iities are:coneu uo:ad and cut on line. The Acency is actively wch ino Cn the C nsir utriCn of ie N le' Cr well and ' adcitional u'ah smissicn p ❑clines a at WIII resolve this C nac'iy limitation. However we also under tans ttat utcancn arc ies:IL'tiCn of env!rcnme, tai issues has delayed the construction of these iad:iities. I ine highest 20-day average Cemarc.i ecordec during the summer of 199.9 was 81 iMCJ 1. .and the recent histori=i CrCWt1 In`Cc_,Tiand has been acchi.Xlmately 2 INIC30 per year. From these figures-it is accarerit thatit e Acenci WIIl reacrl its"succiv limit in the ne'— LC months it no actions aretaker to control peak period demand in addition, CCeratinC this dose to its pracal nicely,limit trines the re:lability'Ciahe system Into Cuesecr Failure CT any prccuccon reentry cu. u.rinc peak*cemaic perncds C uio'have a s_igninc`nt roar t on Water c:nttaC:cm and ethers celr;;able'-to..meet individual syst_m demands. Steps must be taken to;ensuree that all'cucuc water.systems su 011E^_ by the,lAcenc: are provided with suriiCiem Wafer to meet system de.mandSICunnc peak tse months. The D°Ca'?;,i,ent suCnciv succors the set of actions proposed by the Ac°nc•y for your Ccrs,Cer=ccn on C:ecermC_r i, 1999. i ne_e =ctgns Ird uce: • Crmaily d ciari y hair the: Iatie water prod Cicn capacity of The water trarsmissiCn system is"curer:iv limited.to 84.IMCC. • reac,^,Irc a __,r-h°_Us — - he tern - or --- __ a:,,c c ,_ 'Nat_. _..ru=cc._ „ . =agcy.:_., _�. .. sUP„i' • implementation of water ._cr,-c:.Gn measures CV _ .. l,, water <(st.:s the ^,CI °U^-Iles. ,. 1110 • -C C __ :0-ensure'_ C C °rich_ C.. t . C'_siCTic�. - • ._ Sonoma Co.uifv W Agee/ November fl 1999 .. - . • • allowing no new surius water cscmers, and • maxlmia.nc 1,122C1 recite d water where pcszicie. If implemented; these aaions should enacle ire ACenci to:control demand•cn Its system urui SUCn time as the new production anC',ucnsmiss1cn faculties are cc s.,.:cec and operational. As a result of the Acenc/s temporary-impairment; the r'eparr neat Will to wctri(inc With the pucilc'Naier systems that B"'ve''Natet sworn the AgencJ to taKCe 'vraiever ti sLres are necessary to control demand cunnd',❑esib use period: We 'Nlll:sttncly encourage e-C- system to sake':an active role in the process..the A:cency is proposing:. These acicns should enacle:these public water systemsi.to have sufficient water avaaiiacle.frcm Water sources and distribution reservoirs')LO suppiy'acecu'ateiv, Cepengacivi'and sareiv the total recuirements trail users•under maximum'.demand conditions as recuirec.cv Section E45E2, rite Z cr the CainTOmla Code of Re^Uiaticns. • -If you rave an9 Cuestions abcu't this letter ple Se cniact me at (707) 575-7779. Sincereiv • Enloe non, F.E. District ict Ehcineer Santa Rosa`District • cc: Randy Poole, Sonoma County Water•Acenoy Ken Elac<man, City of Santa F,.csa Chris DeGacnelle, North Mann Water District . Fred Stouder„City of Fetaluma Pam Gicscn, City of Sonoma John Nelson; Valley of tie Mccn.Water'Di_s-ie. Eiil Massey;Forestville Water Dls; tc ChanesA: Ercwn, City of Cctatt • Joseph Nepa_r,:City of Rohnen Fart Pam Nicclai. Mann Municioaf Water Disric Fcn i niesen, Mann Muniaral Water Dist,na Paul Eenant, Town of Windsor La rr=l a'Wata r C O m c an v erncroveiKenwccd Water CCtoany. L vndaale :Mua.'ai 'Pater Company Fred Curry, California F ubile-tiiiities Commission • • • 4 ATTACHMENT #3 RUSSIAN R IVER,WATER SUPPLY REPORT DATED APRIL 1,'2000 S 110 v. • RLTSJ Ial•t R=J?'R TnrMT R SUPPLY _E,PoR Acr-41 1i 2000 ' . Warm S:rinc= Dam/Lake ectcma MAXIMUM Alower: 450 . 92 =eet 451 .00 feer Storage 2.44,672 acre-fee: 244, 8 81 acre- c_ Rate of Release 178 C'?c. Req"4 -=,4 Dry Creek Flow Rate 75 cfs Coyote Valley Dam/Lake Mendocino Maximum Allowed State 747.17 feet 748 ..00 feet Storage 8,6,052 acre-fee: 7 feet Rate of Rel ==c= _ 164 cfs RecU :ea. Ucoer Russian - .iver Flow Raze (Cov+W. Fork) 185 cfs Scot: Dam/Lake 1 1 1 c'.'ur..� i�lc3='RL'^ Al l owed. Sterace 64, 1'67 acre-feet 81 , 1 =9 acre-fe=t Rate of Rele ase 269 cfs �e orn Dam/Lake Van E_=cale r_ n — I � ` I :Otter Valley D_Versicn 266 cfs II ' - Eel River Release 115 cfs i 0 °0.0 Hacienda Bricce _ - Rate of Flow 1, 046 cfs PUBLIC BAC 1163 Recn_r=_c Lower Russian r D S83VICE3 River Flow Raze • 125 cfs Forecast - The e-ms o_ 'the Acencv'5 water y' -.z pe_'mits define whet constitutes _utes "dry " and "critical" water s ._ n..iy cond =on. Cu.mulative inflow into La-ce Pillsbury' since the beginning of watt= ' _ year (October 1) . The c mulative inflow 'On Peril 1, 20.00 was 142, 213 acre- feet, above the le'iel neecec =':r ".:C_read." water 5 tiff condition= to _ °t _ this time . The Water suttlV cool= at Lake Schcma, Lake Mendocino, a-c :kr: .i c. n.'^% are arcra4mat401.V" 100, 98, and 79 Dc__-. - __ _=seen_,= . . However, nvi ant=i e Pacific - .. _ , due to E. ,_r,�n[e CO'C_e PIIS, the _C___C Gas. ant El=eL_: _ � doff.''..c: ..as . 'i tluntar_l y reel 17he flow or wete_ to' the"fast Fork C: _-e R-"::. .. River from the "o:der iia_se °__: . This reduction in flow will Ce C.' .. __e water succly available frtm the-Russian _Fiver. a'._. _4nc-==== the 1i.ce4 _ or water eiiCtiv shortages . T-ie_efore, the .'^.cent /' '_: evaluating :he tot• impacts of a 'water soul, =:hortece, and. is continuing. to . . %uaticn . S -_Java, Na _ _• o lc be used w _ ` iy. r<]1u\c?vuc'rvrhvauuo r_u]=00 -. . • . . . . . . • ATTACHMENT #4 POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR RANDY POOLE, SCWA, 111, REGARDING AMENDMENT 11 AND THE PIPELINE PROJECT INCLUDING ANSWERS 'CITY,OFPET&LUMG1, CALIFORNIA • ' PoTENTI" L Q.UESTIONSFOR RANDY PO.OLEy ScwA. REGARDING AMENDMENT 11 ANT THE'PIP•ELLNE PROJECT 1. What is the relationship between„the,March'ballot measures,of Prop 12 and Prop 13 to gaining additional water r supply to make full use of the proposed pipeline project? None. 2. Petaluma's request of an increase from 17.0 m.g.d. to 21.3 m.g.d. is based upon the - existing General Plan population projections and existing domestic consumption. It is anticipated that the new General Plan will reflect a,.decreased ,future population and on-going water conservation activities will decrease the per household consumption. Question 1: 1110 If the City revises its requested new entitlement :downward, what revisions in the ongoing process includingtime delays will result? There is a section in the agreement that allows each entity to request an increase or decrease in its entitlement. Question 2: What is the proposed timeline for Amendment 11 and construction of the parallel pipeline in relation to the City's anticipated three-year timeline for completion of the new General Plan? The EIR process will take approximately four years. and then a two-year construction period. Question 3: • Will Rohnert• Park's ongoing general plan potentially revise their requested entitlement? from e da as - ne'. Rohre t Park is not requesting any additional water the ._enc} an of their • General Plan. The Plan suggests the City will rely on additional wells. 1 3. The City of Petaluma is interested in pursuing,,either as an individual agency or as part of the Sonoma County Water Agency contract, aquifer storage and recovery of off-peak high Russian River:flows for recapture during the summer peak months., Question 1: Will the proposed Amendment 1-1'.,s annual entitlement, as opposed to the existing contracts daily peak; restrict the potential for aquifer storage and recovery? No, it does not restrict. However, the process will try to cap the acre-feet usage. 4. As part of the City's General Plan,process, can some of the consultants proposing,to participat •in assisting-the City are suggesting a groundwater study as"a component of their work. The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) is also considering study efforts in this area. How could: these dovetail in order to maximize the. effectiveness of the expenditure of public funds? .Yes. The.Agency is twilling to participate as part of the City's process and potential contractor for-services. • 5. Should the City of Petaluma decide that, with the development of additional groundwater supplies and local storage, offsetting potable water•demand with reclaimed water from a tertiary treatment plant a continuing commitment to an aggressive water conservation program including and industrial efficiency and instituting a rate structure that encourages water conservation such that we do not want to contract for an additional,entitlement? Question 1: What does that do to the process as it affects other agencies and their need for additional water supplies to meet their general plans? The City will still have to approve the•amendment, and then could request a decrease., Question 2: Will the City of,Petaluma be able to receive its 17 million gallon per day allotment through the existing pipeline? No. because all the entitlements cannot be handled through that pipeline. • Question 3: • What is the relationship between the new pipeline and the ability to increase diversions from the Russian River to fill the pipeline? , In effect. the new pipeline is setting a cap to everyone's uses. a. Imvacts.of Eel River/Potter Valley diversion losses. There is almost none:at.this point. b. Process for increased takbns of Russian River flows with the various endangered species listings: The process.incl'udes two,sears for biological assessmeat,;one year for biological opinion, four years for EIR, reaching seven years to .decision for design. Any increase in delivery is ten years away. 6. What is the potential 'state mandates for water treatment if the existing rainy collector intake system,is tilled a.surface water system and what potential costs do the contracting agencies potentially face? It will likely take eight years to discover the answer to this question. 7. What is the potential for a pipeline from the Lake Sonoma Warm Springs Dam to the existing ,intake system in order to mitigate. environmental constraints or maximize effective:use of stored water' Also, if the above water treatment issue becomes a requirement,.what;is the most viable location for a treatment system? ' The cost is $250 million to $500 million dollars. 3. Will the contractors' rates be increased in the upcoming County budget in order to fund additional water conservation and wastewater.reclamation projects and if so; what is the current estimated amount of the increase? Yes. Wholesale rates will increase 30 to 40% over the nextfour years. The increases will - fund conservation programs; remediaiion, Section 7 consultations; the entire project will cost $140 million; that is the cost to implement Amendment 11. 9: Is there an estimated additional:cost per acre-ffoot or cost per million gallons per agency in order to fund the pipeline project? Yes. about $75 an acre-foot: S30/acre-foot in debt service with net of 540_/acre-tooi 10. Once Amendment 411 is approved by all the contractors, what is the anticips, • timeline until Water flows through the pipe? Seven years at least. 11. What is the timeline for construction of the MIirabel Collector 46 and what will hr its impacts on the impaired delivery system and what obstacles are preventing construction? Approximately 4 years. It will ^e completed in phases. A ne^_ati`:e declar:tic;: process wiil.be completed in April on the pipeline. • 12. Under the proposed Amendment^11, what additional. amount,of water is hvailable for Rohnert Park, North Mann Water District, and Marin Municipal? Rohner Park: 1 to 15 m.a.d. North Marin Water District: to 5 m.g.d. Mann Municipal: 0 • 13. Is the City of Santa Rosa the only city other than Petaluma that, under an unimpaired system, has surplus water available? Cotati has some excess as does Forestville, Santa Rosa, and perhaps Sonoma. 14. If the City' decides not to participate in the parallel pipeline at this time, what potential is there for the City to receive an entitlement in the future if they should'so desire? The Agency needs to know fairly soon. • 15. If, the City decides not to participate in the parallel pipeline expansion, what implications or ramifications are there for the City in its water deliveries under the existing contract and deliveries and water supplies through the existing,pipeline? The City likely could then only in the future have what we have now, including impairments in the old pipeline. If pipeline is constructed now others will be paving for the new pipeline: The question would be how and when and if the City (at what price) could purchase into it later. The old pipeline goes through Rohnert Park and Cotati; new pipeline insures water for Marin and,North Marin along Petaluma River. d/manager,sc'.valpdtential questions for Randy Poole:he • • • ATTACHMENT #5 PRESS RELEASE DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1999 DECLARING THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM AS BEING IMPACTED • NoveWbe:5, lco9 • • Sonoma Cctmn �ca { 'CO Contact: Eleri Dot=,(707) 521-1368 lQt Tr Hoch&Tartiei;(771521-1029 c. S.T-4S FOR la.TE . _ l • On November..2, 1999, the'Sonoma Cot.. -/ We= A:genc, :noeea 'the•Cai ornia Deparodent.of Health Scvic as reassc ender the •.goad's Wr.r: supply pc it, that th-e m**tmian month ee nthci on the traW'gene•s war stz ty sysn ats*n= 1999 was within 10 Fcct:of the• Ageac s ta-thl war stir o'ri oonacsty. The hi_^pst =O-day avcage dcnand 'xc erce. by the Agcy during' this summer (rime 1 — Sctembc_=0) was approximately 81 million o.11ot?s per day (mad). The A2ercy's tot l sachem cracty"on a usained basis is aQpiexiaateiy SO rri _ The Sonoma Cathy Watt Aoc'i Frogs. Wn°1esale.water supplies to a majority of the cities and wmc Cstricts in SOcQpa°.,.anr Malin Counties, inc'uc g City of Sp-vi Rosa, City of Petairren, City of:Rohne t Par's, City of Soncros, City of Cotati, City of. irdsor, North Malin W=r r Dtstric7f(City of Novato;ara), Valley of the Moth WATT- Distric,For tle Wale:District audMaarnNfim5.4,111imerD+ r S The A2chcy is pre^ rno a'-report. for its-Board of Dir°^'ors''c'nEderation to define and determine at riecrary imza eat.of theAgcc,'s watt s• s eacaety duna furore m+m9•pcccs (June 1 throw Scvtemce- 30) The report, asccg with ac'ditian l rr cmmcrdthons. for reduc;n__ wt tc dehands,ththag the :Wormer pco& is exte�.i to be breu nt';ee ore the Agency's Board of D¢ec;ors on De^cemnc 7. Under the A2°aij's Wate± Supply .41L....ilecit with its wnole:ale c_ omers,, ,a tencerry imnainnent of the systeni:ncuires the Agcy to cultic to the ,c ive wholesale a-as-comers no more:than a,pccthtage of'the gtia tie of water to which each amity is g orally ez rJed ender,the,th cnt"dtrr n tires of the'temperary impairnit. Hunan cnr,`urrpricn, emanation;ass, md`fire protection are of Priority use with:a31 other ttsc, such as hiig eon, tonsidened seconder! in rye. Cotsid-rcon ()fail other sour= of potable Fate:available to theses t as d districts is also rut of the.cr ire=on. To than= those peed° d ear ssb/e dc-cas on the w.:.ar supply and trarsri=ion system, the Sonoma County A_enc-y:wiil be aekira .of its contractor to activate the Stage 1' volrrrr',ry ra oning=measures id Sled in their It7Cective TA?rer Sacfl e corirtgeacy pions. These-voiratrrey =.L'^.`L^= are e.p e_'tc result.c. wrier srrna With actrides =eluding iecrSaSrn c.isto r awareness. of war c.^,laerl2no" real:cn .°.'.1'ne-a-rhscrial usr of what ret.L'er 'restaLT-z to `ice- only noon•recuet, an ..�trrm t more it osh.n ^-n°—r^ <using recycled opt. pry" ou e_ECT.-cie12Ze. - 'rc tz "P adotud 1:y t.:;5 rn " ., �"�:.r. _ a J�?w a_�. :_.� at. �,..'. v .. a< It of :;nr,..0---�: ve tz c a he of the Cthatra-thrl and the Czar: • • • • • Water A ee_^c:. On De:-_..:b& 7,the Bard of Dire.^ars will be reau ted to -ovide S-0 million of st*+ris to be invicetri ove the net 10 :ens in itarrsaticone mad rettolo to o_ e;ov-rm-ycied wale disufvmoa prosam<_, for a m-vinizs of l o..g msrd (a 10%teduedon in'lemn'-==e demands'I. An additional S2 million,it L zz invet ed'i cn year for'tea years;fcr nth c^..es.rvarien proe:ams_adninistet d by the?€eiici air y or a,.dr,Opd tioa,with it waolcialevrate=saner; Trip vrc n is in its•s.ccnd vex ".d h s aireadq pmrn ---i 2 tan&of ware sgvinns,with aniathe Inagd e. vetted over the ne;' 3 yen Cides' and districts are also making Iiinianavetheran to their e-uzdug pouterts Rr1L which will result m a.mac=hiss of naps,: natriy 44;mge .. •"We er-:,,ect tliat'the volimtir measures that we a erietueftng of mu wholesale watt- , - ' - . ... c�i s,•a a the:s le;water cons~Boa ptgratns that we er_°imvlemctiag are srrncenr to pravide.adequate sapo ,;Q-`'^^e ware for the next 5 yen, with .minimal iron -p they rate fully wwiemeited We ar a+ a Ots.wnalesale water,custome;s to get ntit.m front on;this't a and wvr*with us to ens:on:a:sea and r_tsable watr'sagpty for Scnoma:and Mann County rricea "said Surerfisor Mike Kerns; Sonoma;County' • Boara;of• ur; _5. — - in June, 19,993 the Sonoma Connty`W:ate•:Ag icy adapted,a Peak Warr-Cse.R tte oat C oal ,ciSigned to r- nr-demands oat the A., 's Wit=Simply and 1r.nm issi0n rye-dur_nz sapein ed vcods of luga watt u_se., The prosram c nsistt.of m:mccas wrtlOn eas, inc :ding developing Cm1 bn ge9CY;plans`fexrtane ;e ;na;srD °L�ES'iTti,to ana•beycrid the yer 2003, developer=snd iamietnneating;a_public oittr _ea and•eauficn pram to aadr ss peak use r..ducdon peens and wete- conecvation ntrsures; e.•-olorin; the use of,aavanced wastewaie: Banat t-fraaiogics to mates a°us bit . Rafe szipph s, and developing plans with the Agenc's: affected• `wia0.1# le waxer . cusm.ta€7i.tb provide.rinirtonal st sae tPflif 2fe tancrrncon-System. To aesist in the development of=min:ggency plans,'the Agency.hal rwnt ithomztioa from Bch of its w.ttc customer regarding.tileirtmemfiandnear-t=peak-day-wax "supply needs:for hnntm cortampt on, "sanitation, ant Era ptotedtiOn; the atnoturt of potable wafer available from hoel somas, andthe.amount of stcraae provided by each -. L+d1V1C723.i_system' . . Tn Decet er 1998,;the Sonoma County Water Agency's Board of D'u cirs crerdil Runt Suealy'and T:-mtr ■ccic System Projec den_2nec to develop addiurnai water supply':and crpand the . ency's:edsting- srss in an e;:cn to them-the ccrtramore net'thtum:14 the year 2015: The protect has bey-the niaiect of litigation sin= itS approval, and MD:a czt is• et4e'.;.iectzd for--three to 1;e yen T'ne .A 2ec _ _..c: is also cttrntyc 7suidng with the -WS. National iM hne•ashen= Senior nd the U.S. AI-ary COrps of E.1's'n re-ni-jand the Azency's or.rai ns and patcbai affect 'on th.,..tcaea<salmonid populations along tite z:R sat<R:ver. The results of:due cost it ton • Aria Fot`^na ly iaahe- rrr'a poiirot to e par-c it ore`ions for ttee net t • •• ATTACHMENT #6 COPY OF MEMO.DATED APRIL 7, 200 TO FRED STOUDER, S SUBJECT IMPAIRED WATER.SUPPLY - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WATER CONTRACTORS • • CITY OF PETALLMr A. CAL:FOR 'IA : ORANDUM• Warn Resources and Consth!ycjolT D en .22,B tt.St.,:Peraiuma C-I 94952 (70 7) 773-1304 Fax(707) 773-,437 E-rnau a,vureerin;Zr aerai:uma.ca:ls DATE: April 7,2000 TO: Fred Stouder, City Manager FROM: Tom Hams, Department of Water Resources and Conservation SUBJECT: Impaired Water -Supply _ Memorandum of Understanding. between Water Contractors Attached is the most recent version of a Memorandum of Understanding benv,een al the contractors for Russian River Water Supply. If all the contractors can agree to a sharing of the impaired water supply, then the State Health Department will not step in and dictate how much eater each agency gets to meet.:its health and safety needs. This am-eernent is also critical for the City Council's action on Amendment 1.1 to the Sonoma County Water Agency azeement for supply. TSH/sb Attachment X:: T. Hargis File s. s , ti. A-,; >✓, . SASE'•1cII oenveen water ccnc..c:a memo 1111 - Thomas Hardin From: John Clat Neison (jonoiatC-ghorne.corn] Sent: Tuesday Aefii:04, 2.000 1:57.FM - To Art Eoili..Chns:Der=abneie' Roberta cm 7arc:s: Ron ThSen: Dana Roxon; Toni Berciaro; Mart Mullan; Rancy Poc:e. Pame:a-jesnE FeMs: N/irginia PonEr, GeorgiReoerts: Al Eandur Subject: MOU tv.1 I .2.kj OnitSMCU.doc Onn5MCIImm Here is Wcr-ra-a.".--,-- and MENcro. (:a.ce your o' ok, • containing Dr.:: of the MOD. I will be caa ' inc hard cop.; in next day or two zoos:her 417:1 ar-phe, and sor.eacshee: :Lae.. Dr='-'ng Sub—grow: (NMWD, VOMWD, Rohner: Park, Windsor, Santa Rosa canc.' 53(.1.;•11-.) 'has worked hard on th‘ c and we feel ready to move ahead wIth :he full (.1.1.0 at thLs traa. (1 nave also 'ceen working with (2etaluma, Conti, Sonoma, Foz-ecni.ii. and vm.wc) . w1 ' be asking Miles to agendLoe :has for tne uccorrn'nor Act 2.7zh (..1,;(1 :neetfng nh "— 9 00 .a1-1 at zh- ( ar•una Ees: JON Jcnn Olaf Nelson Water Resources • 1E23 Cas-Lle Drive CA 94 `.4 • • • 14 Draft -.5,."4/4/00 ifIe:norandum of Understanding. ReZardin, Water Transmission Svstern Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment This Memorandum is made by and berWeen the foilowing pubiic<agencies: SONONLA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (Agency) CITY OF COTAiI (Cbtati) . CITY OF PETALUNIA.(Petaluma) CITY OF ROIL IERT PAR.K,(Rohnen Park) . CITY OR SANTA ROSA (Santa Rosa) CITY OF•SONONIA,(Sonorha) FORESTVILLE WATER DISTRICT (FWD) . - NORTH NIA IN WATER-DISTRICT (NNIWD) VALLEY OF THE MOON WATER DISTRICT (VOMWD) NLARLN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (NLMWD) TOWN OF WINDSOR(Windsor) SECTION 1 - RECITALS Ilb (a) - The Sonoma County Water Agericv (Agency) was created by Califomias.ate legisiation (Statutes of 1949, Chatter 994 as amended). Lander this legislation. the Agency operates and maintains a water transmission.systerh authorized by the T::± –==r .Agreement for Water Supply and Construction of tke Russian River-Cotati Imee.Project between the Agency and eight public entities, dated October 2?, 1974 and'last amended November 14, 1997 (Tenth Amended Agreement),by means of which water s furnished to the parties hereto. (b) The Agency has proposed a Water-Supply and Transmission System Project (WSTSP) _. for which an environmental impact report iii was certified by the Agency's Board of Directors on November 17; 1993. The WSTSP was(aporoVed by the Agency's Board of Directors on December 15, 1993. The obiective''of the WSTSP is to provide a sate: economical. and reliacie water supply to meet the.defined.fllture needs of the Agency's service area. 1v71en fully consrrucrea and operational, t=he WSTSP will increase:the amount of water Mat can be dive^ea from the Russian River (a combination of re-cive'Sion of stprea water and direct diversion Ot w triter flow) :._- 000 to ancroxitn-iieiv 101,000 acre—fee: per .eai ( ' ` ). an a' increa.. A'enc` s water zrancrnission system.(drCPSnlisSion SLS:?rn) cc.! erp capac:r ... __ .) 148.9 million gallons pen day (mod). (C) T b.e Tenth -t:Tiende-- A Cee:nem -tthorizes the. .ze-c.: iG CCns TaC: or '0t'11-2 :7G_,., _ . Gi.C. i'2^1cc2.t: .LS 1'0 ;he P.°is:ing TitInsm.`Siun SVSid111 ]:!/r'c' :'i( :0 ,1 e' 112 iid i t..1 ,' cif! ! _ c. .52! i0/'(/: 111 _dc(ioi1 3. and J.2 01 Si1:.i ::':,7a,2 •,o..! Ivili:': an10:in( i0 .__.....:_ .._. an _ _. __ monthly deliver; capacity of 92 mad. However. due;to delays.ca__:d by in impie.rne.ntadon. such as litigation'and re_ulatory constraints, all the facliues authorized by the Tenth . ended A:free:neat havenot been constructed. Limitations eiXiSt in the existing Trahsin ssion System watch preclude reliable deliver;of some of the delivery e. title.nierus enume-aced in.Sections and 3.2 of the Tenth Amended Agreement. (d) On December 7, 1999 the Board of Directors of the Agency adopted a.resoiution deciaring that the reliableisumrnertirne water production capacity of the Transmission System is currently temporarily impaired by being limited town ay.e-age monthly deliyerycapacity of 34 mod a_ :__•" ` ` _ L ' `_ .c_. a=: One of the projects authorized by the Tenth Amended g Areement is Collector:Vo. 6.�Tnis collector-has been designed and documents have been prepared and approved pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Other regulatory permits are in the process of being acauired and the project is expected to be constructed;and placed inser✓ice by the summer of 2003. This°rojedt is e.-pected.to achieve the 92 ingd diversion ccpaciry author:-'ec in the Tenth.Amended Agreement. (e) The highest 30-day-average Ovate:derrnand recorded by the Agency during the summer of 1999 was 31.mod. Although ve^r-to-year increases-in peak water demand are highly Variable due to the variabiiity:6fsummer weather. the average annual increase in pea:; demand historically has been approximately 3 mad. Due to the temporary impairment of the T ansnission,Stvstem capacity, the water production capacity of the _, c c i Transintssion System will very likely be exceeded by summer demand if p • eak demand continues'.to increase as it has historically. (f) Section 3.5 of the Tenth Amended Agreement provides.in part that in the event of a temporary impairment of thecacacity of the ^_=a y: x_r: Ttransmission•Ssystem the Agency shall: "first, deliver to each of its regular customers'thequantity of water, not in excess of the respective delivery entitlements set forth in sections 3.1 and 3.2. required by it for human Consumption,:sanitation and fire protection as determined by the Agency atteritakina into consideration all other sources of potable water then available to said customer: second. to the extent.additicnal Transmission Systerncapacity-is available tothe Agency, deliver,a auantiry of water.to the regular customers in proportion to their respective delivery entitle.;eats set forth in section .1 and'section 3 2 provided. however: t^dt nu re_$ular customer shall receive under these paragraphs"'flit" arid second" a-total C Dangly: of water in excess of its e^._<on bie {eouirealents for its said entitlement. whichever is less: third, to the extent additional l ransmission•System capacity is available. deliver re ular customers in exxess 0t .he., delivery entitlement pursuant to subdivision al of section _. • • S fourth, to the extent additional Transmission System capacity iS avaiiabie, deliver water co Mann Municipal not in excess of the.delivery [imitations in section 3.12: . - . fii=.h. to the/extent additional Transmission System capacity is avaiiabie deliver surpiuc water to the water contractors: _ - sixth, to the extent additional TransMission System capacity .1, available. deliver surplus water to other Agency customers." • (g) The Agency has entered into service dui-cements for the delivery of surplus water pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Tenth Amended Affeenlent via separate metered turnouts on the water transmission system. The Agency desires to transfer these water,services to the other panies.to this MOU. SECTION 2 - PURPOSE The put-case of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish an alternative procedure for addressing the c ::•-ta•-' temborary wilter trtmatniatio7m Transmission System immairmenLs described in Section 1 in order'to oprimile allocation or the - available sztoply — • "-- - - --:-. e- "- _ft_ :-- .... .2.17•.:-.7 Mirtzilmm-F-- .,c-7-.- T,t..41-__sA:-. .. ,.... :.=:-__-... .-..t and'to se:forth the necessary 46 cooperative actions to mirigate oi. crvoid theeon. equenc.es of the temporary intairmenc- During the term of this M01.5, and while the VtitartTransrpission System is capable•dfdeliveiing.t.-H-lees-:-: no less than 34 mal,the exureSs provisions of this MOU shall supersede anyconflicting provisions of the Tenth Amended-Agireernent or proposedfleventh Amended Agreeme.nt for Water Supply (a: ::::v zucHnt-.5f z—zomeff.`,. Except.as,sUperseded by the express provisions of this MOU, the Tenth Amended,Agreement or if apprOYed the gleyenth-Amended Agreement for Water Supply (or ri; ..-ac-___,.. ..:- -ctnct't) shall remain in tuftforce and effect. . . SECTION 3 - DEFINITIONS - The terms used in this MOU that are defined in Section 1.1 Of the Tenth A:mended Agreement shall have the meaning set forth in said:Seczion,1.1 ozhics :::::::--in ifs-in--It- e::press:d :: nt-mif:mly L.:a m .imib _ - -:th t... ,:-.:cm :f. :hi_ . . 2. In addition. the foiloiving terms a)e defined: . • . (a) "local peak month production cat-aciry- means tile potable wbLEr prod:lc:ion dariczcir; in mg : char the parties to this ay-gement. other than the .-fc:ency can rei:croly Jusrain throwziour mile summer Months. . • . . . (b) 'peck cieynand- means the cvera_qe clay clemcnci in mg:: aur .yg me '57e:zit-rum :Lie 5u7n7im7 — .T.ron:h . • . . . lc, 'i ..yitnime?- months means June. illiV. .-:.:17::::: L.—a ._,..e._.: ...e . ......-.: s _. . . . . . (d) "temporary_impairment period means the summer months odciirring dw-ing tfl term of this agreement. • SECTION 4 - TEMPORARY DELIVERY CAPACITY ALLOCATION (a) It is not the intent of this*IOU to diminish the.delivery entitlements set forth.in ..Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Tenth Amended Agreement and in no way shall,expansion of local' bac:i-un supplies describes in Section S or the.impiementation of water deinandreducrion measures- descriaed in Section 6 diminish said entitlements. The intent.of this MOO is to:apportion'unusea delivery entitlements durin;;the period of temporary impairment in the most beneficial manner. Co) Each.of the parties to this.MOU agrees to use:its best:efforts to limit its dali•tc es ': &e peak demand on,the' �Y ., >.;. _._,. cr':-.ten Transmission System durnQ the t :f-ham :_-x zcnt'summer months to the applicable rates set forth in Tables 2. (c) Each parry to this.;WOO shall designate a representative to meet as necessary with other designated representatives for the purpose of considering changes and adjustments of Tabie,1 based on the best information available. Any designated can call such.a•meeting: (a) In making changes ta.Taole 1,;including:allocation of unused delivery entitlements beyond the summer of 7005, consideration shall include but not necessarily be limited to the folio vine changes in.i;enc✓Russian Rtver aiversion capacity, well production capacity transmission storage capacity, transmission pumping capacity, aqueduct capaciry, and operating methods; and changes,in local pean.month production capacity, storage capacity, reductions in demand due to conservation initiatives,policies and programs, and recycled waterure that offsets potable water demand Should parties:hereto that have Table 1 allocations less°than.the delivery entitlements provided in Sections 3.1,3.2 and 3 3 of the Tenth:4mended Agreement need more water, same shall be accommodated to the estentthat water supplied by the Agency is available. The sum of such increases shall be allocated as reditciions'to parries who have Table 1 allocations greater than their said deliverv'entitlements. Changes,to Table.I shall be made in accordance with the voting reauire.mentsset forth-in Section 13 (b) hereof (e) • • • gibr- r Parses he:ero•who receive water to e=eess of the amoiints shown in Taoie 1 snail pav;.liauidated damages in the manner sei forth in.Secrion 3:3 (bitQf the°Tenth Amended...-lgreement uniessauc.h deliveries are less than the delivery entitlements provided for in Sec ions 3.I. 3.2 and 3.3 and the ma :mum de!ivervrate pravrded:tor in Secrion 3:,12 ot.saui"agreement.. . s Tabled,'.,,-.. . ,.. - Allocation of.A§eacv Suopiy'for-:Summer Months Si_snatory Local Average Day Maximum Month-Qeiirver, Rate, mgd (a) Production 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 • Canacirv. mgd Cotati (b) 0.4 1.7_ 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.9 Petaluma 1.6 . 14:= t ••14.3 15.1 j5.4 15.7 16.0 Rohner. Park 3.9 1.3 -4.3 4.3 =? 5.3 5.3 Sonoma 0.8 3.1 3.2 2..L . 3.3 3 FWD 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0:9 NMWD 4.0 13.1 13_1 13.0 14.0 14.2 14.2 Santa Rosa 0.0 32.9 33.6 31.2 2”., 35.6 36.3 Windsor 0.7 :. . 15 46 4.7 48 . 9 Windsor (c) 0.0 1.5 1.5 1'.5 1..6 1.7 1.7 • Agency (Otht 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 N&I\VD n/a 6.1 5.0 .9 7.4 7.1 6.0• Total 11.4 '34.0 84.0 34.0 9.0:7 92.0 92.0 Notes: (a) Deliver: rates are based on.historic m'rimur..'abnih demand.plus 2%per}'ear erc«th. (b) Produc,ion capacity for 7003.2004 and 2005-is e.oected.to be erg. (c) "i rdsor.although an Other Acne':Customer.is shown sc,arm g. EQntle.Te t is:prorated bused on historic maximum month demand. r-` (1\• \ . .r C1S r- - \r l \"\ IC d =-7'= •11- _ y ` .. lb ---------- .... -----.. .. . -. ...- • --... .. . - _ • SECTION S - BACK-UP SUPPLIES (a). - In order to mitigate,against drought, earthquakes. spills, temporary impairments and . other events impacting the•:quantity or quality"or water available from the Transmission System, and other emergencies that can befall an..urban water supply system, the parties to"this agreement acknowledge that it is sensible and prudent to achieve and maintain backe-ua.local peak month proaucrton,capacity equal to -10% of peak:demand The parries hereto agree that this is a desirable standard given the experience ofwarer utilities,in coping with severe droughts and water shortages catsed'by spills ofroxic materials; water quality contamination; earthauakes, slides and other unpredictable events. The parries hereto further agree.to . . . undertake best e forts to achieve this standard. (b) As of the date of this MOL' the local peak month production capacity of parries hereto is shown in Table 1. Parties planning-to rehabilitate or construct wells in-the nen't.nvo years to expand back-uptsuoplies are Petaluma- 0: mgd, Rohnerr Park-2.0 mgd. Sonoma - 0.9 mgd• Santa Rosa - 2,0.mgd:-and VOi'IWYD- 0.9 mgd In..addition VIMIIVD plans to rehabilitate Sta ford Treatment Plant and add a third shift to permit reliable expansion of peak month praducrion.capacity by 1.0 mgd (cJ: The parries hereto, subject to the approval ofihe`Water visory Committee. agree that the phrase 'water conservation measures that willreduce water demands on the Trdnsrrtission System" as used in Section 2.5 of the Tenth,-lmended Water Supply Agreement shall be interpreted to include-recycled water protects=that.oUset existing potable•water use and protects that are for the purpose of achieving the standard set forth in subsection (at of this Section. The parries further agree to forma subcommittee Of the Water,-lcirisory Committee to develop o'!'ciCiice to the Agency concerning the amount and allocaticn'ofjuncis jor these projects. • 'Pin= E'o: ECTION ; 6 _ c9cr72_r WATER DEMAND REDUCTION MEASURES oa:;tes hereto ao?e: to ttr:= ° ::f:11-.,-;::=.:::::::',;-''':::-'1 ... ,- _.. ••• __. (at. Join the California-Urban Water Conservation.Counc {by becoming a,s gnatcr; to the vlemorandurn of Understanding Re'ardina Urban Water Conservation;in California and thereby commit to imolemeni Best Management Practices (BMLlPs) of water conservation. The ?e.nc) shall pay annual membership dues. (by - •-op:.Evaluate and present to`goverriing,board jot consideration;,the adoption or a water conservation-rare schedule that!, : -_: .•.- -- -•-- . - -- - u_: ::::::::tic rz: increase as the quantity used:ihereases (increasing.block,rates a.ka. tiered rates);provides seasonal rates orescess-use.surcharges to.reducepeakdemands during summer months; or is based upon the long-runwiai'inal cost or the cost of adcing.the ne-t unit of capacity to the system. . (a) T_✓1`.._� - Evaluate and pr23en1`to'governing board for coniderarton: implementation of cost eijectb e recycled water Y c projects to that offset rusting,poiaole water use Said evaluation shall consider but not be limitedsro:projects identified in:the:report dated November 1999 entitled Preliminah Asses nienhof Urbah Water Reuse. Sonoma County Water-!?ency 'Service Area. Sonoma County and`;4tar'in Counrv.. California. CT71 _. ._ _ .P. 1'x:...1 :bCC�':C- .. - % c •—�---_""-•tea.._.__ .. ._ }Z'L__� 7.-_:.. T ...• _ ".__ _•.1- a of c:..__, a...:_� -'- -;: _._ _ >-;�.. r_... ..:... • .. _.-. --- _ -• __. • r _ _ . .: _ •.. - — • �. YOC_b1= '•t'=:_: '_... fC1: 1;; --Cd•&c 1: .I ��.oc;C{C71C .AZICr. cotzble _......< ._ .� _ • _. �-. .. I:Iic:::.1'Col`C-"-te'(C\1CCi P3.3.2 •3 • ...___. .. _.__ .__ r_..-.c: of cct=bL ,.c__. r. • SECTION 7 - SPECIAL EFFORTS • In addition to the efforts described in Secrions 5 and 6, the parties. as denoted:below, agree to' Corari: 1. Accelerate Injviementation Schedule Items o and c of BLIP 5 by one year. Petaluma: • 1: Acceleratelmplementation Schedule Items b and c of.B:LIP 5 by one year. Ronnert Park: 1, Accelerate implementation of B,VIP l to:at least 20% meter replacement per year and implement metered billing on,all Metered accounts =. ;Liar: ierate Implementation Scheditie liems`6 and c of B,WP 5 b one year. Santa Rosa: 1. Accelerate.Imblethenration Schedule Items b and c ofR IP 5 by one y ear. 'Sonoma: 1. Accelerate Implementation Schedule Items,o and a otB:4IP 5 by one year. 2. In cooperationr,viih VO.YJVD, undertake a demonstrapon protect or the feasibility or a service that efficiently operates irrigation time c.WCCS at restce'ina.'sires. . tVrlIYVD: I. Accelerate Imolementatihn:Scheduleltems 5 and c ofB,VIP ? by one year. 7. Ada one operator shift a:SterjcrdTreatment Pant during the s en me- months to permit 24 hour per day operation to increase:peax,month production ccoaci0 of the plant. During the term of thisillOU,.Agency wiilreimourse:V,'1WD for out-of- Pocket expense incurred in operating the added shift. G'O.LIIVD: 1. Accelerate Implementation Schedule Items b and c'of(3'vYP ;i.by one year. In c000erctton with Sonoma, undertaxe a deptonstration arc]est:oldie feasibility ofa service the •eficiently operates i riga:ion time elect'ar residential saes. A'/M%W D: 1. In c000eraiion with Las Galinas Sanitary District and subject to all applicable laws: codes and'regularions, evaluate the,fe`asabiliry of eroanding-the ce.•anced,Naste`.varer treatment planr a n d recycle tic ::. transmission and distribution systern to deliver aporoximareiv '.0.t d..of recycled'pater ti:at tiviii offset actable ;voter use W:n L_iG`i' :. Accelerate hit;t t!Ire17lCC011 „CnZ_iltl. 'Items O.;:iY'.d.0 GI 2.1:11P J•.e , . -,-•AZ )innz in i ei7rs Ser'lort,%t in tntS Se_°:ton !Tti:=' be aiae"c'e:(;roV:ae'i ihe-.:gene' anti .Icce •',`(C %oarry 7'.'O ' E = < vr0 :heanieu m,_.r. SECTION 3 - BUILDING REGULATION AND PLAN+-ING-COORD[NATION (a) The parties to this.MOU agree,to consult with agencies that have planning and zoning powers pursuant,to the California,Planning and Zoning.Law(Government Coce Section 6 000 et see.) __ ' ___ - _ :__ _ :-: • •- in order to promote close coordination and consultation benveen water supply.agendies and land use approval agencies to ' ensure that,proper water supply planning occurs.in order to accommodate projects that will result in increased demands on water suaolies as required'by Section 65352.5 of the Government Code. (b) The parties to this ,LIOU agree to consult with agencies that have building;regulatory powers pursuant Government Code:and•Health and Safety'Code in order to promote use of water-conservation.eauipment,ftsrures, aooliances, devices and techniques. SECTION 9 - SURPLUS WATER DELIVERIES (a). Effective the:date of this agreementt the Agency has determined that surplus water shall only be made available to Water Contractors for their direct use or for deliver to their surplus • water use customers: • - - (b). As of the date of this, LIOU, the Agency served 33 surplus water customers. The parties to this MOU`,agee to cooperate in transferring:f'said customers from the Agency to thetci`-r _ L — - parry whose corporate territory encomoasses:,the site of a given surplus water customer or whose-corporate'territory boundary is within two miles of the turnouts) serving,said customer. Parties who agree.:to take on such service shall be•known as surplus-water providers. T`e rar .ee Lea water providers asreee to u-pc'd interrupt deliver e; of surplus water upon - :n TO :a • --z 'notification by .k-encv of- ° ' of-" _:_, an immediate or,pending problem involving'loss of Transmission System storage inadeauate Pumping capacity Or other proolem impacting.the delivery capability of the Transmission System. A surplus water provider may also interrupt delivey of surplus water at any rime it determines it is necessari or pnide.nt to do so in order,to satisfy the demands grits nor.-surplus water customers; orfor water system maintenance, repair; or'plannedorunpiannedoutage of any nature'whatsoever including but not limited to a perceived. threatened or actual:eater snot-tau,. water shall not be deemed to be include.^: par of We average Ca` maximum month deliver entitlements set forth in Sections :.I or -of the Tenth .Amended ._-eernert. or to be included • as part or tine.Letrorarc Ce'.lYZ coact`-ilocation set forth in Tables I add _. Pace 10 of i O. • • 0 SECTION 10 -.SEVERABII:ITY If for any .reason anY terra oI condition under this Mai is found toy rie incon5i5 e aswith any law or reculatton, or In conflict withanv other le_aily enforceable :equireme-'t of any Oar':, the remaining terms and conditions of this MOU shall remain inp`uii force and effect to the extent they can be reasonably anplied in:ihe absence of the invalid or unenforceable term-or condition, unless this.MOU is otherwise arieade3,or terminated in accordance with the procedures se: forth in this MOU. SECTION I 1 - WAIVER OF RIGHTS By signing this MOU, the parties do not waive or relinquish any legal or equitable right that they might otherwise have with respect,to any of the actions; activities or obligations contemplated by this MOU. SECTION 12 - TERM OF MOU :L2 _ t _ •-] L.: 1L - ...'.f-b _ _ -. reThis MOU becomes effective upon:the siotature by all parties hereto anasnail retain in effect until September 30, 2010 unless terninated earlier by an binding atjirmartve demand of a male:_. of the parties hereto. An affirmative demand of the parties hereto ....n z7.--..::-....-.1.: f.:: •-sic:, shall be in the form of a resolution-adopted by the governing body oft.!: eaan demanding parry and shall be delivered to,each,of the panics hereto. To.be binding on all parities hereto, the aggregate of individudl`demands shall meet the,voring requirements set forth in Section 13 (c) hereof. SECTION 13 - VOTING REOUIRr:VIEtiTS (a) Voting weights assigned to each of the parties to this agreement shall be determined the same manner as provided for'in Section 5.3 (a) of the Tenth-1inendea.4greemeni exact solely for the purposes'of this Sect,•'on, the aVerage;day any month water de%ivery limits ass ic.7,70 f. to Windsor, the Agency f epre°e . irz other Agency customers other than tY:nasciy, and.',R.17:-F, shall be 0.8, 0.8 and 3.8 mga reipectiE:e v. (c) Jr e 'yot.'ng reatiirethents yoKiizaking c^an?°s:n LLt 1 r7'i:i'.'. . '?c,,.Z [e i 'r! aZreeg7e-t shall be the same as provide_. .)Sector' =.J (a) e T-2.".': eoO&1 .j.y _-, ._. . d:':e:r for auci:!:on of /timasor, the.4aC C:i.ant' A1_rMii3 its ..)'J . t.eti ' 7 CS2ci 0n ?LI/ r�r i ..0 Se=::on: and :':e 1`ur /.e. -@.T.::°„t-0i}.-,/1C. oc S shall be dent .:eS'5 • 2CrC ; r..t. . _. : _ h. - Se`.C'.1 / 1 i',::2-122.- than jive (_') 0 t P (ie.1 7 /C.i re pFeSe^.':.:. ' r 0/ ..-C .v d _ shall be required for the second part of:he two part atj"trmative vote requirement. Not all designated representatives need cast a vote. oniv enough to mee: the two part voting requirement provided,for in Section 5,3,(a)of the Tenth.=mended Agreement-as amended by this subsection • and subsection (a) of this Section. (c) Voting requirements:for amending Section R of this agreement shall be the same.as_ provided for in subsection (b) or this Section except that voting shad be by resolutions„aaootea by the governing boat/ of the parries herero. Not all-parties need adopt a resolution; only enough to meet'the two part,voting requirement provided for'in Section 5.3 (a) of the Tenth !mended ,agreement as amended by subsection (a) and.(b) of this Section. (a) Ercept as,provided in Sections 4, 6, and 12:hereof, amendment of this ,1,40Ushall require the approval of all to this MOLL • • • • • • - ''_° ;E or b 9. SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY • By: Date: ATTEST: • Deputy County Clerk CITY OF COTATI By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: 1110 City Clerk. CITY OF PETALUMA By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 111/ CITY OF ROENERT PARK • Bv: Date: Mayor ATTEST: Cirv.Clerk CITY OF SANTA ROSA • By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: TEST: • City Clerk CITY OF SONON,LA By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: Cit" Clerk a_.•,e 14 of to • • 4ORESTVILLE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT By: Date: President ATTEST: Secre:an' NORTH NI RIN WATER DISTRICT By: Date: • President aliTTEST: Secretary VALLEY OF THE MOON WATER DISTRICT • By: Date: . President ATTEST: Secre:an lb, . P,i,- : 4 .::- i 6 • M.AR4 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT • • By: Date: President ATTEST: Secretary TOWN OF WINDSOR By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ....i C;a:: '.c^ . _ - pace loot 16 ip • • • Thomas Harais Edwin 917e.gAPC#17aGn S 4111c.n. 11 .“... Fritay„Matc. 53i2b00 9:4:2:AM 0:. Tharrastiarais Grant DaVis iubiect: Mi.shirPresntatitn • ':71 - • • :2 '7" may know, the 9etaluna ChaM:cer 'wshoe: a forum about. The '--"-=' :t''" hu-' hc the aft,-nbionof Act* 18th at- the et“_-'e ElkS .cdce, -="--ing Brian Natzracs and Mtry Al &omare (authors Of :azure! Ste; .c.- t'uesne<=) . . 2 ground the event, we a2 dosnc 'a 'f'=w thints to connect the :resentation to what car be done .4r1 190c:luma. The ideal featUred ,zonliqn: would be to haze Mayor Thomcson and any inv=- =t=^ renciaerr..sers present a check to Hamieh that represents the firSc .nazalimenc of his water efficiency fi-nancial incentive h, tj.I.E. first such . . .aiment in the City' < history. Of course T have to do some quick- :chewcrk with you to cez the behind-zhe-ccenes d=”T.fl in order,. but we -cuidn' t ask for a better c000rtunttv to camera:e succor: for a [Council mat has been so forward-lock4no in this redard. .--e:have a El, 000 in my current contrT:ot (atcroved last millenium) se: sitetor this . Mishs has already reduced 'rot water consumption _gnizioanzly (I have the data) , just by makin0 process chanCes, even dough tney haven ' t 1n=ta7 'er4 new enuipment yet, That is ocm-ihq sotn. . . looks cocd to 'IOU, 7 czn &art S=.thi&-- ---d tar'-'0= we Can e'C'ent 4110 he .,. itatich to the Mayor and COuncil dUrinc their Acril 3 Session? • . _ ":'s cc-es as a f0110W-":". C your 1.2M it= cc provitinq time Monday f:r -.--.e Council to enjoy a gcod ...c. ' • • . . • • • . • 1110 • . . . , . . . . . . Thomas Hargis • • From: Pamela Tuft Sent: Tuesday, ,April 04, 2000 2:53 PM To: Thomas Haras;-Steve Simmons Cc Madeline Costa Subject: FN' thursday SWIMS meedna Tom and^Steve • The SWIMS meeting w ll`be 9 AM on Thursday-thanks for giving'the time Madeline will try to find usa room with an outsideaine (law library?). Thanks. Pamela MJC- -could you please work your magic and find.us.a room for Thursday at 9 AM for 30 -4S minutes. Thanks..... Pamela - --Qnoinal 1Messag_e From: Andy Rodgers [mailto:arcdcer2 @a.netcorn.ccm] Sent Tuesday, Aoril'04, 2000 253 PM To: Pamela Tuft - Subject: Re: thursday SWIMS meeting 1-Li Pamela-- Le:s shoot for the 9AM dmeslot. I would be-open to any information or„suggestions sou have about the meeting. what I envision is 1) presenting a concept prototype of S ,GZ:NIS for discussion and tamilianthng.Tom.and Ste•,e with the technology; 2) discuss the:elements or the Pat Bell grant and watershed initiadves;.and 3) outline the agreed course of_acdons. • Let me know if you have other thoughts. .Otherwise, we look forward to seeing vou on Thursday at 9_.MI It would be great to ge:t a conf room or similar with an outside line and wall to project on to, so we could really explore the system. Thanks - Andy — Original Messade From: Pamela Tuft To: 'Andy Rcdoer? Cc: Tnomas Harcis ;Steve Simmons Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000:2:28 PM Subject: RE: thursday SWIMS meeting RnCv, ( I Thanks so much for your patience: Sc much For c='fall l finally lust 5ncwec Lc =; Tom s door - N5 SC iac,.le Is Insane ricnt now vith the trios back to 'Nc irc:on DC for the 'P /Pan orcle - '.nywa y Tom can either 9,-,IVt cr i'0 v;:M this TburSday. Which Acr's test for :jou? C '. ner'NCrks cr me. Lec me know and I Jlll ^-e sack-x Tom and Steve Simmons. Thanks Pamela Orlc nal Mes age—= • Fron Andy ccdders [maiito: rcdcz rci .etccm cm] Sent Tuesday, April 04, 2000 9:38 AN To: Pemeia`Tuf - Subject: ',Thursday SWIMS mectinc :00 I-Li Pamela Too bad,the GenPam.agenda:was-burnoeci tas: ruzitc. but-;:t 7.212 kiriC 0 lace. I hope to be there Wed nouse--•ariJ.lin.°) and possiblv prot-Ide co -re n: to council on rnv Liber:v Creek waters ,'•• ar apoiicadon ch- coil-bon-dor par-i,,, :t :7 -.4 .-.11/a. \Tacershed Partnership - and the irrsponantifurare..,:elaconsnip cc the Gen Plan development. Thous-tat I'd send a Quick reminder.to Check back:in witr. Tom and Steve :ega:rein° Thursday mornings meednz. When sec, I'ci like,to have a 3 min conversarion you and/or e-mail exthan°e,abour what your scuss Have genera:2v entailed and what Questions you/they may have - so I can prepare to pick up from Mere. Thanks Andy Rodgers ECON PO Box 123, Coma., CA 94931 arodgersrEecon-ir.c.ne: tel. 707-4SO-1019 S • • • 410 414!0Q ATTACHMENT #7 WATER NUMBERS.AND ACRE FEET,PER YEAR FROM A PRESENTATION BY BOB ANDERSON AT THE RUSSIAN RIVER SYMPOSIUM, COUNCIL IS REFERRED TO REFERENCE MATERIAL: A)3-INCH BLACK BINDER WITH TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER:15, 1999 TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FROM.FRED STOUDER, SUBJECT SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEIVI,PROJECT, AND B) 2-INCH RED BINDER WITH TRANSMITTAL LETTER JANUARY 12, 2000 TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FROM FRED STOUDER, SUBJECT SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY AGREEMENTS WHICH INCLUDED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 11 AGREEMENT, • e ater N ambers: in acre fe±��Year *(mg/year) • E szinQ Future . Russian Riser Watershed mean annual runoff, 1;430.000 (472,600) 2. Russian River 1982 Flow 4,300,000 (1,401,400) - .1990 Flow 500;000 (162,951) (163,000) 1977 Flow 64,000 (26,858) - (26,900) 3. Water Supply @;Lake Sonoma .212,000 (69,000) 212,000 (69,000) @ Lake Mendocino 70,000 (22,800) 10,000 (22,800) • Average Trans-basin Diversion 142,000 (46,300) 132,000 (43,000) 1990: "Very Dry" 142,0.00 (46,300) 117,000 (38,i°0) 1977: 'Very Dr7" 61,000 (19,900) 43;000 (14,000) Round Valley TSDe's 7,0 proposal 6. Decision 1610 flow requirements 90,000 (29,300) 7. SC��7 A 1 yY 's Water Right /5,000 (24,400) 101 .000 (32,900) 1997 Deliveries: . 60,000 (19,600) S. Subregional's Annual Efto\vs 24;000 (1,800) 30.000 (9,800) for 1993-1996 &Buudout Geysers' Recharge 12,000 (3,900) 12.000 (3,900) Iri2ation 11 ,500 (3,700) Storage 3.500 (1,100) May-Sept 1.i11lows: 8.0� 0 (2,600) 9.900 (3,200) @ 17.7 mad:&,21 5 min. to Geysers 5,000 (1,600) ODU (1,600) . Iav-S cGt aL_C Reuse 6,500 (2,100) *(mg/year added by City) S ATTACILVIENT #8 COPY OF HANDOUTS PREPARED BY SCWA ' REGARDING WATER RATE INCREASE S � 1 ••Y _r ,F` �. t ;F 1r V t , rt a pT �tfy�: j Y g � S x (` • ,fi i' S lr \ Y ,y x G ,^ �7 a.3,n s< t x r4 n � a v i` V4 Yu. 1z` • tom' xa r +^rise.0;v4.-,,,..--,..,... ..-.- i$ Y i. k .'••r 2.nbt¢ 1{'Y.sst- y 'F'•'rfi„t t t..., l5• r .4,-;, ?} t� 1 L gir+ r t Y. f !, --Lk 1• qtk } 1 St?:tn s tr i. ' _ , YPt' � t.. iY S < t. 4� f $ 4k#Tb rr > r Y .� yZtx r i`1 t xk' i S r M& e 4 r r w F E` '+t' f tA- t' )+ 'Y b z 5 �� w 11 Syr+. }AI tL''e r G" r �� r .� ,,i....,./- w1 3y�,{+ U 1 . g - ' � n:$`F!.Ss } i, rr f 1 �� r :.i n rt # 97bq x `� a +.. xS :_z r., erne ,. — ^ Y 1 I. . ° s>r'<x ,,, 5 .. i., . e s s M. ,;r-4 'd y: !fie• '4�Ycc•4 r.asx r L'ka ,a(+': 4N I.. 3 ' 4, 1,-2 ` . xc t _ `t1 S .. ,. of , ,. :SX v _L1 , F 17 p I-,' t Tr •- '%ire"ats - r L�- 3 '- a fy�qun t i•.. „ �. ,x '^5�', �� �' s d 1 '.z .�� ):. any. '` ` .'ea• Q { arylO k :t y _ - 1 ." i,4,pfin- T r " 'n '• x •{�' q. p �Y grzy�Ky c :i •y 1 4'tay rn, ..:_". r S '. y"" ry• ifL..AY yA�ir Ut 41 ! f . x /• .,�,Ww4�:1'�y $n ! ,i.- . . ; ] // ' r! mac , t! p ,1� y`>r?* 2 axt 1 fan q' a ss Al 1- 1 . >< r`'' i � 1. t o i •!(H r F "r�S le'E' S �l T s ,,, ra.'y ,,T Y i rl.4auaCt 4TH s ,. . • •j(�_zt x = rwti 1• II ,•• �Y .mss& � 4 tr F :4 vw. slt �...!*S�p�g"wq (may , Fy ', � f.� rye,"" y`k' iii .r uyuq .4.1/41,:e.4...22-o.:).....::.2:. r_ �y�. 5. -rte * rl," .,s,. rc ` v P tiysr A'3`r , 3� ; 0 T j6 Y ,C )- i f�� y .. ' .n y y ' i a S;: .fir.+ �s M q= N 1{a yned 9 '` r A5 r ... et . y3S 4«: ..:'ir ^iC..r('•r•5.� ...r. .. gA . •'.J ni S (1) -1-J -1--) 0 u 0°) CU 0 0 = L., 0 Cl. U) CU C C31 a) c E = CD C 4— CD 1... (i) 0 (in in cn 0 CL 0 2 ing•-•n N E 4-)v) 0 am 2 n3 a (Jb • 4.) a) 0— . f n 4— (I) 0 .4..-i. 7:3 .(7)—n :=c3 L 0- ow i — ro 1 4.j fp ° CO 76 s_. C) Co 0 = . I'En° I. sa. 13 E -C3 '1. CU 00 CO >% E (1) 4...) 4_, 4...) .4-) u = a" V) CD r° a) o o r: = u < . m U. O d- O NI — E = Q N O . N Le N CO M O N (O N M Q -CA 0 N. 'U 0 U) O Lf) Q Cr O 1- 2 -a ' Lf) T4 O l0 CO 0 O N M O Cie rs if) = N M LL Q 6� ter L cv ' O 1 -1 O .—+ O LO O LO N N M ON M lbS `� 3 N M N ,O in U O CO O CO O N O N • e In IA O O . aJ N M N M CD CU af, ate-' N CO CD C Q cp 4 V) r%si A t : N 0 C Q O C LL , i N M air al u 2 U o! I = — a) 2 , � Qom) . j S - N C 3 q 0 � � :QUU pi O o 0 1/40 '- LC %1 M en kei s a cp re; it 0 ,...1 ei ri a) , o Cr N Lin Ln o r E ce s ert go rki 0, = Lima N N te- ,,,== 0 li p A a.) p N a fa c V '' • .4Thf,-r-. •t.e N:ly4isq, h,:-....r11.• 9-, 10-, y,11t 7 !..,9"V t t■ ..,., ,,A-,,',,.,;C,,,,-;4,,',-,,2in 7t.`',fp-1 1f..51p.:.":;a;,;Ile', 1:“.5,,r',1,,i1,,„.'%.;11.4 4.,,C,,r i.;y q,.y,•.;..1,• ',..-,,,4f±t0,,tt'§.1 v't44;60--, Art ,-2k ki,\I- ,,,,,c,..;'•' ?1:.'4,_. ,....,.yert, .9,',Is,'LSconv‘tec„.1:'„, -..}t3,. 7 , 'kit,Iheopio,,,,;-,14011;ho H.' 'ec..,r.,1,1474,lim,4;,% 10,,,„,lki i-,' %.41-itL,t j.t.„1,;„ -:ii.,V,Ithi-e•it. ',',.47,,,iti4;c-11,n4g,(1 -il 4:;•.F.;,;,1-./(,),'",'k EV'Crt ,tle.,V 1.?";`(‘. I f.ler 4 .iirfkiA7..C.,:,,04‘1V1" " ..7 .'.1-,,„,-K,?A'‘...',14.i7A,-,jill ta1re:z',:.*r..-'earr%''':';‘,. tit:4:',..,r‘,7,,,,,„?.f.,,,51‘,„. $?.',Wit!..•,, ,er,/, kt0,,, 4s, :0 op,Q-Lt.orl ri. 4,2-,:ti,0,Ik..4*- f ,,Eept;o4itlisiguA 9.:).“ :51? rk•,k4„in_,-2rtz, 'Mi:',.1j!' ,,37214, 1.,"'.4.431/4,VIA:11.k^3-'1.hZ 1'4.4 ,, ''. ;. 'He:k iti,s4,i'lci,74',4„,5,,is'Alltilite‘?,"; 0 '4%.,Y,,,i,i1 k'trectr,t,01,k,Vit':::.`1!:11S■ -{-; r) 'sre)/;:1-41 t.wilir4V-1-11,,,,::l'`-.d!.t tr-li' r't4■ '1 'hi ,f1-,1,:,,,•,,,F* tist,,,,,t sir; . 1` ,37: 4,01,;:` ,PVI,1 It't,S'A W.i.jcisgetW,V4a,,,i'd,t0 V.4,Z1-, 'de'41 i:k)c,97i:*34,,,,,.14.4, ik ... ,4.;„„, „1„. ;4.4,, 1.,_.cbt.,..,,,tiriii. a..,3 3,-4.4e,..„-7,4„4:7...., a‘"iim.:,<10 ...0,1,,wfrs+for'41121r4r„?..=1 - Tv, 77A . VP i. fi,ic, 44,4; k•-,L,;5-1.- ' f 0,trei447.0,st, 4rriv.r. F.4,4 ,,, t'n4,7,41=1V.,,,.. ; Eel:.*: .-■';4r: ' 'ititei'rttl:6V,;/11410'77 ‘t1+4-67LATI,''':.11.177.\"e:03S1 e'h4:4';‘:;461 '4t1'-(riltrity.fitejr."61-3.-J4.449.,,,a.' '4 ‘ .41,RS 1/2tiC21V4i•Nlgit.ti-41‘1,‘!1-1147 411" ,I,itWW•fa'z't I c'14 11-11,-1::1,'`Y..4.,' ,IS.c -4,t ',tit.:0'47' 1 Aril3?:e;). 4.1134144144CL11-'4;4.44'1 4i7fria :, ^44.1.^11:C'4---.700 i,,q,-0' . ;;;,-,Wrz,,, ,,;-,Y,4!;,44k.:4 -dcf).'•::%Arir.V2m-j, 1 r-C.7,1k1„,;,,m.v.:$41.4.---m03) kliti0.4n;h0,..„?..r,4,.,10,1,2,:i ,1„14.,,i.4,t,,a,;;;.g.,;,,:„,,‘". r:4 „fa.,4,-,1r,„ - jk,„.•r. „„„ „ r- .......kergiqc..5wit...,'? 2.jt,r,11174:aVij,- ,..„:, ,r4 atici, ,,-.1t.„. 1.4":4,.-"'A ■ z , ..it.u: 4i 1112C1'W ta■40/6 met:),!:,..,1t- -3.-aer{# ., i r J.. :11- v ' ,,. # ' ri L.:" ir, I: ,Thet>§,ilit.4,3'e ti ',ceng. ).`-",,#,biclizrt.'„,:t;c7,44. ,,ttil,14,4454.14AN-7(. iici:i.e-,?cati-r. - ,.•- - I, •, !4;- -. .1-,- '... c*Ogg:do:var.' "Ilt;'Lc sot, TIAnt,IAsfr..1,;(31,.. sc947-:,.i..prifter:1„::,--. 2:1.,....1-% 2-,-;;Y:. ' S'.• I:1kt) 1,tt.s.10.0%;,,,c4.,y-4.21,4g,,,c,t_rh.• tja„ co ;4;442'2.I.,;'' 4,1#,.--,.. ? '')%iiirk„IX tied ri .77'.:. . ,r4-n.i .‘etii.....1;:.5-j.',,'S ? „;11111-11. jkc' 11. . .4•'-'- 1,1.,4it7;1:‘,?1,,t44•42}fEhtfilttli.:),,,"„V5-4: l'-^CiF-',.,..1*.t.,,' -we F•- '-'....C.,J.:.:;•'■-Q..")..1 .P.-41.0 3: .....- •i.t.: •ILL11:4;”;•• mai. :...ve E.: r T'-'•-• i.:le 1.--. -.),?' ?Rit. ':;%, ... - ; '^-.' wa'n• -..-- -'-=-41 ti),.9th,11,alk,p=y4-4PAPtiii, ; ''.4; ,... 77,C:1441 :7. 3 P •. ,le•morr,11.1',.‘44,1;.V., 1,-r - r.. e..76-ii: ---7 1.51.1..'s •:,:=I'Lfitil: -r.--; ,..i .4 1--;.:•,?.‘ •..s-1 i-tr...'irr. FP .1,110,14.41,•?'ti I ' -"ii • ON.1 >-',..i,.:u./v);4:. ...i:-.-,r• cr. ?„ 4' k'.1.1:-Ft2 ,11.' "A rl 1.. ''' ."11.:.. ij 1 1_. '. '...:11 i Zr, f; 1; *1 :- • ;- -.1. - • 4-.4 '2 „t5.,.. * f -4 41 ', 1‘. • ,e link r:Sk"111.1;AO%)'eti•F 1 0 int 1 ‘4‘."1 . . ...% rir rt. ,PC . •1, j ,e 7 ,„ „: . ,," ;n.'„ ..1 1.1 ...•': I 4, , •., ' - . i.":••••ViNirr.i...;;;-VI',i'). IP.4? i 7. ...?3 " .. .'t `...• . :%1 43,"a- .11....7., Iv ;IC. -: •2. r .: .1( - -• `15.:. `34 0 C., ' %Z...,' ', , ' r r, -.'h ,I r, 4•'i r• rr rr ..•• i r r r. r e el% 'k Pig rrria011.%. 1 • •:r .;....r‘rr CC' L••• . r .. r 1 ' 'r " • •• ' 2•11=1.•,-9Nye.,-"i3tii."frr,vv . . . ,-...4‘).);:raCtIfir'S••••‘ 1.'1‘ .C.-:-C. `11 " &no, !?.:7,,,,,,"-„,7%;10.. . ' ..'•;1- I. I ,1 r-...,,,v.:1;5-.7,s -,......;;;:--.,,..- 7 - • • ,'''',?.0c,p..t.t.notP.Nt"-). iti :.'LC ■- , ,...?",..7 it, , . ''. a . -, 1.,',.. ' .' t '..-' , . .. ,.4.„.-,,,,,...-...; . ' 47 . , ,.., ." ii....:,. . :. ..,.. :, , _ . , - . - ' ': — - ' 1- . ,-. . ,.. • ,N.=, pro 14 ;T,,,, 4 vit.pkit..1 7,...j 7 , '‘.1 .,. i, ,04. .•..'i ' • •.' . ' . -,, ., Ti, 0 kpP .1 0,14dkt,1"..tqfq,•c. - • ..• • . :: . • :;•. .". , ,- . , ` !." ::' 7 ./7.17,479-17;t77,114:47;%-t.7,747,74, .7. :' ? r' ' .... • •••'"4 a • S lila 7 It/471/4-j;tAreille Pr 0, • ••.- • ill•ka Aktf6Y:r15 i...., ),.....5".;•••• r?•• ..••'14'34 Crikk''••■•• ai 4,pn.s,r•-c,.Tip ,•:, , , ..• ,s -, ._, „ •• • ,..-•.,_.- ..• .•,a, ;,_.„ .,,):,.;•.5,,sgt.-;s:!•-csiep.,,,-:;y:_stp:zigze...7,. . , ,.:. .5.1,: •,t irys,- 4-kg -<..; - ' •A. •y .1: %,%•,,f- ,., y.-1,;.„- -'II r.7''.mit:'':..a.4,.1:-..-'' ,41.?..g.:":'''''(1'11' , -1 717. -A . y.- .-.-4-,,-,,,,-; . .i.,!4"4.5-- - - 4,--.-,-,- ---- - , . •. f, ,,; 5, ,, n11,,, l'..;:a.'.- , ..-'' ."' r. 'I', t ' Ae•Ai-it -...; ; . - . - ;:;,4 ...4- l'- . ,, - - '47- '; 4 Z' . , :11 1 ' ' :its...7.. '-'''.(''' 'r.7r;r L. .:. :• )''..,.r.;r;r•..c..i.,. ?lir,' , -.• 1.,” ; ... 7., , ":.p. ,„rt,*■irg,-7• .1-tii,Vt, . ,4- ;A l” 1 0 1..sta- :.•'-'1,-. • - - - _i___') ,.•th: 4 ,-;,c1 t. ,•7, r.", -- - • . - A „Isr.._ -?,.'a'N-ii--L-k....i'tk iTh•X_nAdw,r.--,,;•vut v , fc, ,e at47414• . vn,: - --'4.- •.",.r.geCaatr1142 .-•4‘4.-1,1.t' ' . -cilr.2. 7,,;.4‘ ' , ':;_9,„ ,,--.. il it.. ' .: ."t; 4 U , ...- *IV: - ',9t1": 1,1A 'Pi • v. -to :,', i'ise• e‘h.- "721 ' t■ Ln 4' '1":-4 r !. .,,,,/,, ,, - .. ;,,, , . r„ , ‘,4, onfri: ctr, • e, :a , CO. ,.'''.:11,.,;--•4.1-`-t--" F"..e- in - . ,-,f.c : . '-'2: •r"g-I" ..-. •-.- .-±____L;•i• I'lear•lk.1,:.:,e .;,3-Olt ele''-r' L':'''T-1' rnialq.t. ;L..). . ''.1 al . .: :.-.. .,L .. . . .: . _. ,_.... .:_. .,...... Icc, .1 ' ' ..'t-724kalt,i , j7ggia7-7.' , , WIEMUM■,. . Th:1.1 Z.r?'": ^ - I . ' ffilia, 71307-''" 41”--... ' l L) ..0 . - _ .,-ay.t - .,r)r- . . , , ,,,- ., 1„..„„ ,, ,-4, ., ; . •-•• ..„4'[...‘,4 a -..-,- .5::,.. 0 An ,:,....Mf)- -m:5; ,------ - & - '4,'N- if, . -- IA. .• -.", ,,- '4-4;irt'—--t- ' Li-it . . , , - - 1 -L r, 1 ‘ ;-',' , ,;L -,--.; . , 110, I- . -I ''.e-At. .IE''• • -' 1'L'4.%-r--t_ :,.2. -,, , i',7 ' ' :fr'f•-; .i 1 11 1 .' 1:42 ••• - *--- ' 1,• . ' i„,14.1”:.'-`ir:i-.7-:..`:J`L'9;:': • - 2,:..1.. r 2 rr. , • .. ; :•. 1.'i ; 41' 51-60 , . 'la .-,;:" i. ‘ - ' ' ,, --- r . ,,,.4,r.,4.,•::".1-,.;;;-"?4,1.• ,"..111`7..r.':-1.- .• ,, , • I . ' ",‘,/ ..,'"-"'-,-•,t! 1 IV ' .14.. ,7.oirr. • 'ff. ki • . - - , , • 4,„ ):: .c:1/2 , ...--....c!:--.7.,...y.....7.,• _ - . - . - - . I : "n'.. •=1' '. ',-,', -,`•-•? ./ ....- .,i - . .. - "-;.- L‘r:4,--c.., - ..., ,. . .;;;;;;,.„. 4 , - , ' - " `t; "; ' 4. 41.11r.r.-.1.:: • - lb N O Le 00 co au estviN at NI M aft 40,0P in In _ O N O S gii ® 0 N 00 �, O rim CU ai LI ,.1 N e • => ch w Na CO re M 1a N N a .. at N M ; > . o Ralmj 4.1j 140 In O N ;'a O kb ratitti ® ' N , N 6 C ry, cn = n ;. O arC3 CD O M % 0 (A LL LL (I 12 M M 0 0 00 0 N N 01 CI O 0 00 kO. N N 00' r-1 1.O b.O Ti- N M h r-i eraziN E ad M ® Ch 0 00 O In O' l0 CO ONO ri LO 01 ' 10 r-I r-I ,- i amssi 01 01 r1 LO ..N R 00 N L E c OT it N 01 O 01 0 00 N N V) 01 kO 00 +-1 [t Leo a, O 00 N vp r-i M Sacs G ® - - U=1 b.3/4MMIMMS 01 01 N in M M M 00 in CA II . al a) r-1 oo CV 1 1-1 Oo j N =sac Cr Ca S _ _C ao 'V■ E c 5 t U 2 O i = (0 n a) O C pl•a -. To 4-) -la ( a c a Z c 0 Z ri I- ■•• : t ‘14:"‘". ' - ;,'`-.1 '1-t-4. ' .'11 '',.6')(-1 i'tic4'.'' 2 +-V . !J.' •1., c, 4. ,')., 4 • • - ',- • • . *-4, - pi •••4;:•••-91r;t442:,#1,;--1 .••••.%.- •- .- ..(rii-j... .7 r,./- ., :-,7;-; . ,,,),) -, /..,,,. , ,.;,-;,,,: i-4 ,,,":"/..4,,c-,,,i;,,,,,;:lik-,7-,17 . 1);:*'• C'.;;1"..11,,i44:,',.;;:it-'4-.".,I clk ji..?4't jA r 1:44-1. P'.k At t`:''.- ' d'..' 2 I..L..'‘., L t''•''"..4, #.)11." ZbiSit i;Y'^t A,..:T;:li,Lt11.-;7.31't it','.,;-:k."'''.$4tif:1,,.?'fitiViii,),i;^-,.'jr-t■,,3 r44 4,1 r,i.i:•,l'Ac t j a,;',,?.' c4)1144 ett,, • Ur,t _ .c 4.■ ..,, i"1' 4...re"ik:4-1...,- t.tkri-;-.,;-:46,./,,-7,,,); , 4, .. .-..- ‘ ,: •(-.... 1 •>.-,i,s-,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,:-..•5,-.;-4 .,.,44.4, 06,11.‘„,,A 1.04(41 ',.,,„4,417,:4.0,-;#6.,.,,n );,4.(li 2,/,....,v., I.4,, ■ye. *4,1: .; -,±- _ 1,,y, ,,,./ , ..... lVtli'Z. rit44/%11:2:41A.113‘...1ghl,NC'J7W1:4'.4111gf. "1:..1.1a,'&11 swit1,1,4: ' ,-.,s *' e, . f i. r...,.,,? ' 1 4 3,1.1,4. re?••• • "•Viisires.441‘:i.,, ••/Ay f-14 itzcsi 1-t'.1,-.V1,..4"i -,',41, -7,- sr 2;7 me...,. ts.J •v .•••tS••••4 n:-•2%,•- • • '1.,-c' • ' -i Ai. c-4-4,- ."4-444,>.;#‘'.,•-.; ,-,i+ .rw.47;14."?..t.T$S-t LL,'t•LaL".t.PrZ r-: 4L4 , ";,' tte-0, e4 ....,4(1) ;‘-'7.,Qj ,e1-.4t: ') -I<11,fr.7*Pcs`q44..4414.1414rtr-VI'LL 4riPPI V“;-,. •st;lir 4 inritj.. -451;':' 'If"' ' ' , -4 ( ../ 1; "1.0 . a-):,;.,.c.f ei,,, ...,-,`;.r.r.," ,,, ,' 4- 4,•:irYisPi:,itbift;',,r1,44,1'41-01:}14.VE•2-A••:41•42t,•• 1„.47.1's i'''..Ul -it1% 1:•?',.....;21) t, t. •i W•E. .4 ji•Jel.,4 , , •••-•'1:.--sis•-1:41..‘2.•!: •4-1 "C•"4:1,-,•t",:•"4“,;:. ,1••••=s0.',It•is;•34.4>liii,the,e.,s?S I kslia:P:$ Vis.4 ,i,.,4,,, sigifts<,i.. y ,-0.00,3 %,t.L.-1.4:: am', .It Fi..... .7, .. , ,.,., ,, ,..;.1.\a„, ....-... ,i.. •:41 6-1*-4..,-IrCliel;?•4114-.1,1 J Yr.1.imrecjil•; zch.,,T,* . - .' •,, im)(4■")..i "i:;;:z-n.t.w ,''Ns• • '1'4:44" 4 - t .4i-. ,i' 1 ntia 1'.. •5 ".-AM310"141&■t 111;if "1:iitt,it.a4tMtiVCS,. 41,q44 ‘1;-_, g ').5„t 9; L,,,r•Z Li .t ".,,`,t__-pwignAk. „ ,r,, ; 624' 4-=••• 01,W,irter,,I.N )1.fr..hIlt:nct:Ireglittii‘l'•-•,', .It.1! ...jt.)..c4.4 'ret71ci . `;iel A ' itiCier Et, ', -‘• ';W.' ' M,AC,-Sielip-4,,, .4'. ..- t-1?Strie 5.11Pil•••,)1.44Frifraktri'." -* ;'-'qlifi td:SViiir : '611:2.:1: L":11^,\': 7e450};dc, ,4*-■;"`J. .4-;:ttfr•ki.iii`isr.:s 1,tt-ki.'-'- Mei''re PI;4.41.4 41-4;i'rk, :i.fi r? --, AS _Itett.?Prt..;',1`,.z#1,:lifittAi;Q$(;th..t.,&91,5,,f. .„.'h:P.;ftt :;:t•Fl.",,t) Iti.c%,.!1:' grlittri4, ,t.c'fi'S.N:a-3/ ".eat :;:'it ' ..--, -:.411,4:4• ,'...:::;:,;...,:5. - t'i9-nwes.tr. - 2,-,,,;.;, t7? .s'ail4,4444.11:37... ,...,7,iyatihz._;c4."..4.frc.427. r4.4„; ..„.„,..,,,,,--..--t,,,141.---,n-1/4.,,.,,c-s7, -. -_,- -,-=•,,,..4„,'..a..,:r.,,,s-"cAt.., .; ' p il..R. a.1;.`j:01.,-;- 44.:-.4;#44„,4.,,r4=0„` t./..,,1/4:14",;-:, ,... '0,4 :,-.E41.--02..W.iN41.1T;C :4-'50„:',Y.-03/4. rots- :Jct.'.0.0 Pr•-- - :. latIrt L , . f#:',rir,14.i fre31",:rft, 4442442 C'tj 'Ci 1.4-'''.4 'leTcat 4'... • x..-?9. ref'arCilwat..w.s.".zE>rira"..-ittaa -2,-a,-//zA.w-i.-..1,1, -.1.1.- 1,...- v,,a,,,fi.. -,4,.....„ e.1.'4..0,(13, •v;,'.' r:41S1.e.7.?,?:,,PripliV,e2 ail ;;:,*•'',11■'''. ",r,treircr,24::;41 ,Ift•r,ar,',. ''''",:neaill:t{.. A ,11>Ce '') ")4 r.I•ar:V 41'1; ^1/4'1/4,ti,‘.^T;7, 41C...tir;i. itt-01P,,,..111,-- --.Pr'''" : 0........04". 1,.2g, ::. a ....,..- is, : . ,-es i. pet......v.41".,.. . rk.i..1,4, , . v.,r.,, .....1.-4,4 1,-,,,, .. ,-,,,Lik-te ',41. 7 -.. 4-1, 117 = '''''Ct; 141?-14010:' • V S 1 eVc-c I-. -I .vtil -•\tr., --?,-et4 .41- ii • k S. ,'-• 't -it-44 - •'gel;'tg g-Pil' et; L A L• I •- ;•■•••••••••••• I ;11,11tajt`t‘itAir - " '''‘.^.4%W.-IA A•:1)_:. 47.1-:fit glit-t'., '74 ,,- sitrlki' ,,-.;.;'=°-. ..f.i....,,,,c ct•A ;;;.,--,,,,-,.--,:i-, oaa re4 4, 74;j4:11#4i I.L'i-e7-*gRuNti 1:'44 44/01; 1,4,4■.. ,,,,z.-.1-* 1.:- .-.. .-,...,:./;:,., .r.{,:.t., - yost,?; :Alskti'Ef ast.:■.,,),'' ,. CF-I 21-..n,tqc46,,,:ttr :7.,...t., v ' ,-r--T. -...P.74 ',:i.7:,..- . ;4.-0:1t.. Fe-.-"' - - -N-- -:.-1'''.- za 0 k/Nortyrstil'-' -0.,...,42, .0'07; c,,,,. .t-t..0 i a......,„ , flAAY' i At-,,,,,r. 14.”4.4 44,2'.teLnl- v '41,Ii.'',44,,,..at' ri• rr. -'AV LeAi-EA',;1 'arAj:.4".. .t.';Ali 4i4 -Z'Ax‘i sag y,g•1 Hs'ie 'e r 16 -,, 4-.•es -LI: ist .'1,..,:;"?' 1 r 't,"-‘141,7„. .e fce-1.04A ''h K 4.74 .:ti:t.:‘1A; 71.-i,--,- ?Ai' - --tat--/- ri] "A-lig-;.1.;••4; ' 1,M;.-clit.41.-,04AzitiAXIXCI)21;:rirt2).1(./14'':,0.."; 1,, ,.-,:pto .,,,;:**..:9 w. & i 4s-i.•1 ,1.L.-f;,, i' E4,-$rezW -1•021,--")..4)st pc/.,!,• --:-- ---:u•-7,,p.,4-..1,,AIL ‘. pecN..■■■,?1.1.4-13, - ..S2,.:,?;.3.,..4. ..),;=,. TA:...*A" i--4,:z:( ".1.,,..-: (").);.;;,`,.; -P4 :..iiii.arYet_..;fttitc.ivi.-4$1zti:Wz4N ..1-`?:.C.3q. 4.:: ;,..5?_ ._-;;,--r'fr ri..---d. -_. O'',Qrart V.Vb 4.Mit-f3P•rits 0::q*7' 4"5/"Ltl: ''2.---'',."1:1 Pn;;Itt• 1C;V.);A:44.C:711/41314 , .. ,r,....“-c: 0 !freif*ArciA.,1 ' A.;" “`lir . -;,gAT r;Wahp.4.:-. '"?..11;"tr, ‘); "A gAtAti.th-A Air•\,..1 • . ...,ya.n.vs,.,r41,.. , -if,',:rkitt;:1;• ' :4,13- , ■.c'cbAi.i.41',..4.st, +.7,r.;.W4. '',:s1)4 WI"4:1'0:.71:`.i ..:.1,:ilfb-Acv:., ''..F.0”, 'Yr ...-q..00,0,4'f.C.t...i,z..,,,..,4-&-ilf.T4-',"-r4i4LIgt 1"44,..tC;" N: ••cl •!••••••)ii'i :I -.5.• Y..xsj.,)36."Z-k P ".71ii• rl,fri'vf;g3tia -1,:;'•_.?': 41,:,4:y., 't;,., :,,t:;!.:4',XO:-'5jgtiefttrft,,,..W.'r,teA-q„cf,-:Ljpatf-_:tzia ,i',141,41:1) -,:f.,„:;1,, -, 1%-;;; iti---,7,1.±;11",,,,%&V-Vitt4Otya-37-fac.--,-:, Xs, -','7.:,:.• 4:1' ,i1,.?: t4,',$'',--4 ii 1 i,4111.,,, Litt, erit".::frriegrer-teri,"4:4‘."?-4rc-aN: -"--1/4'-'":„. . , ,,. :.. .•Vo.....P4 •Isain,, .:1";;G:.%,4; Ir -,r,4 co.k-c.49.P...--.t.P .....?.%; .--4.4 . ...,,,4, of'".6-,.. ---, •tios• ,-....vi,-,-; t r•;.•:.sia a,-,4,-,---e.i-,,,.., ?(J7 )4,,„. - .fli.., ,,, ,„,,:..,i .1‘.: .',..z ,'. -2..1:12 7.4,r,f ....;11 z.; . , "6'00% 4 I''..04-:15 ''' . ..:,..-.-1.A..,. , A.'1,--......,:p.... ,tkil.:a....:, z-:-.?:.1,1A' i ,t14. 'S'Ati4 Fi,:L-1 4, .::*'%"'S' fr;n “;,t.';' .r1:::;:::-/e:,:r .......-.........10.ff 00,11;.k.... ;,.9,„. ■:.,00,' ."...,,,..r. .;- krs: 4. tf:' 41:);/.,‘..A. ;:424`.A41,i, ta-.. -;.AAA' .2-'f- Ail- - vA%-l'iii I"A‘ le: zcac;...;.1.„-. ,,..-itti,„:-....;.:: , .e• .,,.:.-;:',L, ,,a, ‘:.9.1ke r- .pci, -, 14t:‘',t, .:,4,1;17r1r" t&-`itet• .1.1.frts".' Lic;"-- L''','- ... .c..c, -, ',.. , 7' '4 14 :341 A',VA.-A.VAL)-',.4-- ;e:':;',4:lc-E. :44-Yrwr:: ..--;,....EL..„-: 11i,". . ;„i : "'-,,_;,-' ..„.7.--.,: .,•i ..,.,,.4 _ 4, 341-1 ': c.N.C. ;.‘.;7•.) iy,cf,.?•-.1 ..r r-vf. ,',4 ' '''-'' V°I.1.,"■C, ,-'i i,"4 is*,s1,4fZ.9,at 1:p.,,y,,,::: ,,,I 3' .,.,;;147 tl.''*,:,(L„r• -,66&.1.,:: ,•;■••c-t•-,:72, 2., .24% •,71;X:'•2 -,•iet -2,,..?-t:.; -i•riPri-t-rieCilla.$-Ims•••ri. •'.... '.ri3Y4tili-,elfr •.•2-•-•-r-Jec•••••-•"•':.-It- teAti VA -,:t7,:s'`.? ...,-'• y:4, -sr.,-,f.:_t:„: ';';.•" • '••4••-•• ktritl.,47•,, t-sitr.''.0 ,,s; .t,• - %•.;' (.4,•• 2?...r., ,4."ai 11 --y-7,4e:44:t r;4,2.C:tr'l 4.7";t'' 4" 1 ,,e0 ... -L1;•.-t,.:4,t kritct) ..,,,ti: -4.2.21:2 -, ,_:-...y.„ 0 ir,..124..:-/: f."01,:k0, ..' wt.' , ,,-.. m10,.iy ,!. D, fri'z'''';'"'■'W;it".'s:. '.;;-;;;<=-.,::#74 .5-ntrzt-47=*-rifilifgf-a.tieE.,'.:;4444.te.'‘.7a0Cri."'7 c; 13: 1 PA„.-4:1--.+5-7."..?•- ' n':. *.z. . - '',-.0i,,..'..-,. ,002, ' - ..,:awiwi-T-1....4,01;...R4-44'. A:r•e.÷-,41-' iikt • 4i-s,'?• 1 .l-s.--• -6 ,,'":-,-"-:Pe-''''• - -AV:-,,g.? ., .....,ki-,':',.;',-1”1-7,-,11--.1 I' Z"A=1.,,,At'-ta,“,_,-At'ailIC'Itr4,-- '''S'Iliac "•• ,."%VP* ''' -..a. Fir'IV.,,t I:7--4.cre;.%.,1.3i#34.770:11';•"--' , , .. 4 cll. ''.1' -' ` ..1114' `t. -.., -.,..c.-1.. .tc,.44 4;.1. ..r.-; i-ez i'l::: r'r.. ..10. ;;.C.0.41t 1 4.cd: tii*j... ",Lc):P:`, 0•2 0,X".% tr, .:- t'',%,..11.1 .ninni.n.' Ls,',,,At'-',-"-;',,r, -tt.,14c...,>11$4.4r:,t2i'4: .•44ici• 'cc- a's't?•_re,i'' -;••• s. ..•i .,,f,s-&,:-, '`•••'241 i'•••:4••-? Ate/Lit:4..-40.`,.. ., 4-0-::..1.-.1 '-''.-'-,;-,, '.a.',.;;;,0k.,,,,..•;:/ .-.'.-- 4.."' '-.-- ..1.-,iii-isHt.- --‘..L .5". Z t:rt.4'411`":"E;t: 4;;;LY-c4, ::".. -,..t.yib,.-t Kt-r75... .,4::.-AZ--,,..ACI l,c,,. r:-10 f4,9-----"-- ,... : .7n, ty • AA.,--4,,,-,ail-;-, "-1.-7: '? ' 3r.4. ,,,:, „1-"•-0 wrt, , '-‘''' Y-AAQ,A1- WArts,:- A..sm.:".". Sii d L-4. .1-Za.,:t-i3OZ1f..":.........,---,i)tii,..;',Fi:tp P., '.. 17.1 -:4-...i...74.7--.:y.,:p...'..... k. ,(To.--0;; 1- vri.c',: t. ,,,,..w t...,:-.". ...„,...„. , ,?-.53.....:- .,:i.;,...... .,c,...i.,_.,--- .-.- --. --i--.,-- ,,,T:i „L.-qv-co-4;v i',..3-, ...4,..,' c:-. ,!; . -t4-444 : -t .;,..-‘1,•tit,.-. r-' ,1:4;■4't V,--.. --r,ries, ; 0.- ,.*';,,:,..,..1 r■ -. - ' .-a.,..44--4%41 .. J-_,:vc---,--Igi.:::. I it.,.. la-L. Pi.. 9 ts-K-k.--- -..•gtts,9--,. ....sk,i, ‘_ ,*,,-a•_,. „d„,• •,-. uplink,,‘ , i,!,,64 44, ,, - •..:4.4.1t-t?i,atii2-. •4.131 .-7VL -t-•• " .3 :45 i41,1,.. a, ,,...r.,,,r 4:4'" -Z4-14'11 xl•P 'Al.I Ii- ," '- , ,,,,,,. .i..s.•.".!;,;,,..,-,f),:,;_,,. . , , , Jim. (.._..) "-:, ,.;:yrtis,--- Afi, 4.,.,4i4,.-- ',4.:,_-r.-ri- 1 ' . ,0,-,:tA ..* .8. , .77j44,,, A 1.1 . VI;,/,••A-Hgr., ten: 4'2.. a '15. ,1••••' 1°1,4•2•401.1i%.'•7•?0••41-14.71 '. -• r•■•••.-- • .- - •••• -gfis,- •' ..t.X4r ;',.,•&•-•irtzrit ..-e---Lit, 0•--.1:1.c.',•,.01..-ss•-•.Wc-rt. ••iii;c• -- • ••• la • ' t'S r i'isg -e• •`L 'W./ &rip"'ca MI',4 -•' -, ••••-•• -C- • • . ,,-. ....,..,10 <--°A :` .. -.11.11F :-41;- as-st-4-•sell---ties• •• -i• tip - "'<Az„ . r • '7,4770' Atn hi....:Lr.s..-- "-IA T}.l' a• tel selt,:,7. !•171 tsAi .--',,, ..i.':dart? • ,,,• , -`... • • ' J,-4., - t4137, --“,;ii2;;;;:e:;-rp,,.:14-t fy--ki:Liii,: • :.t}:Pki .e."acW*7-4,;-.,.-:.::7,4t.i,c05.;:.`c.,-,c.0:,,irli,„ ,.-• .2- .; . r;;A•;{ it'Y A,' .”2;e4 ...e.:. '15.:±..■- l'Aiilt._-' _.,e1:14.. 4 li-kg;'j41 '''(:!'4‘'''''r .C:43/43tit ziet-otk ..), fit40rv.:4-,.--,-;.......;...a•pt.--:, -- --,4-.: --- . --. .1-r.2- F,45..j,if 2,....i.g.:.. ,..,);:.:;c441`;:,:',.;:.1.9.;.11.r.C:04:1.t.„.=.t.,444u,i0,....7..; , ' .ja ?i,b,0. E"--40. .',... ,, -i.,:,..,;,, . ..":" V)Is0-2J...V-.:-.,i, -..”. ...Thi.Yr 41:474 ',$: ,t.131,''.4011‘;:lisxr5it:1/4/-.1'...= ifre: , .---;--in, I • : 1,44:i. • '0%. . .kni•Ptm,1„.4s- t.,..?■2.re:2z i I;(2PintliAll' •••••••11-11:r•1:23.61L.:L"Ye•••••••:.•••••••I A...•a•C 1: •2 •-•.1.2-2 Ir'ik;12-S■2 ,F z••.'•.0, , 7"2;1.2.2**4 a"---: . 'sn iz.- -.-&,..-..,.tii-, _.,,,,,,.r.s,-: , ,12.....f 'if-1.%• 2 '' 'If?A ,4/1E, ',14:tit- .I: L'i_tAt- ; •"-‘"; ' --1 iti. 1.i‘ 04-pla4ALAINe'gre'.-,'"a .'4.-.474't Agl ri"Se245-:,,,,A.Ag-.,14)A4VAI•4:--;.-PO,---'744,Ak;-7,;26,-.tie"1---c-ts ":' 4-1 ' . • ••' -nut's •,,--,•,....„....6t1s., -•,;.:41,4‘ 47-.-3,22,-r:raw; ,ysts,-,?-i,-,---:::}Ei•411,1'Sils.,•,-„,itii.•,,,,•,:-..`t•zt, .1/•..I H.':escsc•,••• - , •-- a •,.`",,f5,t,"Iii•*-e.,„75i,t•••7--s•••.',--k•17.•ff ini:ltii•s4-'•t•-'•4;'.0.,:stsg,.4.,11;',',..,` ".;',-;,:‘;:`,:' ,t*,`,`,./;,-,,,z,'-'.:t -a,:-:,,-4....._.',/ " ..-.., , _ . '.-Y541.';-'*'1144;-C'PC'''''%'"■:.'?“11';E-':':• in."7.:1-7;114":"Nti.;4=`,L'','''.:::-.1:,,,:rit: L'L,L L-A''.. - •::,,TS12,: t...--"f-,,,f). V40.!,'',,R% r,:',3/44.1 rj. -7= ;t A- . , ' ,' .• 7.- ' . ' ..-L y..a � 5 s�'��,eri ,q 4r•a�4 tP 47d69 14 S •.a S4:_ �)rr ?�JhY'.'*4 C1C7P,,:it• S7th,..gy,'�� 't„xr`c 4 j--tt.,:w'eo .:-7-e I4t t��l , r r^t,. ' C” , Jt•11 icy w ,, �l.rif c ,.r. t Jj J Y 1 ;�r� t `Jt� t ? J •`'�. �1'f“ Fr. �' 9s�� v 1 h " - 7 f�•;{ . z4, .J t ,1 . A6,t7k 11 `fit ' 4. 5fi -0 . 1 1} qx C !,s .:,e, r st, >�, ' r",jf '�. ,s °ii Irf ^4h�t • 'leJm.• }d`' M•�- t , fsb yls n t Itf%,r�9Ji, a ..•((,,�5 �''ip 'k), ' VY' ,ty,i r„,,L4,,,,,",..,/i14,,� A, 4 rhg;1•� 1Yg;r a F s .. 1a �t- J, c�'M Cif/, e j1 •/44 I iT ; ItY'y,'1`.} s."r� ^ti 11 Ix}crr/;F. Al rt x'345;,1 t ,. t 1sl ., s ,.a,.;14 .n l y b M "`ki s1.it1 �I.. !.1 �' 7y 'e YG,'�4 r 444t"f , 111 '' ° fir' ;11, ti” .�m5,' t, c! JJ .0 -1 " t§ ; �1, 'FJ i v j t '� p 1p ! .a:1 1'NU.o" i YN <C n A' •E�RI y t1 r�'t' ( ®A. a tl-.� Trn�p�x�. t U' u�° .- 'L�'/Liar':r.1114;�' 't� :57 ° 4 `°s/ r 1 ti� �{4 .¢ry, �I; xr.txt,4 r s t a_ ay',f '^ .i4.i r.l Fe ,�'. f "21 t " ' r P>s z t`Ir7 '-�- 4 3' + f I t a -4. a pC`7 r 96'-- b J7 Mt,�..'�'<4 / k Y41X4'�. 1.Y L- c i s rJ.- J 1 ,���] >n �!' � h� `�4 t "C".. ,«�>ri.+ n -n t A r 1 ;Ors ,. Y°1*i ' r pp 4.� ^�¢ as��.}s, .. r Rs 3�e., ' : s 1.a 4. /'t I q x J .d e W I•. ! . k V- "4i `.e t ''laiifg: $og414.1514`. 'A ''M 1,-' -t.rrw,:-., r'.:,,,a1 ° c.v.,",r t�)il er</ 1 t.,ti .44.1; ,.�5 ` t -14nY �u�� k, l"'iy q.27t' 1-: 1j1 J 1� ti rt Tt,7 r.:J -{ f, t't- 4P4 e_01 4 J*...; 1 .- ' /r` �•i 7 '-< r v ,f 4 { TI '''mob {e>.*;g e�.r :ry,1W ,---- ,'"� 4'" r11JIvT, -..wlrn1 ��,t1 1ai ". ? i ;`°`�+' s s /fi 7r . r k5r ' . '"'�'ra ,t.4. t4, t f-S ki .t1 r,,,f. _'l t Y' J :.e(1 _'Fr�u it 'Y / 1/Y ♦ a { tg t. %4 J 1E LS"lr 7 l(ti r.µ o- > • .r Syy '4'.L4 01 to F.K4-,40.��- is rak+�E /i/ f 4 g> :R 'Rs .N L/ t ..,.,,,,.;14,3/..:;„, i..,. .4,,I : h 4 ~ •i J� iI 1 >�t.,ft#I V '% f's, ., J ® . :t.-f:A`w .}T-k k. t J ' ''A. - G.r. r fi �. x?J L �'b'x'Q i yrl n� w b ,' t �Y '�. "ii.a< 2 n'1 q -, ♦rt.' `.1.� i a ✓t v9f y7 > .V e 'VW t' IIWx Rtae Jtv%Q J . yyvy J4', �1 �w I -. ;,: er Cp' ,1� I 3 +f�y``,ir t,ae -'p W y , .i411 � : - 4 1 h-tx ii '�C )-L r i aJkigz. IW '7 , 3 iq " r�ri �': 'tj,V.��i. +T�,�' �.a.ar^y� ? J ' ,� �..• I .} Y'r1 : 4I �[ tt Yl fA 1„r • y., r:1- r a t e.;.. a H.:;' t t 4;41,',..4'-';''''. t . y '.i• f ;" S!n* 1.10) ° k41-% ,, C .'`�.r-;Ir•••* �; `r '� Y. , .+.. s ,rti ,a., 7_°pr '(/y A .`w � ? `s.''.s \..i.,c: "oL:�+','TI.. .f'',. :.r.ja" xrr t i Y/''�; �'k /z °Lo'•ru:. .m ad 1 re••: 4!' .- t = tyy ' r'}ll.Ji Y„ skj fk< 4;.'iY■ c" •,.,.--_-.1..-;" ± 11'a'V' ' • wh.• l��k. ,J '•cif T c Dv. � t ¢C`` ni• F t H �•. ,fir+{ ? 1 � Y _�, a i f F S ' k ' k 5/y�ak yv 4/p I Yt1';•fi. •'F..1. _ 'i! , :J J.v:a.• `�._,. ,tr L 1rorVit`jt'- %... .'1�L 2` ' -.17 p n vFv�'^a Tr,yJP� '=,''.+.5,.; At...ii•'i`5F FF,y 1 t;j. . ott s,,t• -+ PI :. • t yam?.• , fey` �J •idt. � •:8�..':' .}�..:, r .:['r:'•..'�'.-'A•u,...e.?x mr 15 .�p'!":g,.` "4.'W ~x� � i(fl 4:4,,.., l'..,µ •Y S�i� 11 Y� JA, ,4 � i`• I'` it`} \d �.'Z., V" ` _ _ •r + r1 JP i t.><1. ",<F 2: ,t Q . � 4 } {�Ja M ,t ..s . . { 9 a 4g �PId4.f a • Ah'•n . r r 1. n . ' •} vi... I r 4 . ,, • � Ir �11 ` f ti;ae ? . . T r Thz Y 'tir .'. • { vi'r}.A y r 'c`r•°k a �' -e° t '�C 'j s 1 55FB GI ,/�9�. M 1 1# :. iv "2 a,!-: 1171.. Ian_ .r, ,, -0, S_ .t„e - 4" YJ k i.` a ;;;: 1C7'' t $ a C. $.�.- � _.n.� .fin ..pJ�. �`., ., r�'•r r � ,•-. � 11 tr5'"•W,'a�' �',kKT�t �4a-1.4;Y� x- PJ � 1' 'jam: '1:... 'r _ ®i ltz,? •;`M 51' A. w iS. � § x r YL u IJ t 1 l Y an Y� 1 y 1 ®ti. .lysa} pp s S, I E �I• ✓• .® QQ ®. fI .-.%*: ',M1 t ,d 1,',,ro:R 2 k •® : My 'O t i . i r� t e L1 :C"d�' ,uu••�� ca d I ; a- 14 ::x,? c.: " . 9 c t r''■ 5 0 L" i, 1 , ., v�f r r.; S p���5 e ¢ S 0 . 0 0 0 CD 0 0 CD 0 0 CD 0 CD . . 4.) 0 N CD 0 CD 0 Na en. as) Lai Cy9: 6 cr 6 LS az ces 0.1 inti Lo L0 2 8 Firs) v:i A 0 1:3 LS en' r.i. r\i" rat iri 174, = -rdi- rtiz CO kri in- CUD •(.7) 06 cn (an V) E ro WI CD gEn rai " u.) g E .... 'Eta C 18`fteattift. cy) v) ro c) co C 0 o Lins CD 171) szz eL FEE-3 CD U) 0 (0 I. Usi (i) u a ..2_,) o) 3... Na 0 cp a) (o U II Ea U Li ( ) Ili Qt) isia C V) aznal T) ru 0 r 1 -0 0 IV rt3 C Cc ‘,... 0 0 = C 4J 1-- 1— 0- coa) 1._ .... LL u) c .6_, n 4.0 m o .`u a) 4.) I- lb ® ® 0 O. O ® ® O C 0 O 0: O � : ® In O Q O' al cii) '' l N' in z 0 •©6 (...) . . cn U .> m . • cn U L • wan cv 03 v, Ea_ N cn ,v na s. it 0 p ' , 5 I - % - 0 , UJ W a- S • 6 ci c .c > NED cu a) L N c = co � v >, •— V O .® a) V dl (/) CD a) C cn en- = L C en Sac W •Cu O -0 a) a) ra . ;Li.; LL ona 4. I. C � � L � �j�j = � v) Oa) rvO c p c- n U 'Ql O6 �a) o_ c (an ellinj _c a) n LE •�? c cn O V — E = cu > .4-z;(n uV O C a-) .0 c Quay C v) (� D c a) . a) a) O .- O a C C co 0 N2 � � o nS Era L O' O C U LIEn 'gy p -c = rvC � a) ® ro a) -�' a) 208 02E ry • ' fu CC v a) s - co C "A.s� a) e.�. cn a) o ' Q 0 Q a) o a Q,, ' ��i V (!) to v) I-- Q 0 5 y • U (n 0 P- o — > s. v) v I. C ,p O ca ru ® C 0 II as) O �_� ; 00) 0 a) _ a) a) o it' C E '� O a °z , V a v) cv ,30 . o >. a oz$ 0 ra o CU L.-- L.L Q s 0 U (a s C ® i o = = a a) a 0 � U) ca N c a ELI > u • ce = w = a gri N M d" Ln to f Ca:•0 01 ® V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a_ a. a_ CI a_ a_ a_ WA CI) CU CU CD sa) CP CD CD CL) O O ,-1 1-1 N Vi o0 0 0 o0 0 UT) Q) Ni - N N N ON U g > 03 Cl. 1/411 Q ca 2 a) cn ® ® a N LPL nri E ,,) (0 . ... •O t 2 4.) Itnan I . z ® o_ .I C co ce O a) n LL E CA 0 C 5n — L. V) (/) •O CD CO C a) °' c 4' 0 cri cun) ce.re i a u E , R, -.E. c a cc a 0 s L f\ a ® o O to v U cn, 0 'o C V cu ( a) O V U O 0 > E . Ein & 'a ru U t Q Q x, a a c •2 %vi) C a - a • 4_,J 0 0 O Q O o o 8 o o o , ® o 0 0 � �afr ppe �e o 0 c 0 ®S ® or ® . r ; O ;; O 0 ,e ko Ism can C o, a) rya fe ® top U 1:3 " to c o n. i i a i •-L. c =CLal' (7; N Q u ) , V O d.PT w (f) p O O an 1-- ;a) 2 7 cn ro .- (1:3 < fa. -0 0 S:.) 10 a Cu- CD O O '- O O oC a U) 2 o- O 5 ,fr, A A A A A A A • Ft P/ 4 '-9.Q yyy '8 ...-,-.-> �, Sy k$ -...,,....,7,1•5.t,' ¢ yt.„ r�ffa" �„ r'1W',}y 1i41e rr "'•l i +f&'.1:� J3 t'I>� 'i,' yrr f',;:. ,j$ , •i a is 1 T •by . (- a.f A''la r T2 'a ',''`f,� .•� + Y, s r 1 ,4:1;•:t't :r-e,"..,...•...: V J iyy p T uii 1 e h x r -t 6r G,, - ,a > k� ,:.x • "n LR"Hi�1•'� a.'C, uQrjj+i•,iy SP �1b3Nl , a� i(Y�K r 'tyt r dS, a A 1-:CK aC�6 $ i i rl � , ,1=-4,,,'.,.,;....;4,-;)in. a s .,• �S `b. ,+ *%,. r , v 1 ,r yJ a Stl l �r*1t a l"- r s �. .* r% ' ^i R,. ' '' 1Y -s'h": ,f e 4 c m`f S1, le b )y'}"� a ) y „'Ijii zc Lr . Rd• , x"x t.,, r n r°' * r �y, ��all�i �-�: r 'u r+a a.» � �',h'�- � �.R ra .cy, 9r ,e E,'• , � F , �" ,� �,_ rl ��x}4;.1 :J ,,1t #a v y j d ' & �' i )• ;:i ss niro� s :,, 4 a r� 1 '" - {. a'1 0 { eat ' r '• ; z ,t•' _3 Tr f •To Y 1 i. +f n1 ti, .4Y' .�:Q>ki' f vi y,y. '�7x d i�' i 1(' y, yy� '( � y1 s A. 5' ! L I� 'I ..1+ a. �,l t' �� 34:;:t/ 1 'AI N� i ri`p�t ]N T�t e 1 k\ -.Y = [ by �! k a !o k 77 f A. rt z i, 8, 1 '� a� � o- �� i>�� p76 � ydy�4`ril ua �:5 { .I a � -s s�'Xr a 1 .r 7, i Yb r .,. Y r Y�tr. ir' £1N u l ',1 , al , }-;� gq "ft dire ,: t1,, r*". rPz rr�'� n 4 ) , .,, f Y n ) ! r '' i'. tR Y'� ®a4=1',Y I "` s d/ 'Yj � J7' Uz �i°S.' � ru'�drr••,..u'/ 71 tl '•<'p L� a�r y v.. i nr v ;.r t y •l • •kit. t ■■®������''.. S 9 '�i I4-1 -�(,ti : r is t t, , Sh4 n ♦ f,� A4' it Kig ,• h.. 1 'S ; r .`la '„{' ,i i kt(i, ,-4 ,r'yat�t'r°: 1 l,Ae 14, ' .t^ ..,t Y, q!k y d ) [ .e '�, , i i.,r sty l�.'^ 2 `.}.. to a!;!: i y f'- fy„.':1{i', t„ '1K f,,,. I ., +ate •i+X, 'kJ .t,,..?::,n 1'.ti-,' rq ..n ' ° ' r �r„s q�, Y ys ~J.[+ k ,>f c d .y�4 , 49 �utk �Sr ;' r r �i #'�. ii,-y, t ri 5 +q`f••Yi iii >• �k, i v e: oiv s 9` P & P,. . A s ¢` it :' it' • .r5:, .y ,1 n 1 `F >K: J 'J r® . day pi.. I 1 r t hd t .fF'*1Y � fFsy 4' •' d ' w 2 h^.. bj* s \&j swi^� ' *7 r'R:n r ;in . ', ea-{ d'�"Gd s • �y 5��v+�Y .. ! t )1 r.� ) . ��v t� Y !. r,,'`•.l, Ga M'„'1-t t`( ,ir 1,43. t e fy` ?,...L s 5'F,r' ,®r, , 1i o { a4 ' su ir{'”} g4:; aYi*'£,if`,rA r}• ;# - +n:• .. :. �a4:_.,#, •-. ":\ xy �. :ekT!1# 3 r a Sr `� t^ � ,nxj, ' N'. v s e _>. a .. � ! :Ir r Y15 " :cti ', • l "``Y VM s• r t �Y teQ� 6 vn: '3 ' r.i" , ] ! v ya r � �,q ti s�•--% t`i.i t b' tr••`sk a - Xu 'Y hih� ; ,fit ® N 1 •, " ,1 "'J.1 T/ '[! y 1' Y��x g. :.x�[r• 14 •i• � 1 ��IIr.,1} � '4, S { •L �_ [ 4t 11.;� 'n;$ s` .', rrG ,1 i• : A • 1J:S' rl r _ 1 s. � -t, ' r, - • }� �' 1 1.' �@ rc;,;°N t�S.,i't�-.: ? .s , '!. :: t'-..' -.a�s....V'''.,ki! e.O1 fy'?y c r _ '�1• ._,. .. ,Y.. 9... ... • .• i.. :. .- :� :fin r '`,� �� �w CO ^...Y?'.�TS, '�["a'. 'S 1.•... . ....n -w ... . . -..`:' is `:��Il:''� 1�O Gi'i� '1r�. t. . : . ... .:.:... :.. k 1 r; /q� Iw .i „., . . : rat-A,�1[. , .. ... . ... . i-.J‘-'41541-1.0'1.• ,;c- .. -'L.: - - :'a+:i i :'. r' :.W t , '.-:"fa6cia;, t c sff ii fir , .w., .:... ^t ... . .. r,•:' �.. M't..•.. f .1t,y .� -1.`SS-,_!a;I .�P9 r <a.A",1'+y,� .. ZfY m !S ,�A 3`I "��'�`* ""1 -'''.',";,._:s.-f.",•:,,:',, CFO t a - , q I . I JA'' l: �l yrlY 4 i ,.�tl G +�, :t r�Y w a y� n.'e'''''.71'''A dy tl ti .71:a.,:. �� - i. ,Y .. �' . Y ELI a(f41k } ..'T fo C., '�"`.e lL ,.. a , , " 1 r a * " ,� Ta -'-.4 lA'21 ® 1-71;.:::,•:;......'.....--..,:., . 0 L b F ., V 4 fl a ®:.• .r ..'r� �' ;! a J ., p� I x, ae ]1 y STS 'I'' �' `war S'. ., t3r'gr J'1 v,'I' - ,Z^., . na r:Gf"`L vc` '.t f •' 11 ,..-...-471. ..` ! -r,l = A `• ..v+}d x< ^ . °•+' C 44 •4- ,:.... • lb M d" 1 r Co IN M Li) 00 71° T-I Tel 0 0 LI) 00 me9 •473 LAY: CO M' N L�f) HMO N ,--I C (D < N O O n Ll % M co 041 a rsta, NI' 1/46 (Nr 1-1.4.1 0 wita a) cp -EA- irci 0 al U at . ..„ ...in . .� a) .}.., .c sLi;Inicd ist s 4-1' c al) a ECC2 (t3 ° cp 2 C ••I f c, : El m. O O O O a 4. N La ` 0 0 n 0 � 0 0 - :.. ..% t 2% — z% .B.% 4.0 0 (0 " 0 le rifts O O O O O O O O O O. O . O . O O o 0 0 0 ® o 0 M �' .1.--1 M a = a C U E a O C a) - -) V c t2- U ro N c cO a E reatteaft% ,: U ro c cB O N = atej -kJ Q • a CU -� O -. O o fri E ' 4. :: ,, ,c -6J 03 acc u ,.. — -I—, ry t1) ti L C U ro V .� a" Or c ,_ le fa fa 0 . 0 -0 trj 0 0 0 0 0 CD Co 0 0 (r) 4908888828ga 4„„cso fp u ... .. b. .. ... o , 2:3 0 0 8 8. 0 0 g Lua 0 • -Fn .1-cD 00 i—i co co co c 41- Lo 0 "" 11■11 l'■ ••• to. sis. 00 cu Li w o Lin c• cci = NI 47r 1-1 te- ... rirmi 4=1 L._ -Em- 4-, la ro ctt , tin c ilk Sc 0 U 0 'a c •0 0 00 in in 00 IA 7 1210 12 ralrall CO Cr N. In In N. en re) in a) =i—E) to 47_1- cc 1-1 LO cre ri < Las) E (± C\F 0 >44 wia . 1_, tycu IN ca.) a) a) re re _ S MICIIMIIMIll CID Smm fri C to cn ro c ci_ 0 ss mr.„. co ea 0 0 nic=s0 E et a a3 Eft, 4-• c c — 0 ro- .4,r ntsti ass, 0 ft, rt 0 Li_ 0 0 1 5 Ce 0 V) U •.....7 1..1. 11.1 1.6... CL 0 0 _c 0 >3/40 0 c.ncram t sa% 2 a% CU Ig % U U Z 0 > 0 C.5 is. Ini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O. 0 O O 0 lib r O ® O 0 O O O ti lan a c O O O in N 0 O 1' N c0 0 N _ ( CO N c N -E ,r-1 M A- C Ln CO 00 r 'i N. M Ln N p t. M Eo co 0 1-i co M M -Le- aJ' in Lfl N N C1 11145 01 W °® lfl �" N f13 -+. Lo ,-I 1 . 1 Q1 ® Mt � in co vm, °V' C ott 00 ,- 1 lD LO CU 0 clic er' icr' Nr L; N Lr r t 1 _,' . in C W O O O O O 0 • O , O O O' O O O C & O O O O O O 'V 0 C. 0 0 0 O O (. Lh O U. O O 1n • ® < u N O- O Q O N nt a.ra R ko d" N Cr) *A-Cn CD r0 L N 00 Cn 0 Cn 0 0 CI Cn Cn � 1 C l e) (1 3 E E co 0 ¼ C O O ‘0 6 000 i- n" LL TA 0 9 C) cm 0) a rci ■ I,- rac NI 8 4.) 4,) 4_1 NI NI % 1.1 co ui) c I lala rn 1:t * * C 76 en wo * S S its S _ a a a c 0 C (1) : -se ra fr3 r- ro :4= 0 4.-• ‘s c I— I-- (1) H 16 m , ris) `I° c fo name ra • fa 4 I a) WO 7:3 E -P C cc ezzo E -i= co 0 (A ro e - a Cc 2 76 - o , 0 c 0• 0 co 0 u , u < v) u.... le H ..; ,, to Di cn al 0) DI 0::• zzo EEEE Eo 0 co c• CD 00 a , N C ro Diaz.. 1 A a , I 1 II Ciliia 06 Li 0 01 C CO IP Li Ina Leo OC/ a = Les C CI) = . C (10 4.1 DI Cn -C3 a U H .r..... ro cu (f) C 1.. Ln II Nil= a) - 0 0 0 (0%-is turo cu u a X on) sa.. CT) LLI , ro a) cu wiri asjscil nal 4 C C CP a) ta4\ '17' i) n n C • u) 0 ( 4,3,04; ,!,, ro cu U Lo ,t, oi a) U) yi (I) C t? C 02) CD r0 env" U (U CU —in a) a- Cs) U (1) n 1— ... O 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 Cs 0 0 ® 0 0 o O 0 N VD N, ri N 01 Cr N N CA 01 Ln N 1/40 O1 1-.1 M et M` N O Ln LO 0® d° . .. Nom- Ni 1- M t-i ,--1 ,- 4 1-1 - ri W 0 O C .6' u O C c O • .�.., °� C aJ nC, O E ® ® W a Q w a. x > ca O W O Q , O. !f12. cu E E 0- 'ale) (63 C 0 cam!') O Co ro E • rann , ev) -a L )% u" O E s q °� (/) .4.• LL 2 v) .O ( ) i V C i O O ch fo C U) C lb i�. O .> I E O ,> O U EC F- LEI, LU ® I® r� - o 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 in rot_O 0 0 O CD M 00 Ol o, ual an M f 4;01- en24 asims; ra) u) a) ® a E w U 0 . aJ a 4-2 f LL 521 a O a) ° V/ o \� C • ® C D) o •c 0 CD w co-C oI- c) E f c o " c U. E E _ Q V •E d) o 92 Lin ; N cO 4) > N .t ' ' ® o N > o 3 U U Et A A A A A A A a 110 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 I O O O O O CU CD Lo O 0 CO in m B U) U) U) in > O co L � LL O O C Q) a) CI) S o C ro . �. � 1_15 o v A Li v)L V / v)v V.. V / v cn U N C xJ . ro 4_, O . V 0 4 ii 2 ro x r6 -I-) •C Q -`� la= nimaj ro +-, C C cn ra rd = - a: cc' W tai •- ib co ...., w a 0 E. U _9 0 Y Fri 1 F ' lb CD CD 0 0 - CD 0 0 0 CD CD 0 CD LI) 1- Lo LS N cp co 1-4 N rn al Ln v) ai 4A- T.4-. 73 u Ni- c c = ft3 es. r-I LL ......., c CCI 6 To 03 cp 4., =II MO Li is. 4.-; n u 4-, D 4 ) r0 = = -o > Dcu cr a) = cu 0c ' = U u c = ). r ro < C • II =Ma < 8 03 cm'n ,4 ro ce E 76 E n co ' Li, 0 ro a) v.) v) 4i CL LL I I , . . . ' S >44 rD . . Li 4.J. . rt3 C ce 0 0 a3 °) al s- in . T--4 co ' I Si ' . • . . Oi C _C . = 0 Ln U • ID H.;t ..... ..... u 4--J 0- E .0 a s • . 0 , u a, , C C . .,.-, - • u). . (n co :..., .. ,,c4, • ,..i. ..:, . . :4- . - • . . ATTACHMENT #9 CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO POTTER VALLEY RE: ACQUISITION OF POTTER VALLEY PROJECT .Thomas Hargis m: John Olaf Nelson[)onolaf @home.com] Tuesday, May,30, 2000 1002 AM . Att Bolli; Chris'DeGabriele; Roberta Stead; Gaffney Joe;:•Steve Simmons; Tom Hargis; Ron Theisen':Dana'Roxon; Toni'Bertolero;'.Matt Mullan;;Randy Poole; Pamela Jeane; Miles Ferris; VirginiaPorter; George Roberts; Al 13andut Subject: Important NOTICE I am informed that comment letters to CPUC re EIR on PG&E's proposal to divest need td be received by CPUC by June 1st, not just posted by June 1st. They will take faxes and e-mail's: Please fax or e-mail your response to. CPUC in order to beat the June 1 deadline. The correct addresses are: e-mail: cpuc-paehydro @pamsf.com the fax is: 415-291-8943 As before, address them as follows; Mr Bruce Kaneshiro CPUC EIR Project Manager c/o Public Affairs Management 101 The Embarcadero, Suite 210 • San Francisco, CA 94105 Re: Notice of Proposed EIR on Application 99-09-053. Application to Parket Value Hydroelectric .Generating Plants and Related: Assets Pursuant ublic Utilities code Sections 367 (b) and 851. nks John Olaf Nelson • • • • • • • • 1 • Thomas Hargis From: John Olaf Nelson Donolaf @home tom] Sent: Tuesday May 30, 2000 1:14 PM Ash To Art Bolli, Chris DeGabnele Roberta:Stead;,Gaffney, Joe; Steve.Simmons; Tom Hargis; Ron Theisen; Dana Roxon;'Toni Bertole`ro; Matt Mullen; Randy Poole; Pamela Jeane; Miles Ferris Virginia Porter; George Roberts;AI-Bandur Cc: Golfs; Jill; Keene, Bill; Shupe, Steve Subject: Posting Let to CPUC by June 1 is OK Latest I just received message from a Ms Halimah Andersen of the CPUC, Office of Public Affairs and she said the CPUC would accept comments on the NOP of EIR of PG&E'sproposal to divest Potter Valley Proj (and others) if they have a June i, 2000 post mark. Best JON • • 1 • Thomas Hargis From: John Olaf Nelson.Ubnolaf @home.com] t: Tuesday May 30, 2000 11:34 AM Art Bolli Chris DeGabnele Roberta;Stead Gaffney Joe; SteverSimmons, Tom Hargis; Ron Theisen; Dana'Roxon, Toni Bertolero; Matt Mullari Randy Poole; Pamela Jeane; Miles Ferris; Virginia Porter, George Roberts; Al Bandur Cc: Golfs, Jill; Keene,.Bill; Shupe, Steve Subject: Agency Testimony to CPUC Agency'March 2 Testimony toe.. Friday I e-mailed you a packet of information on the Potter Valley Project. At that time I was missing electronic copy of -Attachment 3 with was Bob Beach's testimony to the CPUC on March 2, 2000 on behalf of the Agency. I now have that and it is being sent to you in the attached file. Best 30N • • 1 • 1 • I. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY 0 One of the hydroelectric projects Pacific Gas and ElectricCompany.("PG&E") proposes to sell is the Potter Valley Project{"PVP"). For almost one hundred years,the PVP has been providing significant water supply benefits to Mendocino, Sonoma. and Marin Counties.[ This testimony is presented on behalf of the.Sonoma County Water Agency ("SCWA"), one of the public entities whose water supply is dependents upon the PVP. SCWA is the primary provider of potable water for about 350,000 people in Sonoma County and northern Mann County.2 SCWA also provides a supplemental water supply to another170,000 people in the Marin Municipal Water District service area. This testimony has three'putposes. .First, the testimony provides background information on SCWA and its interests in the PVP,. Second, the testimony explains how the PVP is critical to the ' economic well-being of Mendocino; Sonoma, and Marin'.Counties.3 Third, the testimony explains why the PVP is not an appropriate candidate for decommissioning. ,Attachment A to this Testimony sets forth the qualifications of its sponsor,.Robert F. Beach. II. OVERVIEW OF SCWA AND ITS INTERESTS IN THE PVP A. SCWA andIts Mission SCWA is a-special district created by the State'Legislature to act as the local sponsor of two federal flood control and water supply,projects in the Russian River region, known collectively as the "Russian River Project"?. (See Stats. 1949. Chapter 994 as amended).•As described below,the PVP Collectively, the Counties are referred to:as the North Bay Region. 2 SCWA furnishes potable.water to the cities of Santa Rosa. Petaluma, Rohnert Park,Cotati and Sonoma.and to the North Marin. Valleyof the Moon and Forestville Water Districts. SCWA also furnishes potable water to fieseveral private water companies. 3 North Bay Region, as used in this testimony, means Mendocino. Sonoma, and Marin Counties. is a major component oftthe Russian River Project and has a direct impact on SC WA's ability to carry outits water supply duties: The Russian River Project consists of Coyote Valley Darn,which created Lake,Mendocino, on the East Fork Russian River in Mendocino County,and Warm Springs Dam,which created Lake Sonoma,on Dry Creek,a Russian River tributary in Sonoma County. These dams were constructed and are owned and operated by the United'States Army Corps of Engineers. Some of the water stored behind Coyote Dam in Lake Mendocino originates in the Eel'River watershed and is diverted by PG&E from'the'Eel'River through a transbasin tunnel into the East Fork Russian River at PG&E's Potter Valley powerhouse. PG&E's Potter Valley'facilities have been diverting Eel!River water into the Russian;River since 1908, under a Federal,Power Act license.' Between 1922 and 1992, the PVP has annually diverted an average of about 159,000;acre feet of water from the Eel River into the Russian River. Attachment C shows the Russian River water system, from PG&E's Eel River diversions into the East Fork Russian River'at Potter Valley to SCWA's Marin County customers. Attachment C also shows SC WA's transmission system. SC WA exercises its water supply function in two principal ways. First,it owns and operates a water transmission system located in Sonoma,County that delivers potable water to public and private customers in Sonoma and Marin Counties. Attachment D shows the service areas of SCWA's transmission system customers. SC WA is currently obligated to deliver about 75,000 acre feet of water per year to its customers.' Second, SCWA regulates the flow of the Russian.River for • Potter Valley diversions began with construction of Cape Horn Dam. Construction in 1921. ofa second dam. Scott Dam, formed Lake Pillsbury^and allowed•diversions of stored water. See Attachment B for a history of Russian River water facilities. 5 SCWA has approved a project that would increase its annual deliveries to 101,000 acre feet per • the benefit of agricultural, municipal and instream uses in Mendocino and,Sonoma Counties and illimunicipal uses in Marin County" .6 . B. Interest of SCWA and the North BayRegion in;the PVP Much of the North Bay Region depends on continued PVP diversions,for a water supply. This region that depends on the PVP includes the service areas of several public water agencies: SC WA, including its Marin County public agency customers,shown'on Attachment D;Potter Valley Irrigation District("PVID"),(which serves an agricultural valley in Mendocino County where the Eel River diversions enter the East Fork Russian River); Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation,Improvement District ("MCID"), which serves, generally, the agricultural and region below Coyote Dam in Mendocino County and;the City of Ukiah service area; and the Redwood Valley Water District ("RVWD") north of Ukiah. The region also includes Sonoma County's Alexander Valley,,an agricultural area not currently served by any public water agency, which also depends on the.PVP for its water supply.. The Alexander Valley area is the portion of the Russian River Valley in Sonoma County between Cloverdale and Healdsburg and is primarily vineyards. 6 This function is carried out pursuant to a 1986 decision of the.Califomia Water Resources Control Board. Dec. 1610, adopted April 17,_1986. This decision amends SCWA's water"tights perrnits and establishes . criteria for coordinating the operation;of the two federal projects. SOYA controls the water supply storage space of these projects under contracts with the'United States Government. 1111 . 3 • Each of these areas developed in dependence on continued PVP diversions.? The PVID region,MCID and Redwood Valley Region,and Alexander Valley region would be immediately and directly impacted by a loss of PVP diversions. These impacts are discussed in'Section:III below., There would also be an adverse water supply impact on SCWA's transmission system.customers. In • addition, SCWA would be affected because;Sonoma County is the economic center of the region and impacts felt in the region would ripple throughout Sonoma County. III. THE POTTER,VALLEY PROJECT IS CRITICAL TO THE ECONOMY OF THE NORTH BAY REGION. The PVP supports an agricultural economy that produces more than$250,000,000worth`of crops each year. •The>agricultural value of the PVP can be assessed for each.of three regions of the North Bay Region: the Potter Valley and'immediately adjacent Lake Mendocino`region;th •Upper Russian River and Redwood Valley region; ,and the Alexander Valley region. The PVP also • provides water for'instream-flows in the Russian River in the summer. These instream.flows provide significant economic and aesthetic valueto the region. A. The Potter Valley and Adjacent Lake'Mendocino'Region - Virtually all of the water used in Potter Valley and the area immediately adjacent to Lake Mendocino is dependent on Eel River diversions made by the PVP. This area is served by, the PVID. Table I lists the crops'grown and their distribution within this area. The total value of the annual agricultural production::exceeds $28.7 million. The history of diversions and local development in reliance on continued diversions is discussed',further • in Attachment B. di • 4 • • TABLE 1 CROP TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION;WITHIN THE ,POTTER VALLEY ANT-LAKE:-MENDOCINO AREA IN MENDOCIN&COUNTY8 • Crop Acres - Yield . " `,Price Total Type Planted Units/Acre 5/Unit Value wine grapes 3,300 5.5 tons $1,3947° $25,301,100 pears 400 20.0 tons $ 305 $ 2,440,000 hay 1,500 5.0 tons $ 120 S 900,000 pasture 500 9.0 AUM9 $ 18 -$ 81,000 other crops 300 N/A N/A N/A • • ' B. Upper Russian River and Redwood Valley Region. A large part of the water that ts•used'in the Upper Russian River and Redwood Valley, which includes the area around and south of Ukiah, also depends on Eel River:diversions made by the PVP. This area is served by MCID and PVID. Table 2 lists the crops grown and their distribution within this upper Russian River region. The total value of the annual agricultural production in this area exceeds $99.8 million. . s Agricultural crop types and distribution among. he three areas in-the-Russian River basin above the Dry Creek confluence are shown in Tables 1, 2"and 3. The econornic',values iitthese tables-(except as footnoted) are taken from Table 4.4-10 of the draft environmental'impact statement("DEIS") on alternative minimum stream flows for the PVP issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission("FERC") in February 1999. FERC, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Protection ands Maintenance Of Fishery Resources At The Potter Valley Project, FERC.Project No. 77-1'1'0, FERC/EIS-0119D, February 1999. 9 Animal Unit Month. An'animal unit month is pasture sufficient to support one cow grazing for one month. ° illThe wine grapes value oI$1;394/ton was furnished by David,Bengston; Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner, in.the 1998'Mendocino County.Agricultural Production Report. 5 • TABLE 2 CROP TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE.UPPER RUSSIAN RIVER VALLEY AND RED WOOD`VALLEY'RE GI ON IN MENDOCINO COUNTY8 Hydrologic Crop Acres Yield Price Total Subunit Type. Planted Units/Acre S/Uhit Value Upper wine grapes 10,683 5:5 tons $1,39411 $81,906.560 Russian pears 2.891 10.0 tons $ 305 .$17,635,100 River and hay 100 .5.0 tons $ 120 $ 60;OOQ Redwood pasture 1,025 9.OAUM $ 18 $ 166;050 Valley other crops 398 N/A N/A N/A C. Alexander Valley A significant portion of the water used.in 'the middle Russian River area, known as the di Valley, is also dependent on PG&E's Eel River diversions. Table 3`liststhe crops grown and their distribution within the Alexander Valley region. The total value of;the annual agricultural. • production exceeds $124.0 million. // // // // // // The wine grapes value of 51;846/ton was furnished by Pierre Gadd, Sonoma County Chief Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, in the 1998 Sonoma County Agricultural Production Report. 6 • TABLE 3 CROP TYPES ANDIMSTRIBUTIONWITHIN THE ALEXANDER VALLEY REGION IN'SONOIC4A COUNTY8 Crop Acres Yield Price Total Type Planted Units/Acre S/Unit Value wine grapes 12,130 5.5 tons $1,846 $125,155,890 hay/oats 15 5.0 tons • $ 66 $ 4,950 pasture 263 16.0 AUM $ 15 $ 63,120 vegetables 15 N/A N/A - N/A apples 30 30.0 tons . $ '170 $ 153,000 other trees 305 - 2.0 tons $1,095 $ 665,760 other crops 37 N/A N/A N/A. D. Sonoma County Recreation and SCWA Transmission System Service Area In addition to the economic benefits described above that the PVP provides to Sonoma and Mendocino County agriculture, the PVP also supplies economic benefits to Sonoma and Marin A County urban areas. SCWA transmission system customers rely primarily on Warm Springs Dam for their water supply2. However some of the Eel River water diverted by the PVP is used within - SC WA's service area. In addition,the Russian River,augmented by Eel River diversions,provides significant aesthetic benefits to the region. Eel River diversions'provide the water to support the Russian River's summer flow. This summer flow supports a wide variety of summer recreation activities, including fishing, camping, boating and swimming. No attempt has been made to quantify precisely the economic impact on the North Bay Region which would result from the loss of the PVP water supply if the PVP weite decommissioned. 'Warm Springs Dam releases.reach the'Russian River at its confluence with Drv.Creeksouth,of the City of Healdsburg. Absent a change in SCWA's water rights. these releases would have to be increased to makeup any loss in PVP diversions,thus affecting SC WA's ability to serve its transmission system customers. Warm 1110 7 However, based on the information contained in Tables 1 through 3, itlis apparent that the loss,of agricultural production and the additional losses associated with the diminished municipal water supply13 would be enormous. Additional losses would occur in recreation and tourism, and in reduced electrical energy production at both.the.Potter Valley powerhouse and at the City of Ukiah's power plant'atCoyote-Dam. These losses would translate into substantial indirect:impacts on the regional econemy.14 IV. THE PVP IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE FOR DECOMMISSIONING - The Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge, dated January 13,2000,states that the Commission will consider"decommissioning of facilities that are uneconomic to run on a stand-alone basis or where environmental damages of a change in ownership outweigh the'energy-associated econorriic benefits" in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") phase as Well as the-divestiture phase of this proceeding. In addition, one party yhas suggested that the PVP"could be decommissioned to restore critical`spawning and rearing habitat for [fisheries] now on the brink of extinction."15 This section describes why decommissioning is not appropriate for the PVP. The,Commission should not consider decommissioning because the PVP is an economic project. Moreover, the PVP has not caused the decline in Eel River fishery and decommissioning Springs Dam releases could not, however, make up any loss in the Russian River above Healdsburg. The Russian River also provides a municipal water supply in the Ukiah.Cloverdale and Healdsburg,areas. in addition to the supply provided through SCWA's transmission system. Hydrologic,modeling,water,rights allocation modeling,and economic modeling using an input-output model would be needed to rigorously define the direct and multiplier, or '`ripple" effects of such a loss of water supply. ' Friends of the Eel.River, et al., Motion to Intervene, filed November 28, 1999, page 13, lines 25-26. " s would not restore lost fisheries. finally, th e,Federal Energy,Regulatory' Commission ("FERC") currently is considering alternatives for modifying PVP operations..to improve Eel River fishery conditions. A. The PVP is an Economic Project. The PVP's enormous economic:benefits which accrue to the North Bay Region incidentally to the operation of the Potter Vall'cyProject'are described above: However, the PVP also is viable - from an electric power generation standpoint alone, when annual operation and maintenance costs are compared to revenue&- In its annual reports to the Commission and to FERC,PG&E has disclosed the operation and maintenance costs for the PVP listed in Table 4 below. TABLE 4 • POTTER VALLEY PROJECT . . ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 1995— 1998 YEAR OPERATION MAINTENANCE TOTAL 1995 $605,105 5166;796 - $ 771.900 1996 704,632 281,444 986.076 1997 638,761 216,026 854,787 1998 815;739 504,812 1,320,551 1999 691,309 292;270 983,579 Based upon the analysis contained in Attachment E, annual revenue from PVP power sales could be expected to be $ peryear, plus any revenue received from the sale of ancillary services. This estimate assumes thatfuhire Ed River releases for fish down the Eel River will be increased by FERC to those recotitinended by the U. S. Department of the Interior and. the National Marine iiiiFisheries Service("NMFS")in the proceeding pending before FERC,which is discussed below. The 9 . actual power sale revenue received by PG&E,during the first 22 months since the California Power Exchange has been active; is $. This is an annual revenue of$. While the value of the PVP is obviously far lower than its December 31, 1998,reported book' value of$23,441,550; on a forward-looking basis the project is economic and can be expected to produce-revenues which exceed expenses by an.. B. The PVP Has Not Caused the Decline of the Eel River Fishery. The Eel.River;"supports three fish species that have been designated "threatened"under the federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA") or are candidates for such designation--.chinook, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. The PVP has not caused the decline in these fish populations nor will decommissioning the PVP restore these:fish populations. Decisions to list Eel River fish species under the ESA are made by NMFS. NMFS publishes notices in the Federal Register documenting its decisions. The Federal Register notices regarding • Eel River fish species identify many contributing factors, past and present, that have led to the decline of the Eel River'fish. While the presence of hydroelectric projects within the region is identified as one potential contributing factor, it is certainly not the sole cause of the decline nor necessarily even one of the major factors contributing to the decline_ Factors listed by NMFS include habitat degradation, water diversions, harvest, artificial propagation (fish hatcheries), drought, floods, and poor ocean conditions. Attachment F summarizes the several Federal Register publications relating to the decline and restoration of the Eel River fish populations. // // • 10 • C. FERC Currently is Considering Modifications'to PVP Operations to Improve Conditions for the Eel River"Fishery. The quantity of water PG&E diverts from the Eel River each year is affected by releases it must make to maintain the Eel River fishery. The required fishery release schedule is included in PG&E's FERC license. In 1983, FERC issued PG&E a new license16 which required PG&E to conduct a ten-year monitoring study of the effects of PVP operations on downstream fish resources (in the Eel River). In 1988,after the study was completed and its results analyzed;PG&E submitted an application to FERC to ,modify its federal license to improve Eel River fishery conditions. PG&E's application was supported by the California Department of Fish and Game, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NMFS. Numerous entities. including NMFS and SCWA, are currently participating in the resulting FERC proceeding. (Project 77-1`10) In 1998, FERC issued a draft ' Environmental Impact Statement to analyze PG&E's proposal and three alternative proposals (including one prepared by SCWA). NMFS and FERC are currently debating whether PG&E's proposed modifications will jeopardize the existence of listed Eel.River fishery.'? Given the ongoing and active federal proceeding, the Commission should not use the divestiture proceeding as the forum for trying to resolve the debate over the health of the Eel River fishery. // // // 16 PG&E's FERC license will expire in 2022. On January 14, 2000; NMFS issued a draft biological opinion proposing an alternative flow schedule not Sconsidered in the. Draft ES. FERC's February 11, 2000, response took issue with NMFS draft analysis. NMFS is expected to issue a final biological opinion in March. ii V. THE CQMMISSION-SHOULD ENSURE THAT ANY PVP DIVESTITURE DOES NOT PRECLUDE PUBLIC AGENCY>ACQUISITION.AND THAT THE IMPACTS OF ALL OWNERSHIP ALTERNATIVES ARE ANALYZED FULLY UNDER CEQA. A. Public Agency Acquisition Public agencies will already be at a disadvantage in pursuing acquisition of PG&E's hydroelectric facilities because of the lead time required to secure financing. In addition to disadvantages attributed to financing,public agencies must also ensure that they comply with CEQA when making;decisions about purchasing a hydroelectric facility. Unless the Commission's EIR is adequate for these agencies, as responsible agencies under CEQA, local agencies will be further disadvantaged because they will either be required to prepare additional environmental analyses or be prevented from bidding. Placing public agencies at such a disadvantage is not in the public interest,both for market share reasons and public water supply reasons. Therefore,the Commission should ensure its EIR provides a basis under CEQA for local public agency\acquisition of the • hydroelectric facilities. B. Private Acquisition The Commission's EIR and evidentiary review must also provide a full analysis of the potential impacts associated with private acquisition of hydroelectric facilities,including the PVP;so that the Commission can ensure any such acquisition is conditioned as necessary to protect the public interest. As discussed in Section III above, the PVP provides significant water supply benefits to a three county region. Decommissioning the PVP or significantly changing PVP operations could have significant adverse impacts. The Commission's EIR must evaluate the impact of changes in • ownership to the extent that divestiture makes such changes foreseeable. Any approval by the SCommission to divest the PVP should include conditions protecting.the current water supply from the PVP, in order to ensure divestiture-does notharm the public:interest. VI. SCWA SUPPORTS PG&E'S REQUEST TO SELL SEPARATELY ITS WATERSHED PG&E's February 1,2000, filing of supplemental testimony-requests that the Commission segregate the approximately 3,444 acres ofPVP watershed lands and allow PG&E to sell the lands separately by listing with a qualified broker. (PG&E Supplemental Testimony, p. 1-2.) SCWA supports PG&E's request to segregate sale of these lands. VII. CONCLUSION SCWA requests that the Commission recognize the vital role the Potter Valley Project plays in the economic and environmental well-being of the Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County region. The Commission's public interest responsibility requires that it ensure that public agencies are fairly treated and that any,sale of the PVP protects the region. C:\GRA\SCWA\PG&E Hydro Auction A.99-09-053\03-02-00 Final Testiinony.doc lb • • SONOMA� C 0 U Nit T .Y WATER A. G E N C Y FILE WC142-4-1 PG7E/POTTER VALLEY PLANT DIVESTITURE May 31, 2000 Mr. Bruce Kaneshiro CPUC ER Project Manager c/o Public Affairs Management 101 The Embarcadero;Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94105 SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO MARKET VALUE HYDROELECTRIC' GENERATING PLANTS AND RELATED ASSETS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTIONS 367(B) AND 851. APPLICATION NO. 99-09-053 The Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) has reviewed the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) Notice of,Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) application to market: value hydroelectric generating nts and related assets pursuant to public utilities code sections 367(b) and 851 (Application No: - 9-09-053). The Agency is particularly concerned about the proposed .sale of the Potter Valley Project (FVP) as part of the divestiture of PG&E's hydroelectric facilities in the Drum Watershed Region. Based on our review of the proposed divestiture, the Agency has concerns regarding the EIR's scope and content as described in the NCR To assist'the CPUC in their efforts, this comment letter provides the following: • Information regarding the PVP's vital regional role for use in accurately describing existing baseline conditions for this EIR; • The recommendation that alternatives in the ER should include a Russian River water supply interest acquiring the PVP and exclude a detailed analysis of.a decommissioning alternative for the PVIPt and • • Recommendations for studies, surveys, and models that are essential to fully address the range of environmental impacts asscdiated with the EIR's proposed alternatives. -,2O By I i[i° - :u,ci Rus.i. LA 95406.- .150 AV:'Culleee Avenue -Sun[a Rush. LA 95401 - (707) 5_'5-5370 - Pux 170:1 544-n(15 • The PVP's Vital Regional Role The PVP plays a .vital role in the.economic and environmental well-beinci of the Mendocino, Sonoma, and Mann county region. Benefits from the PVP include water supply, agriculture, recreation, aesthetics, and tourism. The benefits summarized below were detailed in the testimony of Robert F. Beach before the CPUC on March 2, 2000. We have enclosed a copy of that testimony for your convenience (Exhibit A). Municioal and Agricultural Water:Suooly For almost one ,hundred years, the PVP has, provided water supply benefits to Mendocino and Sonoma Counties,,and more recently to Mann County. PG&E s Potter Valley facilities have diverted water into the Russian River since 1908. Between 1923 and 1992, the PVP has diverted.an average of approximately 189;000;acre-feet of water per yearinto the Russian River. The PVP affects'the service areas of several public water agencies in Mendocino County, including: • The Potter Valley Irrigation District (PVID), which serves an agricultural valley in Mendocino County where the Eel River diversions enter the East.Fork Russian River,. • The Redwood Valley Water District (RVWD), which series an agricultural valley north of Ukiah;.and • The Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MCID), which serves; generally, the agricultural region in Mendocino County below Coyote Valley Dam (which forms Lake Mendocino on the East Fork .Russian River downstream of Potter Valley) and the City of Ukiah servide;area. The PVP also provides water supplybenefits:to Sonoma and Mahn Counties as presented.belcw:. • • Irrigation for Sonoma County's Alexander Valley depends primarily on the PVP for its water supply. The Alexander Valley area is the portion of the Russian River Valley in Sonoma 2 • 5 County between Cloverdale and Healdsburg and is not currently served by any public water agency; • Municipal water'supply between the Cloverdale and Healdsburg areas depends primarily on the PVP; and • The Agency's transmission system customers, which include the cities of Octet, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa and Sonoma, and the Forestville, Valley of the Moan, North Marin, and Marin Municipal Water Districts, rely, in part, on the PVP diversions. The Agency is the primary provider of potable water for about 350,000 people in Sonoma County and northern Marin County. The Agency also provides a supplemental water supply to approximately another 170,000 people in the Marin Municipal Water District service area. The Agency's transmission system customers rely primarily on releases from Lake Sonoma, which is S impounded by Warm Springs Dam along Dry Creek: in Sonoma County, for a water supply; however, the PVP 'does affect.the Agency's ability to carry out its water supply duties. For example, under existing Russian, River flow requirements, the Agency would have to increase Warm Springs Dam releases to make up for any reduction in Russian River flow below Healdsburg caused by a loss in PVP diversions, thus reducing the volume of water available in Lake Sonoma for the Agency to utilize for serving its customers. It is important to realize that Warm Springs Dam releases only affect flows in the Russian River below its confluence with Dry Creek and cannot make up any loss in Russian River flows above Dry Creek caused by reduced PVP flows. Acriculture Many of the agricultural areas in Mendocino County and in Sonoma County's Alexander Valley have developed because of, and continue to rely on, diversions from the FVP. The agricultural areas that . depend upon continued diversions 'from the FVP to maintain their viability annually produce more than $250,000,000 worth of crops (primarily vineyards supporting the wine industry and pears). 1110 . • Aesthetics. Recreation..and Tourism The Russian River, augmented by PVP diversions, provides significant aesthetic and recreational benefits to the.region. PVP diversions provide the water to support the Russian River's summer flow. . This summer flow supports a wide variety of summer recreation activities, including fishing, camping, boating; canoeing, and swimming. Recreational activities at Lake Mendocino and.Lake Sencma also depend both directly. and indirectly on flows from the PVP. The aesthetic and recreational benefits provided by the Russian River help support tourism in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. Recommendations.ForAlternatives As noted above, there are substantial water supply interests that rely on the continued operation of the PVP. Therefore, acquisition of the PVP by a Russian River water supply`interest is a "reasonably foreseeable" alternative,and should be evaluated in the.EIR. With respect to the PVP, the CPUC's • ER should, among other things: • Analyze the environmental effects of divestiture of the PVP separately from the other Drum Watershed Region facilities; • • Analyze as a "reasonably foreseeable" alternative the environmental,erects of acquisition of the PVP by one or more Russian River water supply interests; and • Screen and reject decommissioning the PVP as a reasonably foreseeable alternative. The ER should not analyze in detail the possible environmental effects of decommissioning the PVP, given that decommissioning is neither a feasible nor reasonably foreseeable alternative in light of the critical' importance of°tthe PVP's water supply benefits to Mendocino, Sonoma. and Marin counties. • • • • 4 • • . Analysis on an "Unbundled" Basis The PVP is hydrologically and geographically separate from the 'PG&E facilities comprising the remainder of the Drum Watershed Region. Therefore, the Agency believes that the EIR should analyze the PVP separately from the other Drum facilities. PG&E has requested that the CPUC segregate the. approximately •3;444 acres of PVP watershed lands not necessary to operate the PVP, and ailow.PG&E to sell the lands separately by listing with a qualified broker. The Agency supports PG&E's request to segregate sale of these lands as these lands are not necessary to operate`the PVP.. However, since .:the CPUC has not yet determined whether to segregate sale of these lands, Agency,staff requests that the CPUC's Draft EIR include in its analysis the potential environmental impacts associated with the sale of these lands and the impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable future uses'of these lands. Russian River Water Supply Interest 4he Agency believes the EIR should include as an alternative the environmental effects of the acquisition of the PVP by a'Russian Riverwater'supply interest:. Such an acquisition is "reasonably foreseeable" given the importance'of the PVP to the water supply needs of the Mendocino, Sonoma. and Mahn county areas. For example, the Agency's existing agreement with its water contractors expressly contemplates the potential acquisition of the•PVP by the Agency if authorized by the • Agency's water contractors. When evaluating this altemative,:the CPUC should use as the environmental baseline one of two flow schedules:. The first possible baseline is the "interim" flow schedule presently used by PG&E, which is also the recommended' flow schedule in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Protection and Maintenance of Fishery Resources at the Potter Valley Project, California, FERC Project 77-110) The National Marine Fisheries Service • In 1983, FERC issued PG&E a new license (which expires in 2022) that required PG&E to conduct a ten-year monitoring study or the effec a of the PVP.operations on downstream fish resources (in the Eel River). After the study was completed, PG&E submitted an application to FERC to modify its federal license to improve Eel River isnery conditions. PG&E s application was supooriea.by the California Department or Fish and Game the U.S. ish and Wildlife Service and NMFS Nurnereus entities including NMFS and the Agency, are currently participating in the resulting FERC proceeding. In 1998, FERC issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (ES) for FERC Project77-110 to analyze PG&E's proposai and three alternative proposals (including one riled 5 (NMFS) is currently determining;whether PG&E's proposed modifications will jeopardize. the existence of listed Eel River fishery. NMFS may shortly issue'a Biological Opinion relating to species in the Eel River listed as threatened (or candidates for listing) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If NMFS determines that'PG&E's interim flow schedule jeopardizes the existenceofsuchspecies, it will propose a flow schedule as a reasonable and prudent alternative under the ESA. This flow schedule would be an appropriate baseline condition if required by NMFS.` The evaluation of the "Russian River water supply interest" alternative should include a description of the changes in operations that could reasonably be expected to occur if the PVP were acquired by such a Russian River water supply interest. A review of the available data shows that a prudent water supplier, while still meeting FERC-prescribed minimum flow requirements, might operate the PVP differently than a licensee operating for power generation within the limitations of the-•existing power rule curves. In brief, because Lake Mendocino fills in some years before Lake Pillsbury, in certain years a water supplier might hold back water in Lake.Pillsbury in the fall rather than pushing water:through the PVP powerhouse in order to generate power. A more detailed.discussion of this issue is attached (Exhibit B): Also attached is a list of hydrological'models developed'by the,Agency that are available for use by the CPUC (Exhibit C): Agency staff would be pleased, to meet with CPUC staff to discuss these models in more detail. Exclude Decommissioning the PVP as a Feasible Alternative The NOP list decommissioning of uneconomic facilities as a possible alternative to be evaluated in the ER. While decommissioning the PVP has been.identified by some parties as an alternative, it is neither a feasible or reasonably'foreseeable°alternative and therefore should not be,analyzed in detail in the ER. Decommissioning the PVP is neither a feasible or reasonably foreseeable alternative because: • The PVP supports an agricultural economy producing more than S2E0,000,000 worth of crops each year, and is critical to the economy'of the North Eay Region. The PVP produces energy- by the Agency). In May 2000, NMFS indicated that'FERC intends to issue a new Draft EIS in'the near future, and that•NMFS will delay its Biological'Ooinion pending its review of the new Draft ES." 2 Alternatively, if the new FERC Draft EIS contains a Flow schedule analyzed in the Drat EIS as a preferred alternative, this flow schedule would be an appropriate baseline if, as it appears, NMFS issuance or a Biological Opinion will be detayed." 6 • • related revenue of approximately. 51,250;000. Analyzing only energy-associated economic benefits as identified in the 'NOP- (page 6; Alternatives) would therefore underestimate the overall economic'benefits to the agricultural and urban•areas that rely on the PVP for water supply; • The PVP is an economic, project;. In addition to the economic benefits of the PVP to the region, the PVP also is viable from an electric power generatidn standpoint alone, when annual operation and maintenance costs are compared to revenues; • Much of the discussion regarding ,decommissioning the PVP'stems from allegations that the PVP harms Eel River-.isheries. However, the PVP has hottcaused'thedecline of the Eel River fishery. The Eel River supports three-fish species that have been designated as."threatened" under the ESA or are proposed far such designation — chinook salmon, coho salmon, and 110 steelhead trout The PVP has. not caused the decline in these fish populations and decommissioning the 'PVP will not restore these fish:populations. Decisions to list.Eel River . fish species under the ESA are made by NMFS. NMFS .publishes notices in the Federal Register documenting its decisions. The Federal Register noticesi.regarding the Eel.River fish species identify many contributing-factors, past and present, that have led to the decline of the Eel River fish. While,the presence of hydroelectric projects Within the region is identified as one potential contributing factor, it is neither the sole cause of the decline nor necessarily even one of the major factors 'contributing to the decline. Factors listed by NMFS include habitat degradation, water diversions (in addition to the PVP), harvest; artificial propagation (fish hatcheries), drought, floods, and poor ocean conditions; • FERO is currently,considering PG&E's proposed modifications to the PVP operations to improve conditions in `the 'Eel 'River fishery (FERC Project. 77 .110). The quantity of water . PG&E diverts from ;the Eel°;River each year is affected by releases it must make to maintain the Eel River fishernf; As already noted, NMFS is currently determining whether PG&E`s proposed Modifications will jeopardize, the existence or listed Eel River fishery. Given the lib participation, of NMFS in the FERC licensing proceeding and the'power of NMFS to impose "reasonable and prudent" flow alternatives on, -FERC and PG&E or any later licensee, consideration of decommissioning as a.means to protect the interests.of the Eel River fishery isunnecessary; and • Only PG&E or its successor in interest can apply to.FERC for permission tor decommission the PVP. It is hot.reasonabiyforeseeable that an entity would make the'effortto.acquire the PVP and then apply to decommission the project. Decommissioning also is not a reasonably foreseeablealtemative given the interest of public Russian River water interests in the>FVP. These reasons establish that decommissioning the PVP is not a feasible or reasonably foreseeable alternative and,does not require extensive analysis in the EIR. However, should the CPUC undertake the massive task of analyzing the environmental effects of decommissioning the FVP, the analysis should include the,:following at a minimum: • Madeline and description of the impacts^of the elimination of PVP diversions:on the following resources within the Russian River watershed: . o Water suooly. The analysis should .include information regarding the continued ' ,availability of water:in the upper Russian.River region during normal, dry, and"critically dry water supply conditions. The EIR should identity and,.analyze the communities and regions that would suffer impaired water supplies, and the frequency of these impairments, as a result of decommissioning the PVP. The EiR.should include an analysis of potential-water supply impacts during different water supply conditions in the Russian River below Healdsburg` if additional releases.from Lake Sonoma are required to offset the reduced'flows in the upper Russian River. o Water Quality. The analysis should include water temperature modeling in Lake Mendocino to determine if lower flows into Lake Mendocino as a result of • decommissioning the PVP will result in lower lake levels causing increases in Lake Mendocino water temperatures; if temperatures in Lake Mendocino increase as a result of decommissioning the PVP,,then water temperature modeling of the East Fork Russian River and the maihstern Russian River should' be conducted to determine if releases of higher temperature water from Lake Mendocino will result in impacts to the w • atertemperature of-the East Fork Russian River or the mainstem Russian River. if 8 decommissioning the PVP results in the need for increased ;releases from Lake Sonoma, then the :analysis should also include water temperature modeling in Lake Sonoma and Dry Creek. The EIR should also address potential impacts to other water quality parameters; such as changes in turbidity or dissolved oxygen, that may occur in the mainstem Russian River, Dry Creek, Lake Mendocino, and Lake Sonoma as a result of decommissioning,the PVP. o Recreation. The..ElR should contain a baseline analysis of the types and intensity of existing recreational uses in the Russian River watershed (including Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma)., The EIR should include an analysis of the potential impacts to recreation resources and uses in the Russian River watershed as a result of decommissioning the PVP: o Fishery (including three salmonid species in the Russian- River listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act). The EIR should include an analysis of the potential impacts to fisheries in the Russian River watershed as a result of decommissioning the PVP.. The analysis should consider potential impacts as a result of water supply.or water'temperature changes that could;occur in Lake Mendocino, the East Fork Russian River, the mainstem Russian River; Lake Sonoma, and Dry Creek. The analysis should also consider the potential for impacts to any tributary areas. o Riparian habitat. The EIR should include an analysis of the potential impacts to riparian habitat in the Russian River watershed as a result of lower flows in the upper Russian River region as a result of decommissioning'the PVP, including impacts to Dry Creek if releases from ,Lake Sonoma are required to offset reduced flows from the upper Russian River. o Agricultural economy. The, ER should include a description and quantification of the number of acres of agricultural and in the Russian River watershed that rely on upper Russian River flowsthat would be impacted by decommissioning of the FVP. The ER should also include an analysis of the impacts to related businesses in the region that rely an the crops produced by the agricultural lands that would, be impacted by decommissioning the PVP. The ER should include an analysis of whether decommissioning the PVF will result in the conversion of agricultural lands to other land uses. • 9 • • a Public health and safety. The EIR should include an analysis of whether decommissioning the PVP would leave any communities without an adequate supply of potable water or water for fire protection needs. o Aesthetics. The EIR should analyze the effect of decommissioning the PVP on the aesthetic and visual character of the Russian River, Dry Creek, Lake'Mendocino, and Lake Sonoma. • A description and an environmental impact analysis of the facilities and,projects that would be required to replace the;flows from the Eel River. This analysis should include alternatives such as increasing the height of Coyote Valley Dam or the construction of other water supply facilities to serve the upper Russian River region. This analysis must also include an evaluation of the timing, regulatory; and other barriers to developing each alternative. General CommentsandsConclusion For all alternatives considered in the EIR, the analysis provided should include all Of the elements required under 'CEQA. If a Russian River water supply interest decides to purchase the PVP facilities, that water supply interest should be able to rely on the ER prepared by the CPUC. Thus, the ER should address in full detail the alternative that a Russian River water supply interest may acquire and take over'operatioh of the PVP. The analysis should be in addition to the "no project" alternative, which is the Agency's preferred outcome for the PVP.3 The alternative of decommissioning should not be evaluated in detail by the CPUC because it is not a feasible or reasonably foreseeable alternative. However, if the ElR undertakes evaluation of decommissioning as an alternative, the ER should include a detailed, comprehensive analysis of all of the impacts from eliminating flows from the PVP,,including impacts associated with the facilities and projects that would be required to replace the flows from the Eel River; As noted above, the Agency maintains several 3 Analysis of thei'ne project' alternative should include the two::deflnitions of"no project' recommended to date. PG&E suggests the no project' alternative consists or market valuation followed by operation of the • hydroelectric assets as unregulated.facilities, while others suggest the no project' alternative should consist or ' market valuation of hydroelectric assets followed by continued operation as regulated facilities. 10 • modeling tools that-can be utilized by the CPUC in its impact analysis for this'EBR, including models that address how awater supplier would operate the PVP. Thank you for the opportunity to,review`the NOP for the subject.project, and for your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Bill Keene at 707-547-1922, bkeenet7o scvaca.aov. Agency staff would be happy to meet with you to discuss our concerns regarding this project or to further clarify our comments on the NOP. We also look forward to the opportunity td review the Draft EIR. Sincerely, rag/ -1. / , Randy.D. Poole General Manager/Chief Engineer Incs c Bob Beach, Renee Webber, Erica:Phelps, Bill Keene, Tim Anderson, Pam Jeane, David Cuneo, Bryan Smith, SCWA Jill.'Golis, Steve Shupe- County Counsel Chris Arnold, Direcotr- PRMD Miles Ferris, Virginia Porter, Roberta Stead, City of Santa Rosa Toni Bertolero, City of Cotati Tom Hargis, Steve Simmons, City of Petaluma Joe Gaffney, City pf Rohnert Park Al Bandur, City of Sonoma George Roberts, Forestville Water District Art Bailie Valley of the Moon Water District Ron Theisen, Dana-Roxon, Marin.Municipal Water District Matt Mullen, Town of Windsor City of Healdsburg City of Cloverdale. Janet Pauli, Chair-Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Dian Gruenich, Gruenich Resource.Advocates . prs3srs\u\cftsue\dcCFUC-sceping ccmments-letter4 lb . 11 . . • • Exhibit A Prepared Testimony of Robert F. Beach Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California • U7VREDACTED VERSION • Exhibit-No:: Witness: Robert F. Beach A.99-09-053 Date: March 2, 2000 AU Barbara Hale • BEFORE THE PUBLIC L'11LITIES COMMISSION OF TEE STATE OF CALIFORNIA * PREPARED TEST MANY . OF • ROBERT F. BEACH Dian M. Grueneich. l.D. Jody S. London, M.P.A.. GRUEN ICH.RESOURCE ADVOCATES • 82 Market'St;ee:. Suite 1020 San Francisco, CA 94104 • -Telephone: (415) 8.4-2300 Facsimile: (41.5) 854-2010 E-Mail: darueneich:Ea-aie2al.com jlondon;a.:nie_a.com For SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • L SUINCYIARY OF TESTLMO.1W - 1. II. OVERVIEW OF'SCWA AND ITS LNTERESTS L i THE PST 1 A. SCWA and Its Mission • 1 B. Interest of SCWA and the North Bay Region in the PVP 3. III. THE POTTER VALLEY PROJECT'IS CRITICAL TO THE ECONOMY OF .a NORTH:BAY REGION 4 A. The Potter Valley and Adjacent Lake Mendocino Region 4 B. Upper Russian River and Redwood Valley Region , C. • Alexander Valley 6 D. Sonoma County Recreation and SCWA Transmission System Service Area • IV; THE PVPIS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE FOR DECOMMISSIONING S A. The PVT is an Economic.Project 9 B. The PVP Has.Not Caused the Decline of the Eel River Fisher 10 C. FERC Currently is Considering Modification to PVP Operations=to Improve Conditions for the Eel River Fishery 11 V. THE CONLMISSION SHOULD ENSURE THAT ANY PVP DIVESTITURE DOES NOT PRECLUDE PUBLIC AGENCY ACQUISITION AND THAT THE IMPACTS OF ALL-OWNER- SHIP ALTERNATIVES ARE ANLAYZED FULLY UNDER CEQA 12 A. _ Public Agency Acquisition 12 B. Private Acquisition - 12 • VI. SCWA SUPPORTS PG&E's.R.EQUEST TO SELL SEPARATELY ITS WATERSHED 13 • • VII. CONCLUSION 13 r ci . r I. SLAVE ARY OF'TESTECIOIvY . One of the;hyarbelectiic projectsPacific Gas and Ele^5io Company("PG&E")proposes to sell is the Potter Valley=Project("PVP"). For almost one hundred Years;the PVP has been providing sim+ificant water supply benefits to Mendocino, Sonoma. and.-Marn Counties.i i hiss testimony is presented on behalf of the Sonoma CountvWater Agency ("SCWA"), one of the public entities whose water supply is dependent upon the PVP. . SCWA is the primary provide:of potable water for about350,000 people in Sonoma County and northern Marin County.:'' SCWA also provides a supplernenta'i ware:supply to another 170,000 people in the Martin Municipal Wate Dist ict service area. • This testimony has three purtoses. Firs:;the teStmony provides background infonttation on SCWA and its interests;in the PVP: Second the testimony expiai S..how the PVP is c± ical to the economic well-bona Of MenCOCSiO,'SonoIlla,:mod Main Counties.' Third, the testimony explains why the PVP is not`an appropriate:C"ndidate'for decommissioi ing. Attachment A to this Test onv sets forth the qualifications of its sponsor, Robert F. Beach. II. OVERVIEW OF SCWA AND ITS INTERESTS IN THE PVP A. SCWA and Its Mission SCWA is a special district created by the State Legislature to act as the local scan_cr oft-so federal food-control and water supply pro?ects in the Russian River region,.clown collectively as the "Russian River P:oje i'. (See'Stats..1,949, Chapter-994 as'an ended). As desGibed below,the PVP i Collectively, the Counties are referred to as the North Bay Region. goSCWA furnishes potacle water TO the c t sof Santa Rosa, Petaluma_ Rohn r...Par; Cotati and CCI1Cita, and to the North Mann. Valley of the Moon and rorestville Water Districs. SCWA also furnishes otablewaterto several private water companies. 3 -North B,ayRe2ion; as used in this testimony, means Mendocino, Sonoma. and,Marin Counties. 1, • is a major component of the Russian Rive: Project and has a direct impaction SCWA's ability to carry outits'water supply duties. The Russian Rive:Project consists of Coyote Valley Dam,whiba created Lake Mendocino, on the East Fork Russian°River.in_Mendocino County,and Warm.Springs Darn,which created Lake Sonoma,on Dry Creek,a Russian River nibutaryin Sonoma County. These dams were constructed and are oixted and operated by the United States Army Corns of Engineers. Some of the stored behind Coyote Dam in Lake Mendocino originates in the Eel River watershed and is dime:led by PG&E from the EeLRiver through a gansbasin ruinel into the_ast Fork Russian Rive: at PG&E's Pore: Valley powerhouse. PG&E's Potter Valley-faciiitieshave been dive:erg Eel Riverwater into the Russian River since 1•908. under a Federal Power.9c: license. s Eerae n. 1922 and 1992. the PVP has annually diverted an average of about 1_9,000 acre feet of water from the Eel River into the Russia1n.River. C shoos the.Russian Rive:Water .• system, flora PG&.E''s Eel River diversions into the East Fork Russian River ate Porer Valley to SCWA's Malin County Customers. Attachment C also shows SCWA's iran<ilhission system. SCW A exercises its water supply function lntwo principal ways. First. it Guns and operates a water transmission system located in Sonoma. CounN'that delivers potable water to public and • private customers in Sonoma and Marin Counties, Aitachntent D shows the service areas of SCWA's transmission system customers. SC WA is curently obligated to deliver about 75.000 ace feet of water per year to its customers!; Second, SCWAreguiates the flow of the Russian-:River for Potter Valley diversions b _an with construction of Cape Horn Dam. Construction'in 1921 of al second dam. Scott Dam. formed Lake'Pillsoury and allowed diversions of stored water. See Attachment s Fora history-of Russian River-watef•facilities. SCWA has:approved a ~reject that would increase its annual deliveries to 101.000 acre fee:per year. • 4 the benefit of aiiculturat, municipal and insze:m uses in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties and municipal uses in Marin Counry.6 B. Interest of SCWA:arid the,North Bay Region in°the PVP . Much of the North Bay Region depends on continued PUP diversions for a water supply.. This region that depends on the PVP includes the service areas of several public water agencies: S CW A,including its Marin.Counry public agency ctutomers,;snown on Attachment D;Porter Valley Irrigation District("PVDD")(which serves an azricuhurai valley in.Mendocino County where the Eel Rive: diversions enter the East. Fork Russian:River); Mendocino County'Russian,River Flood . Control and Water Conservation Improvement District ("'.MID")..which serves, generally, the agricultural,and re_ionbelow CoyoteDam in Mendocino County and the City service csea: and the Redwood Valley Water Diet; ct ("RVWD") north of Ukiah. The region also includes Sonoma County's Q.lexander Valley.an az.cult 'ral area not cu .enIly served by any public water agency, which also depends on.the PVP for its water,supply. The Alexander Valley area is the portion of the Russian River Valle.,in.-Sonoma County between Cloverdale and Healdsbur2 and is primarily vineyards. This funcncn is cried alit pursuant,to-a 1986 decision of the California Water Resources Control Board. Dec. i 610, adopted a.pr'i 17, 1986. This decision amends SCW A.'s water rights permits and establishes criteria for coordinating the operation of Me two federal projects. ISCW:A. controls Me water supply sibraze space of these projects under contracts with the United States Government. • • . . • b Each of these.areas drive?oiled in dependence on continued PVT diversions: The PVD region, MCD and Redwood Valley Region.and Alexander Valley region would be immediately and directly impacted by a,loss of PVP diversions. These impacts are discussed Lin Section III below. There would also be an adverse water ssppl jimpact on SCWA's transmission s stern cu toniers: In addition."SCW A would be affected because Sonoma County is the economic center ofthe-region.and impacts felt in the region could ripple throughout Sonoma County. III. THE PM 1ER VALLEY PROJECT IS CRITICAL TO TFF ECONOMY'OF THE NORTH BAY REGION. Tile"PVP supports amagclitural econolny.:hatproduces more than S2 0.000,000 worth of crops each year. The agricultural value ofthePVP can be'assessed for each ofthze regions oLthe" Nora Bay Region: the Potter Valley and immediately adjacent Lake MendoC bo re?ion the Lipper Russian River and Rea ood Valley region; and the .kle\tender Valley region. The PVP also provides water for insveamIlows in the Russian River in the summer. I nese in ueam flows.pro'v ide si=i lcarit economic'and aesthetic value to the region. A. The Potter Valley and Adjacent Lake Mendocino Region Vi t 'aliv all of the""water used in Potter. Valley arid the area immediately adjacent to Lake Mendocino'is-dependent on Eel River diversions,made by the PVP. This area is served by"e.PVTO. Table 1 lists the crops grown and their distibutionr within this area. The total value of the annual agricultural production exceeds $23.7 lnillion: The history chi PvP diversions and local deve!epmenrin reiiarce on continued diversions is discussed - er in Attachment B. - 4 • -, • • L TABLE 1 • CROPTYPES AND DISTRI LTTION WZTHLN?TEE POTTER VALLEY AND LAKE MENDOCINO AREA LN MENDOCLNO COU TY8 Crop Acres Yield Price; Total . Tyne Planted Units/Acre S/linit Value wine zrapes 3,300 5.5 tons 51,3941° $25,301,100 • • pears 400 20.0 tons S 303. S 2,4 0,000 hay 1,500' 5.0 tons 5• 120 • S 900,000 pasture 500 9.0 ALT29 S 18 5 81,000 other crops 300 N/A N/A N/A B. Lipper Russian River andRedwood Valley Region. A large part oI the waierthat is used in'the'-Upper Ru5Sian River id Redwood Valley.which ch . includes the area around and of Ukiah. also depends on Eel River diversions made by the PVP. This area is served by MCID,,and.PVID. Table 2 lists the cops crown and their distr ct:Tion within ills upper Russian River:region.. The total value of the annual annualriatrlcultural production in this area exceeds 599.3 million. i. Agricultural crop,npes ara disirout;on among. :urea aces m!;ne Russian River basin above t,.z•Div Creek confluence areshown in Tables 1, 2 and o_ he,economic valuesiin these tables (except as ;comored) are taken from Tacle.$4-1'0 of the drag[ environmental impact statement ("DE15") cn a ternat ve minimum stream flows for the FVP issuedkbv the Feceral'Energv Resu later)Commission ("FERC) in February 1999 FERC, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Protection aria Maintenance Fishery Resources_ At The Porter Valley Project, FERC P,rojectNo. 77-110. Fi RCiEl5-0119D, February 1999,. a Animal Unit Month. ;4riianimal unit month is pasture sur,;c:ent tasupper one cow _razir,_for one month. gio IC E The wine grapes vaiueCor'51,391/ton was furnished by David Eenas on Mengocino tounry .�craitur al Commissioner, in the 1003:Mendocino Counry Agricultural Production Report: S • TABLE 2 CROP TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION WITHIN. 1Hr., UPPER RUSSLAN RIVER VALLEY AND • REDWOOD VALLEY REGION IN AINDOCLNO COUNTY Hydrologic Crop Acres Yield Price Total Subunit Tyne • Planted • Units/Acre S/Unit tialue. Upper wine Wines 10,683: 5.5 tons S1,394 ' 58.1,906,560 Russian pears 2.891. 10.0 tons S 305 S17'635,100 River and hay 100 5.0 tons S 120 S 60,000 Redwood pasture 1,025 9.0 ALCM S 18 S 166.050 Valley other crops 398 N/A N/A - N/A C, Alexander Valley A s nnifi'cant,portion of the water used in the middle Russian River-area. 1Qlown.as tine Alexa.ndef Valley,is also dependent on PG&E s,Eei River diversions. Table 3-lists the ctons=owe and their distributionwtm.n:.e Alexander Valley region. The total value ofthe as nual a^_ricultural production,exceeds S124.0 million.- // ' 1/ // // // /,' i ne wine _manes value of Si.S=6iton was iurnisned ov Pierre Gacc. Sonora Cour-y Chie Deaory A ricultural Commissioner, in the 1.998;SonamaCounrvAgricultural Production Report. 6 r TABLE 3 • :CROP TY:PES AND DISTRIBUTION WTIEIi`i r ALEXANDER VALLEY REGION I'N SONOMA COUNTY8 Crop Acres Yield Price Total Tyne Planted . Units/Acre S/Unit Value wine grapes 12,130 5.5 tons 31.846 5125.155,890 hay/oats 15 5.0 tons S 66 4:°=0 ' pasture 263 I6.0 ALM S 15 S 63,120 vegetables 15 N/A N/A N/A apples SO. 30.0 tons S 170' S 1 :,000 other trees 305 2.0 tons 51.09: 5 665,760 other crops 37 N/A N/A. N/ D. Sonoma County Recreation and SCWA'Transtission'System Service Area ' In addition to the economicbenefits.described abdve`that the RV.?provides to Sonoma and Mendocino County apiculture. tine P-''P also supplies economic c bentefits to Sonoma and Marin County urban areas. SCWA tranSmLSiOn system customers rely pl-ima'ly on Warm Spin s Dam for their water supply'''. However some of the Eel River water'dive:led by the PVP is used within .. SCWA's service area. In addition. the Russian River, augmented'by Eel Ri' er diversions, provides sic' iilcant aesthetic'benefits to the region. .Eel.River diversions:provide thne water to support the Russian River's stammer.flow. This summer flow supports a wide variety of summer recreation activities.,including fishing, camping, boating and swimming. No attempt has been made to cuanti ' precisely the economic impact On the North Eav Region which would:.Siilt rCIn't`:e LOSS Oi the DV;water supply if the ]V g were decommissioned. ab '-Warm Springs Dam teleasesreach the Russian River at its confluence with Diy Creek South of the City of Healesburz. Absent a charicein SCW'A's\>ote::runts these r ses`wculd have :e be increased to make ue any less in ?VP diversions thus of ectin_SCWA'saoiiiry to serve its transmission system customers. Warn - • However; based on the information contained in Tables 1 through 3, it is:apparent that the loss of agricultural production and the.additional,losies associated with the,diminished municipal water • s coly1' would' be enormous.. Additional losses would occur in recreation and tourism, and in : reduced electrical eaerg i roduction at both the Potter Valley powerhouse and atthe Cityof U-kiah's - power plant at Coyote Dam. These losses would translate into substantial indirect ininacts on the regional economy.14 ' IV. THE,PVPIS.NOT AN APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE FOR DECONBLISSIONTS'G The Scopin2lVlem0-and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Lawl dge. dated January 13.2000. states that the Commission will consider` decommissioningcof facilities that are Uneconomic to run on a sand-alone basis or where environmental damages of a change in ovtj' outWeich the enet -associ t lll Ev ated economic benefits" in the California Environmental . Quality Act ("CEQA") phase as well afthe divestiture phase of Ihis proceeding. In addition. one parry has suggested that the PVP "could be decornntissioned to restore critical spawning and rea:=nc habitat for [fisheries]. now on the brink or extinction."I' •This section describes why dec0I aiissiohin°_ is not appropriate for the PVP. The Cotn±iSsibn should not consider decommissioning because the PVP IS an economic • project. Moreover; the PVP has not caused the decline in Eel River fishery and de am :tissioring Springs Dam-,releases could`.not, however, make up any loss in the Russian River above r,ealds:urai 13 ,A Russian Riveralso,provides'a,niuniCCai'warer supp!vin the Ukiah. Cloverdale and H idsburai are2.s. in addition to he supply provided throu°_n-SC\'JA's transmission system. "hydrologic modeiina,water rights allodatibn•inodelins,_and economic modeling using an input-oumut model would be needed to rigorously define the direct and multiplier. cr :`ripple" effects of such a loss of water supply. 10 Friends of the Eel River, et al., Motion to Intervene,tiled November 2S[?P99; pace 1_, lines 2:-16. S - would not restore lost fisheries. Finally, the Federal EnerzvRegulthory Commission.("FERC") ' urentlyis conside ing alte natives; or modifying PVP ope actors to imi rove:Eel River �ChQ�r • conditions. A. The PVP is an Economic Project. • The PVP's enormou;econonuc'benefits which accrue to the North Bay Re`ion incidentally to the operation of the Potter Vallev:Project are described"1/4above. However, the PVP also is viable from an electric power'generation standpoint alone, when annual operation and maintenance costs are compared to revenues. In its annual reports to the-Comma siori and to FERC, PC7&E has disclosed the operation and ma ntenance'costts for the PVP listed in Table 4 below. TABLE 4 Illi POTTER VALLEY PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 'COSTS 1995 — 1998 FEAR OPER&TION MAINTENANCE TOTAL 1995 5605,105 5166.796 S 771.900 1996 704;652 281," 986,076 1997r- 638;761 216.026 - 1998 320,5 7 815;7:9 504`812 • 1._2 1999 691,209 292.270 0,5_1 98:,579 • Based upontheanalvsiz contalhed in Attachment E, annual re•ienile front PV? po.wer sales could be expected to be S 1309,349.per year, plus any revenue received from he°sae of ancillary sen`ces. This estimate asst'tnes?hnt fiitu e tel River releases for fish down. the Eel River will be increased by FERC to those recommended.by the T.S. S. Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service ("N?v S").r the proceeding pending before SRC, which is discussed ito 9 below. The actual power sale revenue received by PG&E, during the.fl:-s 22 months since the California Power Exchange has been active,is S2,305,995. Tills is an annual revenue of 3 1267,816. While the value of the PVP is obviously far lower than its December.31,'1998,rezoned book value of 823 "J 50 l basis 1.,1>!�,79 ,..On a fbIW?Sd-looking bz<i the project is economic and can'beexpedted to produce revenues which exceed expenses byz:estimated 26 percent. B. The PVP-Has Not Caused the Decline of the Eel River Fishery. .The Eel River supports three fish species that have been designated "threatened"under the federal Endangered-Species Act ("ESA") or are candidates for such designation -- ch nook, coho salmon, and steelheadarout. The PV? has not caused the recline in these fish populations nor will oecomnlJSsioninE the PVT restore these fish populations. Decisions to list Eel.River fich.specles;under the ESA are:made by NN S. NNE:S publishes notices in the Federal Register dOcu pro its de isihns. The Feae_1 Register 110liC 5 regardng • Eel River fish species les identify many c conMbuting actors, past and _.resent, that have lea to the decline of the Eel River fsh. While the presence of hv r0e.ec.r:a projects within the regi 0n L identified.25 one potential conttlbutinc factor, it is certainly not the sole cause of the decline nor -necessarily even one of the major factors contr_buti=n to the decline. Factors listed by N?vl S include habitat degradation, water diversions, harvest, artificial propagation (fish. hatcheries). d ougrt, floods,and labor ocean conditions. Attach_.ent F summarizes the several Federal Reg.icter puoheat:ors relating to the decline and restoration of the _el River fish populations. // .10 :'s 0 C. FERC..Currently is Considering .Modifications to PYP Operations to Improve Conditional:Ir. the Eel_River Fishery. The:qti antity of water PG&E diverts:from the Ee1,River each year is aiiected by releases it must make to maintain the Eel River;nshe-ry. The required fishery-release schedule is included in . PG&E's FERC license. In 1983, FERC issued PG&E anew licensel6 which required PG&E to conduct a ten-year monitoring,sudy of the of ects ofPVP operations on downs-earn fish resources (in the Eel River). In 1988,,ater the study was completed and itsresuit analyzed,PG&E submit-fed an application to FERC to modify it federal license to improve Eel.River fishery conditions. PG&E's application Was siipponed by:he California Deparme. tof Fish and Game, the U.S. Fich and Wildlife Service; and,NIvIES. Numerous entities, including.NVIFS and SCWA_, are curently . participating in the resulting;FERC proceeding. (Project 77-.1101. In 1998, FERC issued a draft qbEnvironmental Impact Statement to analyze PG&E's proposal and three alternative proposals (including one prepared by SCWA)., NMFS and FERC are:ccentiv debating whether PG&E'_ proposed modifications will jeopardize'tne existence of listed Eel River fishery.'' Given the ongoing and active .federal proceeding, the Cot:mission should not use the divestiture proceeding as the Iorum for trying to resolve the debate over the health of the Eel River ` fishery. • I/ // . /I . 16 PG&E's FERC"license,will expiry in 2022. On January 14, 2000,-NMFS issued a draft biological opinion proposing an alternative flow to u e rot qbconsidered in the Draft ELS F RC's bruar) 11, 2000, response rook issue with NMFS draft analysis. NMFS is expected to issuea final biological opinion in March. •• 11 - _ V. THE COl1IlVIISSION SHOULD ENSL"RE THAT.. N.Y PVP DIVESTITURE-DOES NOT PRECLUDE PUBLIC AGENCY ACQUISITION AND THAT lt1r.IMPACTS: 0 OF A T T, OWNERSHIP:ALTERNATIVES ARE ANALYZED FULLY UNDER CEQA. A: Public Agency acquisition Public agencies will already be at 'a disadvantage in pursuing acquisition 'of'PG&E's hydroelecn-ic facilities because of the lead time required to secure financing. In addition to disadvantages atnibutedto financing,public agencies must also ensure that they comply with CEQA when making decisions about purchasing a hydroelecttic facility. Unless the Commission's'Eaa is adequate for these agencies. as responsible agencies under CEQ_A, local`agencies will be further disadvantaged'be ause they will either be required to prepare additional environmental analyses,or be prevented`from 'bidding. Placing public agencies at such a disadvantage is not in the public interest_both for mariet share reasons and publicwater supply reasons. Therefore.the COmm'_sibn should ensue its FIR provides a basis und..r''CEQ:? for local public agency acquisition of the hydr oeiecu'ic facilities. B. Private Acquisition The Commission's EIR and evidentiary review:must also provide a full an lv is of the -potential impacts associated with private aceuisitionofhydroelectric facilities_including the PVP,so that the Commission can ensure any such acquisition is conditioned as necessary to protect the public interest. As discussed in Section III above, the PVP provides significant water supply,benefits to a three county. region. Decommissiomrg the PVP or significantly changing PVP operations could have significant adverse imnac s. The EIR must evaluate the impact of chan_°es hi ownership to the extent that divestiture 'takes such chances tiny' approval by the • Commission to dives lie PVP should include condiuonsTrote nng the current water supply from the PVP, in order to enssremvessture does pot:harm-the pul?hc mteres VI. SCWA SUPPORTS PG&E'S REQUEST TO SELL SEPARATELY ITS WATERSHED PG&E's February 1, 2000, filins of supplemental`tesamony'requests that the Commission segregate the apnroaimately 3 444 acres of PVP watershed lands and allow PG&E to sell the lands separately by listing with a qualified broker. (PG&E Supplemental Testimony, p. 1-2.) SCWA supports PG& 's request to segregate sale of these lands. -. VII. CONCLUSION SCW.A requests that the Commissionreco iz the vital rc]èthePcrrer Valley Project plays in the economic and environmental well-being of the Mendocino, Sonoma-and Marin Counts, re=ion. The Commission's pub ic'interest responsibility re.uires ihth it ensure that public agencies are fairly treated and that any sale oI the PV? protects'ti eregioi'. C.`,C2A\SCWA1PC&_a Au ion A.99-09-053103-0]-00 Final Testimanv.dnc • 13 LIST OF.ATTACKYILNTS Attachment A Qualifications of Robert F. Beach Attachment B History of Porter Valley Project Diversions and Local Development Attachment C Russian River VWate:System Attachment D Sonoma County Water Agency Transmission System Cu_zomers Attachment E Expected Potter Vailey.Prbiect Sales Revenues Attachment F Federal Register Publications Relating to` :e.Decline of the Eel River Fishery. • ' A•TTACHYIENT A STA-TEr1IENT°OF OLiALIFICATIQNS • OFROBERTF BEACH • EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Civil Lng nethig .Master or Sconce in Public Adz .iraticn • Universty of Michigan Univeray of Southern California EMPLOYMENT HISTORY PROFESSIONAL.DATA Current Position - Since Tan 1995 California Reg,iStered ' Civil Engineer No; 14217. Special Consultant to Scnorna,Ccunty Water • get; California Licensed-Land Suntevcr No. 3265 . Frier Positions • General Manager, Senor:.a County Nevada,Regisered Civil Engineer Water Agency, Santa Rosa. CA and Land Surveyor (14-1/2 years) Nc. 2425 lbCity Manager. City of Barstow, CA and Execrative Director of the Barstow Redevelopment Agency (S 71/2 years) • City Engineer and Director of r ibiic Works, City of Eureka, CA City Engineer and Director of Public Works • City of Victcrviile,CA . 4ssis-ant City Engineer Ciy of Napa, CA Assistant Civil Engineer, California Depar..nent of Water Resources Mr. Beach is cogently providing advice to the Sonoma County Water Agency re:at:ye to ir_< c_ns,:itacicns With the National'Ma ne,,-ish.-._sService under Sec:ion'7 of the Federal Endangered 1neciei Act recarc!ng the uc'\"res or the 1_ S. Army Cor^s of ngincers and the Senema County \kite -'Agency in the Russian. :River. He is also coordinating the uarnciparion:of the Sonoma County Water Agency in the con en r _ :Energ Reamer Commission r_ -e• 'Gates otter Vat Project stream now reciaren nt Mr. Beach \- a •he General M•a' n of the Scncina County \\%are Acency for 14-1/2 years and authored ine Ru,r.:'ar Rivcn•!:s C.-ci as and Go va^:menr al Ove.rrE 9t,Au_ust 1.996. • CH MENT.,B • • ATT_� • HISTORY OF POTTER V iLLEYPROJECT DIVERSIONS AND LOCAL.DE.VELOPMEVT • Agricultural development along the Russian River began in the 1860'.s•and consisted of raising _grain and hay for local use., In 1889; conssuc.non of the Northers? Pacific Railroad to Ukiah,provided access to markets. By 1900, mos'of fie better land close to the;Russian River • was developed. In 1908, W. W. Van Arsdale:and`ihe Snow Mountain Power `Company completed construction of Cape Horn Dam,, .which fo`rined.Van Arsoale Reservoir on the Eel River, the tunnel:a d the Potter Valley powerhouse: rNotwitlisanding the very-limited storage of Van Arsdale Reservoir, this project augmented `sunnier flow in the Russian River, with previously stopped flowing in the late summer drag,°most years. Van ArsdaleReservoir silted up, and Scott Dam was conssuctea,tinsseam in.'1921 .forrrling Lake Pillsbu ry which provided 94;400 acre-feet of newsstorage and subsantial'sumthe:.;flow in the Russian River: all sumnrier, every year Extensive irrigated arr rlculf'tre.developed In::reliance upon these Slows and ov 1949 a�iculturai rater use had increases to 8;1.00 are-fe t in Mendocino County dounsvea-n from i �_ A,", Porter 'Valley and to: 4.900 acre-feet m Sonoma. County.: Extensive irrigated ia=ricuit'u-e 'a'so developed in Potter Valley in reliance an these 1oiCIs 11 a• The U S. Army Corps of Engine ( LE- CE j survey report prepared prior to the. construction.of Coyote Valley Dam (circa 1949) Coneltidea That the ultimate annual iconsumndve use requirement for irrigation uses in-the Russian Rn e valley would be 16,000 ,acre-feet in Sonoma County. The sun•ey report conduced the ultimate annual use in Mendocino County Would be 8,000 ac-e-`get. These ar;punts \v ete-in adaitior to me above-noted 1 3,000'acre-fee: of irrigation already occurr,'r•s as of 1949 in the two"counties. In 1959 USACE completed construction of Co}ote Valley Dam. USACE and the local sponsors,` Sonoma County Water Agency and Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conse'Nation •Improvement Disrict, undertook this project, then costing S i S million, in reliance on ti,e -continuation of the historic PVP diversions to the°Russian River. The purpose of the project was • to satisfy the water recuirements projected by USACE and the requirements of SC\v A's water manstnission. system, the construction' of which was initiated at the time of construction of Coyote Valley Dam. 711ere are approximately 6.000 acres of land irrigated in;the,Poner Valley with water provided by the Potter Valley Irrigation District ("PVID"). P-G&E sells PVP water.to FV1D pursuant to an agreement dated` March :0 1°:61 The agreement+reclacec an agree:nent dated June 13, 19:0 between FG&_s predecessor. Snow, Mountain Water and Powe- Company. and F''ID. The Railroad Commis_sic-, predecessor to the California Public Utilities Commission approved the 1936 agreement in Decision :No. • ' 28641, dazed March 16, 1936. 2 See, PEA, Appendix C, p. C-1-20. • • • • ATTACHMENT C RUSSI A N RIVE'R WATER SYSTERM A . ATTACHMENT D SON-OA/LA COUNTY WATER AGENCY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CUSTOMERS • • • ATTACHIYIENT E EXPECTEDPOYI±R VALLEY • PO WEB SALESRETNUES 1. Energy Sales.Revenue Since April 1, 1998; electrical ene ay`his beea'tiaded. at the California Power Exchange (PX). Tabulated below are average monthly generation estimates for PYP. These estimates assume: (1) the flow proposal of the Department-of the Interior ("DOP") and the Naten_.1. Marine Fisheries Service MN-MPS") under the estimated current Lake Pillsbury sedirentadon .condition; (2) the current Weighted.average:monthly unconsraed_PX market clearing prices for .;:scat year 1998_19:99 and (3) the;esL:nated monthly revenue from power sales which could be expected under the DOIJNM S,flow roadsal. Month Total M: h PricerMwh - Monthly Revenue July 2,498 . 53 5.579 5 83.7_6 65" August 2.894 5"_X19 5 i__25,�_� September 3:174 536.957 S 117,301 October 3,181 577.780 S 86.778 November 2.229 526.743 S 84.7_9 December 4,304 529.977 5 129,021 January 4,836 S21.651 S 104,704 February 5,045 • 519.632 3 99,043 • Marc: 5,647 519.309 S 109,03 8 Aori' 4,923 524.673 5 121,465 May 3,770 574.735 5 93.250 913250,, June 3,110 525.762 5 30,130 Total 51 719.840 2 Ancillary Service Sales Revenues _ In addition to receiving PX.rA venue, some generators r r _eiv e revenue from the sale of ' ancillary services such as spinning and .non-spinning reserves. Such revenues, however, generally cannot be earned by capacity that is sihnitaneously selling energy into the PX. a4i5o, when congestion occurs on the n-ns==ission g:c; generators may receive a constrained price that is higher or tower than the unconstrained price. If congestion occurs on Path 1=, which.connects .. norcherz and southern California, as does happen from time to time; the PX price will be hi'Qhor, on the downstream side (usually the north side) and lower on the upstream side: 'No in orniation on revenues PC&E receives from the sale of ancillary services or due to congestion on Path 15 is publicly available. _ 3. Wafer Sales Revenue to PVID PG&E sells water to the Potter Valley Irrigation District (PV1D) oursuarit to an agreement dated March 30, 1936. The 1936 agreement was amended.in 1939 to replace the pricing formula with a.fiat water charge of S 1:20 per acre-foot. The a_'ee.Tae..^.I was eXiePed in 1967 to April 14, 2022. An ua? revenues to PG&E from P4? water saes to'P4D'have varied from 35,000 to S17,000 per yea-during the 1ast..decade. • • ATTACHMENT F FEDERAL REGISTER'.PUBLICATIQINS RELATING TO THE DECLINE OF THE EEL RIPER FISHERY I. The.Potter Valley Project ("PVP") Has Not Caused the Decline in Endangered Species Act Protected Fisheries Chinook and colic salmon have been listed as threatened, and the lisnng of steeihead tout as threatened has been-proposed, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("Eck--): as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et sec k) within their respective evolutionarily significant units ("ESU's") which include'the Eel River.. The Federal Register notices discussed below conclude that there are nianv contributing::factors, past and present wi ich:have:led to the decline of these fish species within their respective ESU's. While the presence of hydroelectric proiects within these ESU's is identified as one,potential contr,'butng factor, the PVP is certainly not the sole cause of the decline of the species, nor necessarily even one of the major factors contributing to that decline. • A. Chinook Salmon. • The final rule that listed c_hinook.salmon as threatened under the ES?, in the California coast EST.] was published in the Federal Register on September 16. 1999, This rule briefly summarizes the factors threatening naturally spawned chinook salmon as inducing habitat degradation, water diversions,.baraest, artificial propagation, drought. foods and poor ocean conditions. The final rule references the summary of various risk`actors,and their roles in the decline of west coast chinook salmon that w-as published in a proposed rule in the Federal -Register on March 9, 1 90S. The proposed rule =marines the impact that many factors, past • and present, have had on the decline in California' coast cninook salmon populations which inhabit the Eel River..These factors incibde the following: 1. •"Chinook salmon on,the west coast of the United States have e:Devi e ced declines in aornldance''in the past several decades as a result of loss, damage or change to their natural enVir0nnlent. Water diversions jor agriculture..,iooa.control aoinesi ic, dila hydropower purposes (especially°in Inc Colunraia'.River and Sacramento-San Jooauin Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated histor caliv accessiolehabitat, and degraded remaining habitat, cores c.v agriculture, mining, aila urbant_ation have segraded simpli17ed and fragmented habitat. Studies indicate that in most 14:estern stares, about 80 to 90 percent of the IliStoric riparian habitat has been eliminated. " (65 FR 11498) • 2. "Over fishing in the early days of European settlement lea to the depletion of • many stocks of chinook and other salmonids even before extensive habitat degradation. However, following the degradation of many west coast aquatic and riparian ecosystems, exploitation rates were higher than Marry-Chinook populations could sustain" (63 FR 11498) "Introduction of non-native species and:habitat moat ications have resulted in increased predator populations in numerous di:erg. Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in• areas 'experiencing dwindling chinook salmon runsizes.'" "Predation may significantly ,inflUence salmonid abundance in some local populations when other prey are absent and physical conditions lead to the concentration of adults andjuveniles. (63 FR 11498) 4. "Infectious disease is,one of many fa.C1077 that can influence:adult and juvenile chinook salmon sun " 'Warne chinook salmon have evolved with ,certain of these organisms, but The tindespread use of arttfrc'al propagation has introduced exotic organisms not historically present 'in particular Water-thee Scientific studies may indicate that chinook salmon are More susceptible to disease.orgcnisms than other salmonids." (63 FR 11499) . `: "Natural climatic cOndiion-s have exacerbated the problems associated witi7 degraded and altered& riverine and estuarine habitats. Persistent 'aroug'7t conditions have l'eauaaa already limited spau:ning rearing and migration habitat. Climatic condition•cuvear lo` haver esulted in,decreased ocean proaucril ,tv which, during more productive periods, mat, offset. poor productivity caused by degraded resh ater'habitat conditions." (63 FR 11501) - 6. "In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, exte7unte hatchely programs hai:e been implemented throughout the range ofiwest coast chinook saln7o7. :N%rile some of these programs hate succeeded in prolvaing fishing ovportun11res, the impacts of"hese piOgrmns 017 natn,e, .naturally-reproaucin° srocks are not 1-ell understood. Competition. ,ene'ic 11717ogression, and disease ii a77Sn71iS7077 resulting froth ihatcherv :171rcauctions may si^'n,,cantiv - .reduce the production and survival of native, naturally-reproducing chinook salmon." (63 FR . . 11501) B. Coho Salmon • The final rule lisdrg coho salmon as threatened in the southern Oreuonl dttthem • California coasts ESU was published in the Federal Reese: on May. 6. 1997. This rule sumrna zed the: impact that numerous and .varied factors have had• on the decline in southern' OregoniNorine^ California coast ceno salmon populations which 1nhaoit he Eel River: These factors include-the follolvin�: 1. "The 117070r activities responsible far the decline of c01w Sa1177017 in Ore g5nn and California are logging, road building, grazing and ,raining activities, urbanization, S;rearn • • r.: channeli:ation, dams;, wetland lass, :bearer trapping water withdrawals and unscreened diversions for irrigdrion. (62 FR 24592). 2. "Overfrshing in non-tribal fisheries is believed to have been a significant factor in the decline of colio• salmon Marine harvest in the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs,occurs primarily in nearshore waters Off Oregon and California (GGeitkama et al., 1995).'",'(62 FR 24593) 3. •"Relative to effects offtshing, habitat degradation, and hatchery practices, disease and predation are not believed to be major factors contrio`uting to the decline of echo salmon in California and Oregon. However, disease and predation may have substantial impacts in local areas." (62 FR 24594) - 4. "Higgins et al. (1992) and CDFG (1994) reported that Sacramento River sauaiifish have been found occum:uiganaaromous salmonid habitat throughout the Eel River basin and are considered 70 be a Serious'threat to native coho .salmon. " (62.FR 24396) • 5. "Long-term Trends -177 "rainfall and marine: productivity assoc area with atmospheric conditions :iii the North Pacific Ocean likely have had a major influence on coho salmon production." (62 FR 24'598) ' • 6. ';Lfany areas of the Pacific cods? have e perienced drought conditions during much of the past decade, a situation that has undoubtedly contributed to the decline of nic171; salnonid'populations." (62 FR.24.699) • 7. ".?s previously Mentionedd, sedinientetion of stream beds has been implicated as a principal cause of declining salmonia populations throughout il,eir range. Floods can result in mass wasting of erodible hillsioves and failure of marls• on unstable slopes causing Catastn'OphiC erosion. h7 addition.' flooding can Cause stair Cnd re4epositio17 of Sl,C11'ning - -graves in r picallvinaccessibie areas." (671I 24599) • S. "El Nino ocea77 conditions are characterized byancfmalously warn] sea surface temperature and changes in thermal structure, coastal currents, •and 'upwelling. Principal ecosystem alterations include decreases in primary and secondary proaucrivny and changes in prey ana predator species distributions. Several El Nino events have been recorded aun•'i1g the last several decades, including those of 1940-41, 1957-:8; 198=-33, 1986-87. 1991-97, and 1993-94 The degree to which Cal erse ocean conditions can ir,r"tuence. C'7710:salmon production was demonstrated.durr77g the EI.Vino ei,em of 1982-8*, Which resulted 17r a 24 10'27 peroe.nt I eaacri077 in Iecunairy and a 58•percent",eauczn077 (based on pre-return predictions)ictiois) f17 s"ur'-i itii of adult coho salmon stocks ori;raring from the Oregon Production Index es area (Jo171so77, 1988). " (62 FR 24600) • • 9. "Potential problems associated with hatchery programs include generic impacts on indigenous. naturally-reproducing populations, disease transmission. predation of wild fish, difzcalry in determining wild Stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery fish depletion of wild stock to increase brood stock-and replacement rather than supplementation of wild, stocks through competition and continued annual introduction of hatcher'fish. (Davies. 1991; Hindar et eh: 1991: Stewart and Bjarnn, 1990)" corn salmon stocks. hard been introduces as broodstoc.'r in hatcheries and widely transplanted in main coastal,rn ers:and streams in Oregon and California" (62 FR 24600) • C. Steeihead Trout A final• rule was published in the Federal Register on March 19. 1998 determining that listing-steelhead trout,as .a threatened species under.the ESA is not warranted. howeier on February 11,,20.00, the'National Marine Fisheries Service ('Nb1FS") published, in the Federal Register a notice, announcing that it was reconsidering. its decision not to list steihead trout as threatened within the northern California ESU. The reason given by NMFS for thus" reconsideration is that, an essential component of the decision not to list srceihead trout was based upon the expectation that chanties in Californias forest practice regulations would be implemented by Januan. 1. 2000. Because these conservation measures had not vet' been implemented bs the State of California NN1FS determined that a formal al reconsidera tion of the status .Of steelhead trout Within this ESU is warranted. The State of California Ioresz practice rem_lations issue:in contention now, with respect to whether or not the fisting•of steelneac trout within this'ESTI is wan-anted, has nothing to do PVP. • • • II. The PZ-P'Does Not Prevent the Recovery of ESA Protected Eel River Fishcr., The PVP's Cape Horn Dann is equiopeewith ve7 etfeLu e fish ladders., The diversion facilities located at Cape Horn Dam are equipped'wit—state-ot-the-an fish screens. While Scam Dam is not equipped With fish ladders,.the final rules of NN1FS designating critical habitat for chinook salmon and who salmon, which are discussed above. exclude the area upstream from Scott Darn (Lake Pillsbury), since that area is'not essential for the recovery of ESA protected fish species. A. Chinook Salmon On February 16, 2000. NMFS published in the •Federal Register its final rule desinatin_ • critical habitat..forchinook salmon in the.California coast ESU. .Within this_ESU, critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to Chinook s_lmon,frof_ Redwood Creek. in Humboldt County. to the Russian River in Sonoma Counr., inclusive. However areas above loagstanding. naturally impassable battlers or above specified azn-s. including Scott Darn (Lake Pillsbury), are excluded from the desanated critical habitat: (65 FR 7782, Table 12) • • B. Coho Salmon On May 5, 1999, NM:FS published in the Federal Register its final rule desinating critical habitat for coho salmon in the southern Oregon Nonhern California coasts ESU. Within this ESU, critical habitat is desimated to include all river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to coho salmon between the Mattole River in California and the Elk River in Oregon. However, areas above longstanding naturally impassable barriers or above specified dams, including Scott Darn (Lake Pillsbury), are expressly excluded. (6= FR 24062, Table 6). • • • Exhib'it'IB . Potential for the Reoperation of the Potter Valley Project to Optimize its Water Supply Benefits. Potential for the. Reoperet on of the Potter Valley Project to • • Optimize its Water-Supply Benefits Lake Pillsbury.has a'watershed;ofapproximately 268 square miles and the Lake Mendocino watershed is only.approximately 105 square miles. The winter storage capacity of Lake Pillsbury is approximately 56,000 acre-feet and the winter storage capacity.of LakeMendocino is approximately 69;000 acre-feet. Because the watershed of Lake Pillsbury is•so much greater than that of Lake Mendocino, and because.Lake Pillsbury winter storage capacity is smaller than that of Lake Mendocino, it would seem intuitive that Lake Pillsbury would always fill before Lake:Mendocino. If that were true, the interests of maximizing power production at the Potter-Valley powerhouse and conserving the Russian River water supply would coincide, since any water discretionarily released from.Lake Pillsbury storage would'be stored in Lake Mendocino. However, an examination of recent hydrologic model study results performed by the-Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) indicate that Lake Pillsbury filled its winter storage capacity before. LakeMendocino in only 15 out cf,6,7 years. In 40 years Lake Mendocino filled first, and 9'years the two reservoirs filled at about the same time This is attributable to the fact that a signficant amount of the precipitation occurring in the Lake Pillsbury watershed during the,,winteraccumulates assnowpack, and to the substantial interbasin transfer of water which occurs during the winter. In three,years neither reservoir filled to its winterstorage capacity. This suggests that a water supply benefit might result from limiting releases from Lake Pillsbury during the fall and winter . to those required to maintain a;powerhouse flow equal to'the required release from Lake Mendocino during periods when Lake Mendocino is full. This mode or operation would ensure that all water which could be stored, would be stored. Lake Pillsbury is,equipped'with Tainter gates which must remain open during the winter for safety reasons, but are dosed in the spring. Lake Mendocino water supply storage is allowed to encroach into the flood control storage space in the spring after the flood risk has passed. As a result; in the spring the storage capacity of Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino.increase to approximately 76,000.acre-feet and 90,000 acre-feet, respectively. SCWA's hydrologic model studies indicate that in a number of years Lake Mendocino fills to-its summer storage capacity and Lake Pillsbury does not e.g., 1939. Again, this suggests that a water supplybenefitmight result from limiting releases from Lake Pillsbury duringthe spring to those required to maintain a powerhouse flow equal to the required release from Lake Mendocino during periods when Lake Mendocino is full. SCWA has the-capabiiityto perform hydrologic model.studies of this mode of ',Based upon hydrologic modeling of the 67-year period 1929 through 1995;the Porter Valley Project flow • proposal or the Department of the intenorand the National Marine Fisheries Service; and the estimated current . sedimentation condition of Lake,Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino. operation of the Potter Valley Project. SCWA also has the capability, using its water rights allocation model, of quantifying the impact of this mode of operation on the Russian River water supply. While its is not known what that impactwouldbe, the value of water for water supply is,so much'greater that its value for generation or electrical energy that any statistically significant increase in water supply would be a strong incentive for a change in operation it the owner of the Potter Valley Project were a Russian River water supply interest. That being the case, if there is a significant increase,.the environmental impacts of such a change in operation must be,analyzed in • the environmental".impactreport being prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission. • •• ip S Exhibit C List Of Hydrological Models Developed By The Agency Mr.,Bruce Kaneshiro Ms..Judithlkie Enerr Division California Public Utilities Commission April 26, 2000 Pane Two • • I will contact you in the next few days to determine a date, time; old location for this technical meeting. If there are ot.er'indiviiluals bn the ER team, pardciiarly consultants, with whom we should be in contact please let-us':iccw. Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to meerins with you soon. Vicar ely, Y / / Tady S.`London t r"ar.SONOMACOUNTYwATERAGENCY SJSL:bd Attachment cc: Jill D. Golis, Deputy County Counsel, County of Sonoma William Keen; PrincipalEnVironntental Specialist, SCW Robert F Beach, Consultant. • John Olaf Nelson Water Resources Management 1833 Castle Drive; Petaluma, CA 94954 Ph:707 778-8620. Fax 707 778-3566 Cell Ph:707291-9862 E-mail:jonolafnnhome:com May 27, 2000 Water Advisory Committee (Water Contractors) Chairman Miles Ferris, Virginia'Porter,.Roberta Stead,.City of Santa Rosa Toni Bertolero, City of Cotati . ' • Tom Hargis, Steve Simmons; City of Petaluma Joe Gaffney, City of Rohnert;Park Al Bandur, City of Sonoma George Roberts, Forestville Water Dist. Chris DeGabriele,North Marin Water Dist Art Bolli, Valley of the.Mooh Water Dist - a Subject: Report to WAC on status of the Potter Valley Project—including recommended actions. • Ladies and Gentlemen: For.almost 100 years, the potter Valley-Project (PVP) has been producing energy. Since 1923, average diversions from.the Eel River have amounted to 159,000 acre:feet per year (afa). These diversions have helped create and sustain a thriving economy in,the'Russian River watershed and in areas where Russian River water is imported. The agricultural segment of the economy alone is"valued•at more than $250 million peryear. With the help of Consultant Bob Beach,the Agency has analyied'in detail the distribution of water diverted by the PVP using 21 years of hydrologic records,and"streamflow models developed by PG&E, the Department of Interior/NationalMarine^Fisheries Service (DOI/NMFS) and the Agency. This analysis_shows that 60% to 68% of diversions'are used in Mendocino County, 11% to 12% are used in the Middle Reach of the-Russian River(Sonoma County above Dry Creek) and 21% to 28%are used in the Lower Russian River(Sonoma County below Dry Creek). DOI/NMFS has proposed flow reductions in the pending Federal"Energy Regulatory Commission proceeding,to modify diversions-to benefit the Eel,River fishery, If these flow reductions occur, and assuming no change in Agency water'fights,'the Lower Russian River will experience delivery curtailments in one,year out of four,with significant curtailments"required in serious drought years. More alarming are the results of Agency modeling that examine a discontinuance of diversions • from the Eel,River. Assuming no,change in Agency water rights, these'<<models predict that some delivery curtailments would be required in a substantial.percentage'of years, with drastic curtailments required:in serious;drought years. The level of curtailments predicted by the models in serious drought years, and the frequency with which some curtailments would be required, in the opinion of Mr. Beach, would-be unacceptable and I agree. 1 - Recognizing the possible need to acquire the Potter Valley.Project, in,Junc 1995 the Water Contractors and theAgency executed the Ninth Amended Agreement, which,added language permitting.the Agency, with prior Water Advisory.Committee-approval, to'acquire the PVP:: Section 2.4 of the current Tenth Amended Agreement states (this language isealso contained in the pending Eleventh Amended Agreement): "2.4 Potter Valley Project All or part of the Potter Valley Project'maybe acquired upon a determination by the Board of Directors of the Agency that such ' acquisition is necessary to insure the Agency's continued ability to make the water deliveries authorized by this Agreement, provided, however,that no part nor:all of the Potter Valley Project shall be•acquiredwithout the prior approval of the Water Advisory Committee." Section.10) oldie Tenth Amended Agreement defines""operation and maintenance costs" to include"payments made to the owner of the Potter Valley Project to insure the continued operation off the Project-provided they are annually approved by the Water Advisory Committee, regardless of whether or not such payments result in the ultimate transfer of title to•all or part of the+Project to the Agency." In addition the,Potter Valley Project or any portion acquired is included in the Tenth Amended Agreement's;defmition of"common facilities." The Agency's attempts•to negotiate a sale of the PVP With PG&E in 1994 and create a multi- county public power authority in 1995 were unsuccessful. We are now faced with PG&E's proposed sale of.the PVP on an auction basis to parties unknown. Some parties have suggested decommissioning the PVP as a part of the PG&E divestiture process. The following attachments discuss recenvevents relating to the PVP: 1. Recent Historic Milestones - PVP 2. RelatedProject Developments- PVP 3. SCWA Testiinohybefore the CPUC re. PG&E's proposal to sell PVP • The time has come to figure out what the Water Contractors should do in response to the. proposed sale ofthePVP. The Agency has;hired John Olaf Nelson Water Resources Management to assist in providing information about the PG&E divestiture process. In order to allow you to make an informed decision as to whether the Water Advisory Committee should approve acquisition of the the PVP pursuant to the provisions of Section 24 of the Tenth Amended Agreement, mote information i's necessary. However, to keep all optionsopen, the Water Contractors need to-take two actions immediately. •Reconuriended'Immediate Actions: 1. Before June 1, 2000, post a letter, along the lines'of Attachment 4, to the CPUC requesting • that the ER it is preparing on the PG&E divestiture proposal address impacts of public agency acquisition of the PVP. (If the ER does not address public agency acquisition - 2 • impacts, private parties come to the"bidding table" with a huge advantage over public • agencies who can not act without complying with CEQA). (This is the same suggested letter that was e-mailed to you on May 22nd.) 2. As soon as you can, send a,letter, along the lines of Attachment,5, to the Agency to request that Agency management-and Directors take-the;necessary steps to keep open the option of public agency acquisition. The letter also formally requests information from the Agency for meeting the test of Section.2.4 and.other necessary information the Water Advisory Committee needs on risks, benefits and costs. Should you have questions, please call. Since el e -1 Olaf Nelson S Enclosures: 1. Recent Historic Milestones - PVP 2. Related Project Developments- PVP 3. SCWA Testimony before the:CPUC're.PG&E's proposal to sell PVP 4. Sample Letter suggested be sent to CPUC in response to Notice of Preparation of E1R covering the proposed valuation and divestiture of PG&E's hydroelectric projects - including the PVP 5. Sample Letter suggested be sent to Agency requesting preparatory actions re..possible acquisition of PVP cc City of Windsor: Matt Mullan Mann Municipal Water District: Ron Theisen, Dana Roxon SCWA: Randy Poole,Pam Jeane, Bill Keene Robert F. Beach, Consultant Office of County Counsel: Steve Shupe, Jill Golis Attachment 1 4111 . -. RECENT'.mSTORIC MILESTONES POTTER VALLEY PROJECT May 12, 2000 (Obtained from Robert F. Beach) May 1994 - Pacific Gas and Electric';Company(PG&E) announced its intention to'sell or surrender its Federal Energy Regulatory-Commission(FERC) license for the Potter Valley Project (Project)because of unfavorable Project economics. In September 1994, in response;to the threat of a possible Project decommissioning effort by PG&E; the Board',of Directors (Board);;of theSonoma County Water Agency (Agency) directed staff to draft legislation to create a Potter Valley Authority having the power to acquire and operate the Project. In December 1994 the Board approved a draft of the legislation and directed staff to find an author. In January 1995 Senator Thompson agreed to author the legislation on the condition that all affected counties, including Humboldt County,reach a consensus. April 1995-The Board decided that'itwas not likely that SenatorThompson's consensus condition could be satisfied and authorized the renegotiation of the contracts between the Agency and its water transmission system customers to provide the Agency with the authority to acquire and operate the Project as part of the water transmission system. June 1995 - The Board,and water contractors,approved an amendment to the water transmission system agreement authorizing the acquisition of the Project with the consent of the Water Advisory Committee. A series of meeting were held with PG&E to explore the possibility of a-negotiated purchase of the Project by the Agency. January 1996 - With the concurrence Of Water Advisory Coniinittee, the Board authorized staff to submit a formal proposal to PG&E'for to enter into"exclusive negotiations for the purchase of the Project. On January 1, 1996, however, AB 1890 became-effective: In response to the new legislation PG&E suspended negotiations,citing changed conditions caused by the resttuoturing of the electric utility industry under AB 1890. March 1998'-PG&E filed with FERC its Joint Recommendation for modifications to the fish flow schedule prescribed by Article 38 of the FERC license which was developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). February 1999 - FERC issued,a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on four alternative flow proposals. These were.the Joint Recommendation,the current Article 38 requirements,and alternative flow proposals filed by the Agency and the Round Valley Indian Tribes (RVIT). The DEIS'recommended that the Joint Recommendation be accepted and that Article 38 of the FERC license be amended with new language consistent with the Joint Recommendation. September 1999 - PG&E filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission to sell its hydroelectric generating facilities, including the Potter Valley Project, through an-auction. S . Page 1 of 2' I January 2000-NMES issued a draft biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act'of1973 finding that the Joint Recommendation (which NMFS participated in developing) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of coho;and chinook salmon-and steelhead trout. NMFS proposed a"reasonable and prudent alternative"which,if accepted by FERC, would avoid jeopardy. The NMFS'.proposed reasonable prudent alternative is a flowproposal,that was developed by=the Department of the Interior(DOD and NMFS and filed with FERC after the issuance of theDEIS, coupled with_a,proposed Sacramento,pike minnow eradication program. The final NMFS biological opinion is due May 20, 2000. May 19,2000,-NMFS'issues,letter to FERCistating that NMFS will wait to issue its Biological'Opinion in light of FERC's intention to file a supplemental-DEIS. • • • .. • • Page2of2 Attachment 2 RELATED,RECENT DEVELOPMENTS POTTER VALLEYPROJECT -May 12, 2000 (Obtained from Robert F. Beach) MCID Repudiation of Water Supply,Agreement On May 19, 1992 the Agency enteted.into--an agreement with theMendodino;County Russian:River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District(MCID). Under'this_contract the Agency,agreed to allow MCID to divert 13,000 acre-feet of water under the Agency's water rights permits associated with Coyote Valley Dam on an "asravailable" basis. In return, MCID agreed to account and report water use within MCID. The agreement provided that it would terminate after five years if the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)had not issued by that time a-final order approving changes in points of diversion and place of use under the Agency.'§water tights permits. Such approval is a legal prerequisite for the implementation of the agreement. The five years has long passed. Nevertheless, the Agency proceeded in good faith to pursue approval of an application to the SWRCB to seciirethe.changesin points of diversions and place of use, and offered to MCID an agreement,extending the timeforsecuring the water rights permit changes. On March 27,2000,however,MCID rejected"the;Agency's offer and notified the Agency and SWRCB that it did not intend to sign the extension,:agreement; A good working relationship with MCID, such as would qbahave resulted from the MCID water supply agreement is an essential element of any regional effort to cquire the Potter Valley Project and equitably share the costs. Agency staff has had several meetings with Mendocino County and Potter Valley representatives; however, no consensus regarding a regional acquisition of the PVP has been'reached.. PVID Opposition to SCWA Flow Proposal' ' . The Potter Valley Irrigation District(PVID)has joined with Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E) in supporting a PG&E/PVID alternative flow proposal in the 'currently: pending license amendment proceedings before FERC. This flow proposal is in,direct;competition.with,the flow proposal filed by the Agency with FERC. In return for itsistipport„PG&E has agreed to a minor change in its flow proposal which makes water saved by reducing RussiarrRiverminimum stream flows in dry years available to PVID. The PG&E/PVID flow proposal is not in the liestinterests of Sonoma County water interests. Potter Valley Project Is Essentialto:the Water Transmission System While the fact that the loss of Potter Valley Project diversions.could have an adverse impact on the reliability of the Agency's water transmission system has been recognized for many years, and was discussed in some detail in the'1996,Urban Water Management Plan, the impact has only recently been quantified. With no Potter Valley Project diversions,the water transmission system would suffer significant annual losses depending on.Russiam,River-flow-requirements. In amajority of the years there is no impact, , who in a few drought years the impact is very large and result in-cuts that are unacceptable. '' P,agelof3 - Attachment 4 <Letterhead> <Date -Note: DEADLINE is June 1, 2000> Mr. Bruce Kaneshiro CPUC EIR Project•Manager do Public Affairs Management 101 The Embarcadero,.Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: Re. Application No. 99-09-053 Response of<City/Special District>to CPUC NOP of Draft ER concermng application submitted by PG&E entitled: "Application to Market Value Hydroelectric Generating Plants and Related Assets Pursuant'to Public Utilities Code Sections 367(b)and 851" Dear Mr. Kaneshiro: The <City/Special District> owns and operates a'water system providing potable service and fire protection to residential, commercial, institutional and industrial customers. This. vital service maybe impacted by PG&E's proposed divestiture of the Potter ValleyProject (PVP) which is`included'in the subject application(included in PG&E's Drum Watershed•Region Bundle). The<City/Special District>derives most of its water from the Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency)"which diverts water from the.Russian River pursuant to water rights issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Upstream of Agency's point of diversion, the PVP, on average, imports 159,000 acre-feet per annum (afayfrom,the Eel.River into the Russian River watershed. Importation of Eel River water has been going on consistently since near the turn nof the last century and has resulted insignificant water supply benefits in the Russian River•watershed. Testimony before the.Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) with regard to a pending, proceeding dealing with amendment of Eel River diversions indicates the agricultural;benefits'in the-Russian River watershed,alone amount to over$250,000,000 per year It is apparent that the water supply benefits in the Russian River watershed area due to the PVP operation clearly . outweigh power production benefits. • • Comments: 1. Termination of Eel River Diversions Divestiture of the PVP could result in a number of alternatives that could'impact the <City/Special District> significantly: For instance, the PVP might tie.acquiredcby a party who would:be.ihterested-in,discontinuing the Eel River diversions entirely. While we believe this is a remote possibility, discontinuing diversions would result insignificant adverse impacts on the <City's/Special District's>water`'supply. Based on operational studies conducted by the SCWA using stream.flow models submitted in the pending FERC proceedings, significant deficiencies are predicted at the,SCWA'spoint of diversion in critical dry years. Such deficiencies could•.cause Agency's Water Contractor's, including the <City/Special District> to impose'rationing. We do not believe this is a feasible alternative, but if it is,examined in the EIR, it is necessary that the impacts on water users in the Russian,River watershed, including the<City/Special District>, be fully addressed. 2. Acquisition by a publicragencv to preserve;Russian River water,supply benefits: Divestiture could also result in the PUP being acquired bya public agency interested in protecting and preserving the water supply benefits in the Russian River. This is a very real possibility given the magnitude of these benefits. The ER should address this possibility. To properly assess the potential impacts of public agency acquisition, detailed studies of hydrology, water quality and related economics need to be conducted and included in the EIR. Thank you for the opportunity toicomment on the scope and content of the forthcoming FIR. Please kindly keep the<City/Special District>posted on upcoming hearings and opportunities to participate in this matter. Sincerely yours, <Mayor/City Manager/President of Board of Directors or General Manager> • • • Attachment 5 •<City/District's Letterhead> <Date> Randy Poole,.General Manager and Chief Engineer Sonoma County Water Agency P.O.Box 11628 Santa Rosa,;CA 95406 •- Subject: Request relating to Potter Valley Project Dear Mr: Poole: . Thepurpose of this letter is to request,pursuant to,Section 2.4'of the Tenth Amended Agreement:for Water Supply and Construction of the Russian,River-Cotati Water Project(Tenth Amended Agreement),that,the Sonoma County Water Agency(Agency)take necessary steps to ensure thatthe Agency and its Water Contractors (Cities of Cotati, Petaluma, Rolmert Park, Santa Rosa'arid Sonoma;and Special Districts,of Forestville Water District,North Marin Water District and Valley of the Moon Water District) are irra position to consider a possible acquisition of PG&E's Potter Valley Project.(PVP). As you know, under the Tenth Amended Agreement,the PVP may be acquired; with approval of the - Water Advisory Committee, upon a determination by the Agency's Board of Directors thatthe acquisition is necessary:to:insure the Agency's continued ability to make the water deliveries.authorized by said Agreement While it is premature for<City/District>to consider whether it would.cast its vote for acquisition of the PVP, the pending California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proceedings, discussed.below, make-it imperative that, at a minimum, we are in a position to make an informed and legally sufficient decision on the matter. PG&E has filed an application with the CPUC seeking approval to auction its hydroelectricsgenerating facilities,including.the;PVP, to the highest bidder,and has requested such an auction'proceed quickly: We agree with testimony filed by the Agency the CPUC detailing-the;vital role the PVP plays in providing a wide array.of water supply benefits in the Russian River area and in the water service'areas of the Cities and Districts relying on the Russian River for water.supply. We strongly agree that the PVP'isnotan.appropriate candidate for decommissioning. We agree further that the ER prepared by the CPUC mist adequately evaluate the environmental effects of acquisition,of the PVP by public Russian River water interests: We.believe that it is not in the public interest for PG&E to be allowed to sell the PVP at this time; however,because we do not know how the CPUC will respond to PG&E's application, it is appropriate for the Agency and the Water Advisory Committee:to:evaluate potential acquisition of the PVP, either,through.a CPUC-authorized sale or,through an eminent;domain. action. While we preferred to accomplish any public acquisition of the PVP through a public partnership made'.up of Sonoma and Mendocino,,County interests (such as the Potter,Valley Authority suggested by the Agency in 1994), we acknowledge the Agency's attempts to enlist support of such a program have been unsuccessful. As a result, the Agency, acting on behalf of the.Water Contractors, must take steps;to keep.open the option of acting unilaterally, if such action is in the best interests of the Water Contractors and the customers we serve as events unfold before the CPUC. - lir 1. We understand'the Agency is participating to seeping meetings regarding the content of the CPUC's EIR. It is our hope and expectation that theErR will be adequate for purposes of evaluating the environmental effects of a potential acquisition of the-PVP by the Agency. Nonetheless, because it is possible that the EIR will not be adequate, we recommend that the Agency immediately take steps to be prepared to supplement the CPUC`EIR or prepare its own'EIR'if the CPUC's EIR appears to be inadequate. Finally, we request that the Agency, at the earliest possible date, submit'detailed-information to•the Water Contractors so that we may (1)determine whether or not acquisition,of the PVP-is necessary to ensure that the Agency can continue to make deliveries of water as required under the Tenth Amended Agreement and (2) assess the risks,benefits, and costs associated with'theacquisition of the.PVP. Very Truly Yours, <Mayor/Chairman/Manager.> - • • • POTTER VALLEY. PROJECT lb • -RECENT HISTORIC MILESTONES • May 12 , 2000 May 1994 - Pacific Gas. and Electric :Compahy ( PG&E ) announced its intention to' sell or- surrende'r its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission_ ( FERC) license for the Potter Valley Project ( Project) because of unfavorable Project economics . In September 1994 , in response to the threat of a possible 'Project . decommissioning effort by PG&E, the . Boar.d of Directors ( Board) of the. Sonoma County Water- Agency- (Agency) directed staff to draft legislation, to Create a Potter Valley Authority having the power to acquire• and operate the Project.. In December 1,9.94 the Board approved a draft of the legislation and directed staff to find an. ad hor . In. January 1.995 Senator Thompson agreed to author the legislation on the condition that all affected counties , including Humboldt County, reach a consensus . • April 1995 - The Board decided that it was not likely that Senator Thompson ' s consensus condition could be satisfied and authorized the renegotiation of the contracts between the Agency and its water transmission system customers to provide the Agency with the authority 'to acquire and operate- the Project as part of the water transmission system. June 1995 - The Bbard and water contractors approved an amendment to the water transmission- system agreement authorizing the acquisition of the Project with the consent of the Water Advisory Committee . A series of meeting were held with PG&E to 'explore the possibility of, a negotiated purchase of the Project by the Agency . - - _ -,u--� January 1996 - The Board authorized sta "frto submit a formal proposal to PG&E for to enter into exclusive 4,7-11,n^,-u negotiat ions for the. Cr.cha-se of the Project . On ` January 1 ,- 1996, however, AB 1890 became effective . In response to the new legislation PGaE suspended negotiations , citing changed conditions caused by the restructuring of the electric utility industry under • AE 1890 . • March 1998 - PG&E filed with FERC - its Joint Recommendation for modifications, to the fish flow schedule prescribed by Article 38 of the FERC. license which was developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) , the • U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS ) . February 1.999 - FERC issued a Draft Environmental Impact statement ( DEIS ) on four alternative flow proposals ., These were the Joint Recommendaat pn, the current Article 38 requirements:, and alternative flow proposals filed by the PAgency and the Round Valley • Indian Tribes (RVIT) ., The DEIS recommended that the Joint Recommendation be accepted and that Article 38 of the FERC .license, be amended with new language. consistent with the Joint Recommendation . September: 1999 - PG&E filed an application With the . California Public Utilities Commission to sell its hydroele'ctic generating facilities , including the Potter Valley Project , through an auction . January 2.000 - NMFS issued a draft biological o.pi-nion under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 finding that ' the Joint Recommendation (which NMFS' participated in developing) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of .coho and Chinook salmon and. stee lhead trout . NMFS proposed a "reasonable and prudent alternative" 'which, if .accepted.. by� FERC, would avoid jeopardy,. The NMFS proposed reasonable prudent.. alternative is a: flow proposal that was developed by the Department of the interior ( DOI) and NMFS and filed with FERC. after the issuance' of the DEIS , • coupled with a ,proposed Sacramento pikemi nnow N eradication program : The final NMFS biological • opinion ia due May 20,, 20:00 . Adlh IIPP POTTER VALLEY PROJECT, RELATED RECENT DEVELOPMENTS May 12, 2.000 MCID REPUDIATION OF WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT On May 19 , 1992. the Agency entered into an agreement with the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement. District (MCID) . Under this contract the Agency agreed to allow MCID to divert 13., 000 acre-feet' of water under the Agency ' s water rights permits associated with Coyote . Valle_y Dam on an "as available" basis . In return, MCID agreed to account and report water u'se within MCID,, which would provide the Agency with the information necessary' to secure judicial . curtailment of unlawful water use within MCID during dry years . The agreement provided that it would terminate after five years if the State Water .Resources Control Board ( SWRCE) had not issued IIIby that time a final order approving changes in points of diversion and place of use under the Agency ' s water rights permits . Such approval is ;a legal prerequisite for the implementation of the agreement . The five years has long passed . Nevertheless, the. Agency proceeded. in good faith to -pursue approval of an application to the SWRCB to secure the chances in • points of diversions and place. cf use, and offered to MCID an agreement extending the time. for securing the water rights permit changes . On March 27 , 2,000, however,• MCID rejected the - Agency ' s offer and notified the Agency and SWRCD that it 'has no intention of signing the. agreement . The MCiD water supply agreement was an eaSential element of any regional effort to acquire the Potter Valley Pro] ect,a d ecui taoly share the Costs . It was also essential to 'avoiding the necessity to define water rights by judicial process . Without this agreement , • legal prOceedings will ultimately have to be initiated to identify and. halt a lc _Ll water diversions in lbMendocino Countz _ to prevent the aewater_ng of Lake 'Mendocino during dry years . • PVID OPPOSITION TO SCWA FLOW PROPOSAL The Potter Valley Irrigation District ( PVIDJ has joined with Paoific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E.) supporting PG&E/PVID alternative flow proposal in in the Currently pending license amendment proceedings befor"e ."FERC . This flow -proposal is in direct competition with the flow proposal filed by the Agency with FERC . In return for its support , PG&E has agreed to a minor change in its .flow proposal which makes water saved by reducing Russian River minimum stream flows in dry years available to PVID . in supporting the PG&E/PVID flow proposal, PVID has turned its back on the interests of both its sister Mendocino County water interests and Sonoma County water interests , including S,CWA, in an attempt to protect ita own interests . 'MENDOCINO COMMISSION ADVOCACY OF HOSTILE WATER RIGHT CLAIM The Mendocino :County Inland Water and Power Commission (Mendocino Commission) is a joint exercise of powers agency of Mendocino County public agencies having Russian River water interests .. The .Mendocino Commission, through its attorney, is claiming before both FERC and CPUC a water right which would vest in Mendocino - County . water interests water rights to Potter Valley Project water . This is not in'' Sonoma County's interest because as the holder of most of the water rights associated with the Coyote Valley Project having a priority date of 1.949, the Agency ' s claim to Potter Valley Project diversions , which under conventional water rights law is "abandoned" water subject to appropriation in the same manner as natural flow, is senior to most claimants . Also, if the Agency were to acquire the means of diversion (the Potter Valley Project) , apd at Some future date decide to file an appl_cat_on for water rights in the Eel River, the Mendocino Comrission theory, if upheld, would place the interests of Mendocino County water users in a position senior to the Agency ' s water 410 rights in the Eel River . - POTTER VALLEY PROJECT: IS ESSENTIAL TO, THE, WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Wh_le the fact that the 1O8 Of POtt',er Valley Project diversions could have; an adverse impact on the reliability of the Agency ' s water transmission system has been recognized for- many years , and was discussed - in some detail in the, l9'96 Urban Water Management Plan, the impact has only recently been quantified . With no Potter Valley Prbject. diversions,, the water transmission system would suffer an average annual loss Of about 10, 000 acre-feet of water under the current Russian River, flow requirements and over 7 , 000 acre-feet if the flow requirements were changed by the SWRCB to just bypassing natural flow . These averages conceal an even -more serious problem. In a majority , of the years there is no impact , however, in a few years the impact is very large . Under current Russian • River flow. requirements the water available for diversion by the transmission system would be cut in half in 2 years and nearly in half a third year, out Sof the 21 years modeled, with substantial cuts in five additional years . Under the natural flow bypass scenario , which as mentioned would require SWRCE action, the water available would be cut by one- quarter one year, one,-third one year and by nearly one-half one year, cut of the 21 years modeled, with . substantial cuts in 5 additional years . Cuts of this • magnitude and frequency are intolerable. POTTER VALLEY PROJECT IS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE Since April 1, 1998, electrical energy has been traded in a market known as the California Power Exchange (PX ) . Tabulated below are. average monthly generation estimated for PVP,, the current weighted average monthly unconstrained PX market clearing prices for fiscal year . 1998.-1999, and the estimated monthly revenue from power sales which could be expected, under the DOI/NMFS flow proposal . ' . 4110 'Based. upon hydrologic modeling of the 21 .year' ceriod 1975 through -1995; the. Potter Valley P_ojectflow proposal proposed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMcS) ; and the Month Total MWh PriceIMWh Monthly Revenue July 2 , 498 $35:579 $ 88 , 726 Illi August 2 , 894 $43 .419 $ 125 , 655 September 3 , 174 $36.957 $ 117 , 301 October 3 , 181 $27.280 $ 86,778 November 3 , 229 $26.243 $ 84 , 739 'December 4 , 304 $29.977 $ 12.9', 021 January 4 , 836 521. 65.1 5 104, 704 February 5 , 045 $19.632 $ 99, 043 March 5, 647 519.309 $ 1'09 , 038 April 4 , 923 $24.673 $ 121, 465 May , 3 , 770 $24.735 $ 93,, 250 June 3 , 110 $25.762 $ 80,120 Total $1, 239 , 8+40 Until. PC&E recently released detailed economic data on its hydroelectric projects in conjunction 'with the current CPUC proceedings , public information on PVP . operation and. mantenarce costs was generally' unavailable . The data now available is summarized in the following table . .POTTER VALLEY PROJECT • ANNUAL OPERATION' AND.MAINTENANCE COSTS 1995-1999 YEAR OPERATION MAINTENANCE TOTAL 1995 $605.,.104 $166,796 $ 771, 900 1996 704, 632 221,444 986 , 076' - 1997 "' 638 , 761 216, 026 854 , 787 1998 815,739 504, 812 1, 320, 551 1999 691, 309 292,270 983 ,579 Mean $691, 109 $292, 270 $ 983 , 379 The above tables indicate the Potter Valley Project . can be expected to produce a gross positive cash flow of about, $250, 000 per year . Whether this will be adequate to.-proV?de sufficient cash for required future capital expenditures is questionable, but clearly the water supply benefits to the water. transmission system of the continued operation of the project exceed the likely cost of the project . IP estimated current (year 2000) -Lake: Pillsbu:y sedimentation condition. REOPERATION OF POTTER VALLEY PROJECT Because the Agency has no control over the operation of the Potter Valley Project„ no study has been performed to identify opportunities to modify the discretionary operating criteria of the Project to increase the water supply benefits of the Project to the Russian Riven However, the Agency has 'performed, in conjunction with the preparation of scoping comments on the CPUC environmental impact report , a preliminary analysis which suggests that such opportunities would exist if the Agency owned the Project . Because the Lake Pillsbury watershed .is so much larder • than the Lake Mendocino watershed, it would seem intuitive that Lake Pillsbury would always fill before Lake Mendocino . If that were true, the interests of power production and Russian River water supply would coincide , and little, opportunity' would , exist for reoperation . But that is not true . lb Under the DOI/NMFS ldv proposal and year 2000 sedimentation conditions,, Lake Mendocino ' s winter water supply pool fills before Lake Pillsbury ' s in 40 out of 67 years modeled. In 9 years the two reservoirs fill at about the same time . In three years neither reservoir fills its winter water supply pool . In the 4'0 years when water released from storage in Lake Pillsbury for power generation cannot be stored in Lake Mendocino, it flows on down the Russian 'River and, may not provide any water supply benefit . In those instances , in order to optimize the Russian River water supply, releases from Lake Pillsbury should be limited so that the rate of flow through the tunnel equals the rate of release from Lake Mendocino required to maintain required minimum Russian River streamflows . • OPTIMUM TIMING' OF ACQUISITION The interests of the water transmission system might • best be served if the Potter Valley Project. was acquired prior to any auction by PG&E rather the, Agency attempting to acquire it later from a successor in interest , . While the Agency might be able to postpone a decision to'..'acquire the project for a few years, that course would. be very risky . Accuiring the project now would preempt any attempt to decommission the project on environmental grounds . It would also preempt the purchase of the project by an investor who recognizes the enormous water supply value of the project and might attempt "to capitalize upon that value by appropriating Eel River water and selling it to Mendocino and Sonoma County water interests . An example Of such a potential investor is Azurix Corp : , an affiliate .of Enron Corp. Azurix made its . initial public offeing in June 1999 . Azurix is a global water company that owns, operates and maintains water assets and develops and manages . water resources . Since' :mid-1998: Azurix has acquired. about, a .dozen water assets , including 13 , 60.0 acres of land in Madera Count,y, .. California . The land was purchased for .the underlying aquifer, which Aturix intends to develop as a "water bank" . 9 • Potential for the Recperation of the Potter Valley • Project. to Optimize its Water Supply- Benefits Lake Pillsbury has a watershed ;of approximately 2'62 square miles and the Lake Mendocino watershed is only approximately 105 square miles. The winter storage capacity of -Lake. Pillsbury is approximately 56, 000 acre-feet and the winter storage capacity of Lake Mendocino is approximately 69 ; 000 acre-feet. Because the watershed of Lake Pillsbury is so much greater than that of Lake Mendocino, and because Lake. 'Pillsbury winter- storage capacity is smaller than that of Lake. 'Mendocino, it would seem intuitive that Lake Pillsbury would always fill before Lake Mendocino. If that were true, the interests Of maximizing power production at the Potter Valley powerhouse and conserving the Russian River water supply would coincide, since any' water discretionarily released from Lake Pillsbury storage would be stored in Lake Mendocino . • _ However, an .examination of recent hydrologic model study results performed by the Sonoma County Water Agency' (SCWA) indicate that Lake Pillsbury filled its winter storage capacity before Lake Mendocino: in only 15 out of 67 years. In 40 years Lake Mendocino filled first, and 9 years the two reservoirs filled at about the same' time. This is attributable to the fact that a signficant amount: of the precipitation occurring in the Lake Pillsbury watershed during the winter. accumulates as ' snowpack, and to the substantial interbasin transfer of water which occurs during the winter. In three years neither reservoir filled to 'its winter Storage capacity. This suggests that a water supply benefit might result from limiting releases from . Lake Pillsbury during the fall and winter to those required to maintain a powerhouse flow equal to the required release from Lake Mendocino during ',periods when Lake Mendocino is full . This Mode of operation would ensure that all water which could be stored, would be stored. Lake Pillsbury is equipped with Tainter' gates which must remain open during the winter tor safety reasons, but are closed in the spring. Lake Mendocino water supply storage is allowed to encroach into the flood control storage space in the spring after the flood risk has passed. As a result, in the spring the storage capacity_of Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendoc'ino' increase to approximately 76,000 acre-feet and 90, 000 acre-feet, respectively. - :SCWA"s hydrologic model studies indicate that in a number of years ,Lake .Mendocino fills to its summer "storage capacity and Lake Pillsbury does not,. e.g. , 1939 . Again, this suggests that a water supply- benefit might result from limiting ' releases from Lake Pillsbury during the spring to those required to maintain a powerhouse flow equal to the required release from 'Based unen hyd clod t modeling of the 67 year period 1929 through 1995; the Potter Valley Project f-_ow n oposal, of the .Deoartment of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Ser'iice; and the estimated current Sedimentation condition of Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino. -- Lake Mendocino during periods when Lake Mendocino is full . SCWA has the capability to perform hydrologic model studies . of this mode of operation of the Potter Valley Project. SCWA also has the capability, using its water rights allocation model, of quantifying the impact of this mode of operation- on the Russian River water° supply. While its is not known what that impact would be, the value of water for water supply is so much greater that its value for generation of electrical energy that _ any statistically significant increase in water supply would be a strong incentive for a change in operation it the owner of the Potter Valley Project were a Russian River water supply interest. That being the case, if there is a significant increase, the environmental impacts of such a change in operation must be. analyzed in the environmental impact report being prepared by the California Public. Utilities Commission. cfb c:\wpwin\sera\pvp\cbuccomm.wo • • • 1111/11. • • ATTACHMENT #10 COPIES OF HANDOUTS PROVIDED BY SCWA FOR APRIL 24, 2000 WORKSHOP S ›„N a 4-2 0 8 11(4..) co 0 c • o " co o c N o r_ tio La. Q. a C L . o w o co • Cl,0 c reo .0 a c 0 :16 cn E -0 c o E c co (13 En 7— _ a)c 0 co c3) c o c s_ < °C3 E 0 1/4.1 C t4– L. co C a 4o: >N CD E E a < a > D co c 0 W — t5 c o 0 0 CD a) Zi5 E " -i—P • > E co ° oct a) 2 u_ 0 • 0 • 0 vinia 0 0 ti 0 0 ....._, st.... 0 " no EL, a. co E CD 0 ° -4— >II av C :47" Cl ftn (13 C3 >IN U) CD W a E ei = W = o 0 0 a ct _.0 -i,75 W Cc o ._ 14.- w >, a ..... -ii, To o .cn 0 W • w E " w 0 — nte- - 4-0 CO U) 1::: • EMMEN E -, co cup E n sE' t a 0 2 cc' c C Di ° E ÷c 8 ° Fe E °" ± 00 1 I I Fam lb . . 0 C . i ® cm 'a c a E o c o 0 E -0 O. . a) ET) ri c C) E -a u CO N. CU Q) o C ��Lay 0, 0 CID O O W Q .C1) � Cl) Q C (OE N s= U) +, 4) c c -1-..., H C) 0 ;c_ < 1., 0 E — cp Nt € Vic. n 0 ;2 Q O N O CB 44"— CD n cn >, p ,RE Q > oaC C D0 � a) c astS sr>) --8 t5 E a� C6. (1) - CD Q • v 0 ® E c Lu cn 8 . in .-E 9) 0......., 0 CO -0 a3 ' p t 0 E 0 N' (cg � E c _ W 0 L- N , U = c r W o -c - E ;O m a) c '3 s. a = 6 Cv. - o C a) C Q eu 73 CL a CV CO C 11 1 I I di • 0) >i, ..., D sit c 0 CO o 2 ELi_ . ..., 0 st. 0 0 ..... a co c = E a o • E -0 c 0 ,.„ 0 -- 0 , ,--c2 gNi < a) m iz cz ..= 0 0 a3 cm E co c fbC is. a 0 !In a =ill E w a > CO a a) w co E no o CC3 I— , oc ai no c w a E 0 4- 0 cco 0 0 -0 .. c 04= LL Do oact3 0 0 --i= D co 2 132 cu n" < E 0 ,.. ci, r ...... 0 _c ,,a> 9 HOD ' 0 . 410 . . • c D 0• C=6:11•On E 11 lin Sxis " ses c C CO ca. 52 cesil _co 0 0 >, E o L-- u9-16 5)1 EP 0 a) cn CD o " •(i < C . < E o w Z r CI) C • 7:3 E —0 .1) f.12 wsla C cy) CD C CO c 0 CD C15 ° tat I a) >, 0= > -iicsa to' E —a 2 L. co 0 sa. co 0, co °C3 w co Q) C alaj E ecl o La3 D Lin 0> rz S2a) 0 .-(75 oc) 0 z < • • • • ATTACHMENT #11 FINAL MOU REGARDING WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CAPACITY ALLOCATION S DURING TEMPORARY IMPAIRMENT INCLUDING LAYPERS ON'S' FACT SHEET S Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment This Memorandum is made by and between the following public agencies: SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (Agency) CITY OF COTATI (Cotati) CITY OF PETALUMA (Petaluma) CITY OF ROHNERT PARK,(Rohnert Park) CITY OF SANTA ROSA,(Santa Rosa) CITY OF SONOMA:(Sonoma) FORESTVILLE WATER DISTRICT (FWD) NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT (NMWD) VALLEY OF THE MOON WATER DISTRICT (VOMWD) MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (MMWD) TOWN OF WINDSOR (Windsor) SECTION 1 - RECITALS (a) The Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) was created by California state legislation 410 (Statutes of 1949, Chapter 994 as amended) Under,this legislation, the Agency operates and maintains a water transmission system authorized by the Agreement for Water Supply and Construction of Russian River-Cotati antertie Project between and among the Agency and eight public entities: Cotati, Petaluma,.Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, FWD, NMWD, VOMWD, dated October 25, 1974 and last amended November 14, 1997 (Tenth Amended Agreement),by means of which water is furnished to'the:parties thereto. The Agency'fumishes water to Windsor pursuant to the application for water service approved on Aprila1,'1987. Windsor is one of the Agency's "other Agency customers"as that term is,defined in.the;:Tenth Amended Agreement. The Agency furnishes water to MMWD pursuant to the Supplemental Water Supply Agreement dated January 25, 1996. (b) The.Agency has proposed a Water Supply and Transmission System Project (WSTSP) for which an environmental impact report was certified by the Agency's Board of Directors on November 17, 1998. The WSTSP was approved by the Agency's Board of Directors on December 15; 1998. The objective of the WSTSP is to provide a safe, economical, and,reliable water supply to meet the defined future needs of the Agency's,seryice area When fully constructed and operational. the WSTSP will increase the amount of water that:can be diverted from the Russian River (a combination of re-diversion of stored water and direct diversion of available flows) to approximately 101,000 acre-feet per year; and increase the Agency's water • Page 1 of 15 • • transmission system (Transmission System) delivery capacity from 92 million gallons per day (mgd) to 149 mgd. • (c) Part l2;of the Tenth Amended Agreement authorizes the Agency to construct or acquire additions and replacements to the existing Transmission System sufficient to meet the delivery entitlements set forth in Section 3,1 and 3.2 of said agreement which amount to an average day during the maximum month delivery capacity of 92 mgd. However, due to delays„in implementation, such as litigation and regulatory constraints, all of the facilities authorized by the•Tenth Amended Agreement have not been constructed. Limitations exist in the existing Transmission• which may preclude reliable delivery, of some of the delivery entitlements enumerated in Sections'3.1.and 3.2 of Tenth Amended.Agreement. (d) On December 7, 1999 the Board of Directors`of the Agency adopted.a'Resolution No 99- 1564 declaring that the reliable summertime waterproduction capacity of the Transmission System is,currently temporarily impaired by being limited to an average monthly,capacity of 84 mgd. One of the projects authorized by the Tenth Amended Agreement is CollectorNo. 6 - a portion of the 20 mgd of;collector capacity defined'in Section,1 (r) of said agreement. This collector has.been designed-and.environmental`documents for it have been prepared and approved pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act: Other regulatory-permits-are in the process of being acquired anti the project is expected to be placed in service by the summer of 2003. This project and its connecting pipeline•are•expected to achieve the 92 mgd of delivery capacity of the Transmission System authorized in the Tenth.Amended Agreement. (e) The highest-peak-demand recorded by the!Agency during the summer months of 1999 was.81 mgd. Although year-to-year increases in peak demand are highly variable,due to the variability of summer weather, the average annual increase in peak demand historically has been approximately 2 mgd. Due to the temporary'impaiiment of the Transmission,System capacity, the water production capacity of the Transmission System may be exceeded'during summer months ifpeakdemand continues to increase as it has historically. (0 Section 3.5 of the Tenth Amended Agreement provides in parithat,in the even •of a temporary impairment of the capacity of the Transmission System the Agency shall: "first, deliver to-each of its regular customers the quantity of water, not,in excess of the respective delivery entitlements set forth in,sections 3:1 and 3:2, required by it for human consumption sanitation and fire protection.as determined by the Agency after taking'into consideration-all other sources of potable water then available to said customer; second, to the extent additional Transmission System capacity is available to the Agency, deliver a quantity of water to`the.regularcustomers in proportion to their respective delivery entitlements set forth in'section 3.'1 and section 3.2 provided. however, that no Page 2 of l5 regular customer shall receive under these paragraphs"first" and "second" a total quantity of water in excess of its reasonable requirements or its-said entitlement, whichever is less; third, to the extent additional Transmission System capacityis"available, deliver water to regular customers in excess of their delivery entitlements pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 3.3; fourth, to the extent additional Transmission System capacity is available, deliver water to Marin Municipal not in excess°of the delivery limitations in section 3.12; fifth, to the extent additional Transmission System capacity is available, deliver surplus water to the water contractors; . sixth, to the extent additional Transmission System capacity is available, deliver surplus water to other•Agency'custorners." - (g) The Agency has entered into service agreements for the•deliVery of surplus water pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Tenth Amended Agreement via separate metered turnouts from the Transmission System. The_Agency desires'to transfer responsibility?to provide these water services to the other parties to this'Memorandum.of Understanding (MOU). • (h) In order to mitigate against drought, earthquakes, spills; temporary impairments and other events impacting the quantity or quality of water available from the Transmission System, and other emergencies that can befall an urban water supply system it"is.highly desirable to achieve isand maintain standby local peak:month production capacity as defined herein of approximately forty percent (40%)of peak demand. The experience of water utilities in coping with severe droughts and water shortages caused by,spills of toxic materials, water quality contamination, earthquakes, slides and other unpredictable events has demonstrated that this is a desirable standard. _ (i) The implementation of the WSTSP requires an amendment to the Tenth Amended Agreement. An.Eleventh Amended Agreement for Water Supply (Eleventh Amended Agreement)to accomplish this purpose has been approved by most of the parties to the Tenth Amended Agreement and is not yet,effective as of the effective date of this MOU. (j) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.5 of the Tenth Amended Agreement, the Agency plans to appropriate and distribute funds to the water contractors, Windsor and MMWD for implementing water conservation measures, developing recycled water projects that offset potable water use, and developing standby local peak month production capacity that reduces demand on the Transmission System. Asof the date of this MOU;the Water Advisory Committee has approved $15smillion,forimplementing conservation measures over a 10.year period commencing with Fiscal Year (FY) 1997-98. The Agency• prepared a report dated • November 1999.entitled "Preliminary Assessment of Urban Water Reuse, Sonoma County Water Page 3 of 15 11 - Agency Service Area, Sonoma County and Marin County, California" that identifies'$42:million in potential recycled water;projects. Feasibility and environmental studies need to be done for these.projects. On February 14, 2000, the Water Advisory Committee approved $1.3 million for • inclusion in the Agency's FY 2000 - 01 budget for recycled`water projects. A recycled water project:for FWD estimated to cost $460,000 is expected to be one of the projects funded from the FY 2000-01 budget allocation. SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS - The terms used in this MOU that are defined in Section 1.1 of the Tenth Amended Agreement shall have the meaning set forth in said Section 1.1. In addition, the following;terms are defined for this MOU: (a) "Eleventh.Amended Agreement" means the Eleventh Amended Agreement for Water Supply which was not fully executed as of the date of this MOU but which was approved and has • been signed by the following cities and districts: Cotati (Resolution No 99-57),'Rohnert Park (Resolution No 99-175),Santa Rosa (Resolution No 24092), Sonoma,(approvallby motion, August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting), FWD(approval by motion, July 6; 1999 Regular Meeting), NMWD (Resolution No,99-37), VOMWD (Resolution No. 99-1102). (b) "historic;peak demand?'means the peak demand in mgd measured during a billing month occurring during the summer months of 1993 through 1999. (c) "standby local peak month production,capacity" means the potable water capacity in mgd that the parties to this,agreement, other than the.Agency, can reliably produce throughout the summer months from their own facilities: (d)' "peak demand" means the average day demand in mgd during the maximum use summer month. (e) "reasonable;requirement" for a given party to this MOU means the historic'peak demand of said party on the,Transmission System escalated at two percent per year commencing with year 2000,except,that for the purposes of calculating NMWD's reasonable requirement the historic peak demand for NMWD has been reduced by 1.0 mgd to account for an extraordinary event resulting in reduced production from the Stafford Treatment Plant in 1997. (f) "summer months" means June. July, August and September • (g) "periods of temporary impairment" means the summer months occurring duringthe term of this MOU when;the Transmission System,is capable of delivering at'least 84 mgd and no more than 92 mgd in a Month as solely determined by the.Agency. Page 4 of 15 w • SECTIONS - PURPOSE • • The purpose of this MOU is to establish an am ended procedurefor addressing periods of . temporary impairment in order to optimize allocation of the available supply, avoid the necessity for the imposition of the water delivery curtailments prescribed by Section 3.5 of the Tenth Amended Agreement, and set forth the necessary cooperative actions to-mitigate or avoid the consequences of periods oftemporary impairment. During periods of temporary impairment, the express provisions of this MOU shall supersede conflicting provisions..of Sections 3:1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.12 of the Tenth Amended Agreement and; if fully executed, Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.12,of the Eleventh Amended Agreement. Not withstanding-the Eleventh.Amended Agreement(should,it become fully executed), during the term:of this MOU whenthe Transmission System is incapable.of delivering at least 84 mgd in a month, allocation of available supply shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3.1, 3.2,3.3,3.5 and 3.12 of the Tenth Amended Agreement. Except as expressly superseded by the provisions of this MOU, all other terms and conditions of the Tenth Amended-Agreement or, if fully executed,the Eleventh Amended Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4 -TEMPORARY'DELIVERY CAPACITY ALLOCATION (a) The purpose of tliis;MOU is set forth.in.Section 3.. It is>notthe intent of this MOU to diminish the delivery entitlements set forth in Sections 3.43.2,and:3.3 of the Tenth Amended Agreement; nor shall expansion of standby local peak month production capacity described in ' Section 5 of this MOU, or the implementation of water demand reduction measures described in . Section 6 and 7 of this MOU diminish said'delivery entitlements.. . • (b) During the term of this MOU; whether or not the Eleventh Amended Agreement is fully executed, each of the parties to'this MOU agrees to use its best efforts to limit its demand on the Transmission System during periods of temporary impairment-to the applicable rates set forth in Table 1. (c) During periods of temporary:impairment, the parties hereto who take delivery of water in a given summer month billing period in excess of the amounts shown in.Table,1 shall pay to the Agency liquidated damages unless,such deliveries are less than.the:delivery entitlements provided for in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Tenth.Amended Agreement (these limits shall continue to apply during periods-of temporary impairment regardless of whether the Eleventh • Amended Agreement is fully executed), or in the case of MMWD, the;current water delivery limits made available to MMWD pursuant to the terms of the Supplemental Water Supply Agreement dated January.,25, 1996-between the Agency and MMWD. In the case of Rohnert Park, should the Water Advisory Committee determine said City has not attained the water meter installation standards described in Section 7 of this MOU, liquidated damages shall apply to all water delivered during the summer months in excess of an average rate of flow of 1.0 mid measured over the normaImonthlybilling period commencing with the date that non-compliance Page 5 of 15 S • is first determined. The liquidated damages payable pursuant to this sub-section(c) is an amount . equal to twenty-five percent(25%)'of the Agency's current Operation and Maintenance Charge times the amount of water taken in excess of"the amounts shown in Table 1 or,,in the case of MMWD and R"ohnert Park,;the:applicable limits as provided"for above. The proceeds of any liquidated damages assessed pursuantto this subsection shall be deposited and paid out in the same,manner as the?proceeds of the Agency's Transmission System Operation and=Maintenance Charge. During the time this MOU is in effect, this paragraph shall supersede Section 3.3,(b) of the Tenth.Amended.Agreement. Furthermore,the parties agree that the provisions of Sections 3.1 (c)and (d) of the Tenth Amended Agreement (or Sections 3.1 (c),and(d)'of the Eleventh Amended Agreement:if fully executed) shall not apply during the 12 month period following the date this MOU is/terminated. • Table 1 Allocation of-Agency Supply Available During the Summer Months. . Local Productio Average;Day in.Month Delivery'Rate .mgd (a) Ca.aci ,.m.d 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Cotati (b) 0.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.9 . 1.9 Petaluma 1.6 14.5 14.8 15.1 15.4 15:7 16.0 Rohnert;Park 39 4.8 4.8 4.8 52 53 53 Santa Rosa 0.0 32.9 33.6 34.2 34.9 35.6 36.3 Sonoma 0.8 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 Windsor(c) n/a 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 FWD 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 • 0:9' 0.9 VOMWD 0.7 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Other Agency . n/a 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 NorthMarin A".. (d) 4.0 19.2 18.1 16.9 21.4 21.3 ' ;20.1 Total 11.4 84.0 84.0 84.0 90.7 910. 92.0 Notes: (a)Deliveryaates are based on historic peak month demand on the Transmission System plus 2%per year growth. (b)Local production`capacity from 2003-2005 is,expected to be zero. (c) Windsor,although an Other Agency Customer, is shown separately: For purposes of voting under Section 4(d), the entitlement assigned'Windsor_is 0.8:mgd.and was.determined bvsprorating-.the entitlement of Other Agency . Customers in proportion to historic peak month demands on the Transmission System: (d)Apportionment of North.Maiin Aqueduct water between NM WD and MMWD is govemed by an intertie agreement between those two parties(Interne Agreement between NMWD and MMWD March I1, 1993). Water supplied to the North;Marin Aqueduct that is,Made available;toMMWD is governed by the Supplemental S Water Supply Agreement between the Agency and MMWDdated'lanuary 25, 1996. (d) Table 1 may be amended by the-affirmative vote of more than fifty percent (50%) of the total.weighted voting; power which must be cast by at least seven of the,parties to this MOU. or their,authorized representatives. For-the purpose of this paragraph, all of the parties to the Tenth Amended Agreement, except the Agency,!shall-:have weighted voting power proportional to their water delivery entitlement set'forth in Section 3.1 of the Tenth Amended Agreement. The Page 6 of 15 di • Agency, Windsor and MMWD shall have weighted voting power proportional to 0.8 mgd. 0.8 • mgd and 3.8 mgd, respectively. Should the parties hereto that have Table 1 allocations less than the delivery entitlements provided in Sections 3.1, 3.2and 3.3 of the Tenth Amended Agreement require more water, same shall be accommodated to the extent that water supplied by the Agency is available. The sum of suchincreasesshall.be offset by reductions to parties who have Table 1 allocations greater than their delivery entitlements. The resulting allocation for a regular customer receiving an allocation in excess oftheir delivery entitlement shall not be less than the .reasonable requirement of said regular customer reduced'by a factor determined by dividing the total available supply by the sum of the'>reasonable requirements of all parties. The remaining reduction shall be allocated to theNorth Marin Aqueduct. During the term of this MOU, if the Eleventh Amended Agreement is fully executed, the delivery entitlements contained in the Tenth Amended.Agreement shall nevertheless continue to be used for the purpose of determining Table 1 allocations. (e) Table 1 does not address limitations;in aqueduct capacity:. The maximum capacity downstream of Ely Booster is limited and„consistent with the..provisions of the Tenth Amended Agreement, flows'are"subject to detailed operating procedures set by MMWD and the Agency. It is the intentiof thesaprocedurestopreserve the depth of water storage in the Agency's Kastania Tank above 15 feet forthe•benefit of Petaluma. Maximum capacity downstream of Eldridge Tanks is limited and flows are subject to detailed operating procedures set by'Sonoma. VOMWD and the Agency. It is'theintent of these procedures to preserve storage in the Agency's Sonoma Tanks and to assure-optimal flow and pressure • conditions in the Sonoma Aqueduct. (f) The parties agree thatzconsideration of construction,of the following facilities are of the highest priority; and subject to environmental review, funding:and,all applicable laws and regulations, including'the applicable conditions set forth:in Section 2:2 of the Tenth Amended Agreement; and, in the case of item 2, subject to the approval of the Eleventh Amended Agreement and all applicable laws and regulations, including the applicable conditions of the Eleventh Amended Agreement,the Agency agrees to use best effortsto cause these planned facilities to be completed so that the following objectives'can bernet:at the,earliestpossible date: • I. To alleviate shortages in diversion capacity, construction of Collector 6; 2. To alleviate shortages south of Ely Booster Station on the.Petaluma Aqueduct,construction of the aqueduct facilities between the Russian River-Cotati Intertie Aqueduct and Ely Booster Station, and 3. To alleviate shortages south of Eldridge Tanks:on the Sonoma Aqueduct.construction of the aqueductsegment between Eldridge Tanks and Madrone Road'. In connection with consideration of these three urgently needed improvements, the Agency shall • prepare or cause..to have prepared; at the:earliest possible date, a detailed'financial plan including water rate impacts and a:detailed implementation schedule. • ' Page 7 of 15 • 1110 _ (g). The parties further agree thatit is a,high priority to achieve and maintain 20 mgd of standby pump and collector capacity as authorized by the Tenth Amended Agreement; and the Agency agrees to use best efforts to achieve this objective by completing the necessary facilities at the earliest possible-date. . SECTION b - STANDBY SUPPLY (a) The parties hereto agree that the phrase "cost effective water conservation measures that will reduce water demands on.the Transmission System" as used in.Section 2.5 of the Tenth • Amended Agreement includes cost effective.water conservation measures; recycled,water projects that offset•potable•water use, and standby local peak month production'capacity projects that reduce peak demand on the Transmission System. By November 1 o eachsyear,'the parties further agree that the Water Advisory Committee shall approve and report to the Agency which projects are to receive funding support in the subsequent fiscal year's budget. Said approval will not include the first $15 million for water conservation measures or the $1.3 million for recycled water projects which have already been approved by the-Water Advisory Committee. (b) The.parties hereto agree to use their bestefforts to achieve and maintain standby local peak month production capacity equal to approximately forty percent>(40%) of peak month demand if•feasible. As of the date of this MOU, the standby local peak month production capacity of the parties hereto is shown in Tablel. SECTION 6 WATER DEMAND REDUCTION MEASURES. Each party hereto, except the Agency;.agtees to:. • (a) Within six months'of signing-this MOU,join the California Urban Water-Conservation Council by becoming a signatory to the "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservationin California" and thereby commit to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) of water conservation•as promulgated by said Council as they currently exist or'as they - mayfrom time to time be,revised, subject to and to no extent greater than required by the terms of said memorandum. The Agency has already signed-said document and agrees to pay annual membership clues`for'water contractors. (b) Within two years of signing this MOU, evaluate and present to its governing board for consideration of adoption, water conservation pricing for retail customers as described in BMP 11. Said evaluation shall include rates and/or charges that target reduction of peak month.use. (c) Within two years of signing this MOU, evaluate and present to its board for-consideration of implementation, cost effective recycled water projects that offset-existing potable water use. . Said evaluation shall consider but not be limited'to projects identified in the report prepared by • Page 8 of 15 the Agency, dated November.l999;;entitled "Preliminary Assessment•ofUrban Water Reuse, Sonoma County Water Agency Service Area, Sonoma Countyand Marin County, California". ' SECTION 7 - SPECIAL EFFORTS In addition to the efforts described in Sections 5.and 6; the parties, as denoted below, agree to: . Cotati: 1. Accelerate implementation of BMP 5 to.July 1,2001 as it pertains to (1) offering water use surveys to customers with large landscapes; and (2), providing-reference evapotranspiration (ETo);based water use budget information to customers having dedicated irrigation'meters. Petaluma: 1. Accelerate implementation:of BMP 5 to July:1, 2001 as it pertains to (1) ' • offering water use surveys to customers with large landscapes,and (2), providing ETo•based'water use budget information to customers having dedicated irrigation meters. Rohnert Park: 1. Within one year of the effective date;of this MOU, complete aplan to retrofit-and,.bill%s by volume of use all unmetered connections: and, within 2- years of said effective<date, commence installation of meters pursuant to BMP 4 arid"thereafter complete to at least:20°4of the meter installations on unmetered connections per year,:and implement metered billing on all metered connections when the meter installation program is complete or S within 5 years of signing this MOU, whichever shall first occur: 2. Accelerate implementation of BMP 5 to July 1,;2001 as it pertains to (I)offering water use surveys to customers with large landscapes;and (2);::providing'ETo based water use budget information,to customers having dedicated irrigation meters: Santa Rosa: 1. Accelerate implementation of BMP 5 to July 1,;200.1 as it pertains to: (1) offering water,use surveys to customers'with large landscapes; and (2), providing ETo based water use budget information to customers having dedicated irrigation meters. Sonoma: 1. Accelerate implementation of BMP 5 to July 1, 2001 as it pertains to: (1) offering water usesurveys to customers,with large landscapes; and (2), providing ETo'based water use budget information to customers having dedicated"irrigation meters. - 2 In cooperation.with VOMWD. undertake a demonstration project of the feasibility of a service that efficiently operates irrigation time clocksat residential sites. NMWD: 1. Accelerate implementation of BMP 5 to July 1, 2001 as it pertains to (1) offering water use surveys to customers with largePlandscapes; and (2), providing ETo based'water use budget information to customers having dedicated irrigation meters. - - Page 9 of 15 . 2. Add one operator shift at Stafford Treatment;Plant-during the summer months or make improvements to;the plant to permit 24.hour per day operation to increase peak month • production capacity of the plant. VOMWD: 1. Accelerate implementation of BMP.5 to July 1, 2001 as it pertains to: (1) offering water use surveys to customers with large landscapes; and (2), providing ETo based water use budget information to customers having dedicated irrigation.meters. 2: In cooperation with Sonoma; undertake a demonstration project of the feasibility of a service that efficiently operates irrigation time clocks at residential sites: MMWD: 1: In,cooperation with Las Galinas Sanitary District and subject to all applicable laws, codes,and;regulations, evaluate the feasability of expanding theadvanced wastewater treatment plant and recycled water • transmission and distribution system to deliver approximately 3.0 mgd of recycled'water thattwill offset-potable water use. Windsor: 1. Accelerate implementation of BMP 5 to July I, 2001 as it pertains to (1) offering water use surveys:to customers with large landscapes; and (2), 'providing ETo based water use;.budget information to customers having dedicated irrigation meters. The obligations set forth in this section maybe amended in the same manner as set fourth in Section 4(d):of this MOU. SECTION-8 - BUILDING REGULATION AND PLANNING COORDINATION (a)(a) The parties:to this MOU agree to consult with agencies that have planning and zoning powers within their water service territories"in the manner set forth in California'Government Code Section 65352.5 in order to promote close coordination and consultation between water. supply agencies and land use approval agencies to ensure that proper water supply planning occurs in order to accommodate projects that will result in increased demands on water supplies. (b) The parties to this MOU agree to consult with agencies that have building regulatory powers pursuant to the-Government Code and Health and Safety Code to promote use of water conservation equipment,'fixtures,"appliances, devices'and techniques. SECTION 9 -SURPLUS WATER DELIVERIES (a) Effective the:date of this MOUathe Agency has determined that sufluswater.shall only be made available:to water contractors:for their direct use or for delivery to:their surplus water" use customers at rates and on such terms said water contractors shall solely determine. • Page 10 of 15 • • (b) As of the effective date of this MOU, the Agencyserved,25 surplus water customers. •• The parties to this MOU agree to cooperate in the permanent transfer of said customers from the Agency to the party whose corporate territory encompasses the site of a given surplus water customer or whose corporate territory boundary is within two miles of the turnout(s)serving said customer. Should a given surplus customer lie within two miles of more than one party, the parties shall meet and confer with,the Agency and by mutual agreement determine who is best suited to take over said surplus customer. Should;a given party opt not to take over surplus customers who lie within their corporate territory or within two miles of the boundary of same, then any other party to this agreement whose corporate territory lies within Sonoma County may apply to the Agency to take over said surplus customers Parties who agree to take on such service shall be known as surplus water providers. (c) Surplus water providers•agree to:interrupt delivery of suiplus`water upon notification by Agency if Agency determines, in its sole discretion, that there exists an immediate or pending problem involving loss!.of Transmission System storage, inadequate pumping capacity, valid _. complaint from any party that they are not receiving their appropriate allocation or delivery entitlement as a result of surplus',water!deliveries, or any other problem impacting the delivery capability of the Transmission System. Surplus water providers`shall notify their customers of Agency's right to require such delivery interruptions. Notwithstanding the right of the Agency to notify and cause the interruption of delivery of surplus water, a surplus water provider may also interrupt delivery of surplus water at any time it determines it is necessary or prudent to do so in order to satisfy the demands of its water customers; or for water system 1110 maintenance, repair, or plannedor unplanned outage of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to a perceived, threatened.or actualwater•shortage. Deliveries of surplus water shall not be deemed to be included as partof the average day maximum month delivery entitlements set forth in Sections 3.1 or 3.2 of the Tenth Amended Agreement,nor are such deliveries included as part of the allocations set forth in Tablet. . SECTION 10 - WAIVER OF RIGHTS _ By signing this M-OU, the parties do net waive or,relinquish any legal or equitable right that they might otherwise have with respect to any of the actions,activities or obligations contemplated by the Tenth or Eleventh Amended-Agreements, except to the extent specifically superseded by this MOU. SECTION 11 - AMENDMENT OF MOU Except as expressly authorized•in Section 4(d), 7 and 14, amendments. revisions or modifications to this MOU shall be in writing and shall be executed by all parties to this MOU. SECTION 12 - THIRD PARTY CLAIMS - • • Page l 1 of 15 S It is not the intent of the parties to this MOU to create any third party beneficiaries. Any failure to perform under:the terms of this MOU shall not create any claim or rightbyanyindividual or entity nota party to this MOU. SECTION 13 - ENTIRE AGREEMENT - This writing is intended both as the final expression of agreement between and;aniong the parties hereto with respect to the included terms and as a'complete and exclusive;statement of the terms of the MOU, pursuant to.Civil Code'§ 1856: No modification of this MOU shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced bya writing signed byall-parties:or, where; • expressly authorized herein, by the parties'authorized representative. SECTION 14 - TERM OF MOU This MOU,becomes effective,upon-the signature by•all parties hereto and shall remain in effect until September 30, 2005 unless terminated earlier by a vote of more than fifty percent of the total weighted voting power which must be cast by at least seven of the parties to this MOU. Voting power shall be the same as defined in Section 4 (d) hereof. For the purposes of this section, votes shall be cast by resolution adopted by the governing board of each voting party and shall be deliveredtto each of the parties hereto. Extension of this agreement shall require the approval of:alhthe parties.hereto. • • • • Page 12of15 • • • SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY • By: Date: ATTEST: Deputy County Clerk CITY OF COTATI By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ea CITY OF PETALUMA By: Date: • Mayor ATTEST: • City Clerk CITY OF ROHNERT PARK By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: ' City Clerk Page 13 of 15 1111 CITY OF SANTA ROSA By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SONOMA By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk FORESTVILLE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT By: Date: President ATTEST: Secretary . NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT By: Date: President ATTEST: Secretary Page 14 of 15 VALLEY OF THE MOON WATER DISTRICT • By: Date: President ATTEST: Secretary MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT By: Date: • President ATTEST: Secretary gill TOWN OF WINDSOR By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Final MOU 061900.wpd - Page 15 of 15 • Fact Sheet Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission.System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment* 1 Parties: Cities, Cotati, Petaluma, RohnerePark, Santa.Rosa, Sonoma and Windsor Special Districts: Forestville Water District,North Marina Water District, Marin Municipal Water.District, Sonoma.County Water Agency and the Valley of the Moon Water District(11 Parties in all). 2 T e r m: September 30, 2005 (5:yrs +3 months)..,May be extended by agreement of all parties. 3 Applicable Period.(ImpairmentPeriod): Summer Months (June, July, August and September of.2000"through 2005) 4 Definitions that apply: Same as Tenth Amended Agreement; plus following, 1. "standby local peak month production capacity" means the,potable water capacity in mgd that the parties to the°agreement, other than the Agency, can be reliably produce 110 throughout the summer months from their own facilities; and, 2. "peak"demand"means average day demand in mgd during the maximum use summer month; and, 3. "reasonable requirement" for-each of the years covered-by the MOU means the historic peak demand'+2%/yr'compounded. 5 Average Monthly Delivery Rates that Parties agree to do their best to adhere to: See Table 1. (Note: Table 1 !knits only apply if Transmission System delivery capacity is greater than 84 mgd. If;it.falls below 84 mgd, the,shortage provisions of Section 3.5 of-the Tenth Amended Agreement appl ' ) 6 Can Parties exceed the Tabled delivery rates wit/tout penalty? Yes, but only up to the their entitlement limit as set forth in the Tenth Amended.Agreement. 7 Can Table l delivery,rates be changed? Yes, by-a"must meet=two test" vote of the Parties. The first test is a majority of weighted votes (each Party has a weighted vote in proportion to their Tenth Amended Agreement entitlement or: in the case ofMM,WD-and-Windsor. theicassigned voting power). The seconditest is that seven of the eleven parties approve. III * prepared by John OlafNelson Water Resources Management, 1833 Castle Dr; Petaluma, CA 1 8 What's expected of the Agency to resolve the temporary impairment? Use best efforts to build three badly needed improvements as soon as possible: 1. Build Collector No. 6. This will'boost delivery capacity at the head works of the Transmission System to 92:mgd. 2. Build north segment of the parallel Petaluma Aqueduct(segment from Cotati Tanks to Ely:Booster). This will alleviate shortages:doivnstream of Ely Booster. 3. Build a segment of parallel Sonoma Aqueduct(segment from Eldridge Tanks to Madrone Road). This'will alleviate shortages downstream of Eldridge Tanks. Funding Mechanism: As set forth in the.Tenth and pending Eleventh,Amended Agreements. 9 What's expected of the'Other Parties.to survive/resolve the temporary impairment?' Implementation of a concurrent three pronged effort:, 1. Expanded Conservation`Efforts. Each Party is required to implement cost;effectiveBest Management Practices as defined by the:California'Urban Water Conservation Council (see;Attachment A for recap.ofI4 BMPs), including analysis and presentation of a conservation rate structure to its Board/Council that targets peak month use 2. Recycled Water Projects. Each Party isirequired.to evaluate and:present cost-effective recycled water projects that potable water use to its Board/Council,. 3: Local Standby Supply. Each.Party commits to use best efforts to expand standby' local peak month production capacity(wells/surface supplies). Funding Mechanism: Provisions of the Tenth and pending Eleventh Amended Agreements. Water Advisory Committee to determine and-makerecommend'ations to Agency by November I of each year as to which projects are to receive funding support in subsequent fiscal year:. 10 Additional Special Efforts Required/Offered: NMWD: Attenuate production from Stafford Lake (thus reducing:peak north demand on the,Transmission System) by going to 24 hour operation of Stafford Treatment Plant Rohnert Park: Install meters on all unmetered accounts. Sonoma and VOMWD: Undertake demonstration project using wireless,technology.to automatically control,residential'irrigation;,valves using CIMIS evapotranspiration data Cotati. Petaluma; Rohnert Park. Santa Rosa,,Sonoma: NMWD; VOMWD and Windsor: Accelerate-BMP 5'to July.1, 2001. (BMP 5 requires offering audits to large landscape;sites, and ET scheduling information and feedback to customers; having irrigation only connections to water system. MMWD - Evaluate feasibility of 3 nigd recycled water project. 7 • ATTACHMENT #12 MEMO:FROM STEVE SIMMONS RE: CITY WATER RATE INCREASE CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA ' VIEMORANDUM Water Resources and'Conservations'Department,`22.Bassett St.,Petaluma Cl 94952 (707) 778-4304 Fax(707)i778-4437 E-mail: dwrcipetaluma.ca.us DATE: June 29, 2000 TO: Tom Hargis, Director of Water Resources and Conservation FROM: Steve Simmons, Utility Manager j A-•-" SUBJECT: Resolution Setting Water Rates sand Charges Chapter 15.16 of the Petaluma Municipal Code allows setting of water rates and charges by resolution. The last such resolution was 94-317 N.C.S. (cop •attached). This resolution set our water rate at ;31.08 per 748 gallons effective January of 1995: At that time, our cost for purchased water from the Sonoma County Water Agency was 3278.22 per acre-foot (325,850 gallons). This fiscal year our cost is 8331.61 that is about a 20% increase. During this same period, the Consumer Puce Index has increased about 19% and the Engineering News Record for construction in the San Francisco area has increased about 10%. Without a rate increase, the FY 00-01 budget would result in about .8900,000 more in expenditures than revenues. This number includes 8210;000 of increased costs from the water utilities share of the five new positions approved for the new Department of Water Resources and Conservation. There are two components to the water,rate, a flat fixed charge andra.commodity charge. The flat rate pays for non-variable costs such as routine maintenance, billing, meter reading, etc. The commodity charge pays for increased variable costs;,forpower, water purchases, wear and tear, etc. caused by moving more water through the system. To balance revenues with expenditures will involve increasing the average annual cost to our customers. I have attached a 1999 Urban Area Total Annual Water Cost Comparison prepared • by North Marin Water District. For Petaluma currently the typical detached single family home is paying about $217 per year. It is recommended this cost increase to about $258 per year by increasing the water commodity rate from $1.08 per 748 gallons to SI 25 per 748 gallons (15% increase) and also. by increasing the fixed rate from S3 per month to S4 per month (25% increase). The overall weighted increase would,be about.18%. The reason for the larger flat rate increase is because the last flat rate increase was April of 1991.. It will also provide a more stable revenue stream. The flat rates for the larger meters would also increase proportionally. Aside • from increased annual costs several new factors have added to the need for a water rate increase. These factors include spending on water conservation, funding a significant portion of Sthe General Plan including a storm water component, funding half of the City's new GIS Program and fundinga water rate study. S/STAFF/SB/WATER/SS/WATER;R.ATES&CHARGES Alternatives that would reduce the proposed rate increase•could include drawing down the water • utilities projected FY 00-01 ending working..capital balance of 32,738,150 or elimination of programs/projects. The water utility pdrtion of the five new positions is about 3210,000 per year. Filling these new positions could be phased. • S/STAFF/SB/1VATER/SS/WATER RATES S CHARGES Resolution No. 9A-317 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma. California 1 RESOLUTION SET G>WATER RATES AND 2 _ CHARGES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE a PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE 4 REPEALS RESOLUTION 93-258 NCS 5 6 7_ WHEREAS, the Petaluma Municipal Code Title 15 provides for the establishment 8 and operation of a water system arid the charging of certain'fees and charges; and 9 10 WHEREAS, Chapter 15.16 provides the setting of certain fees and charges by 11 resolution; and 12 • • 13 WHEREAS; Resolution 93-258 NCS adopted September 20, 1993 set various 14 fees and charges currently in effect. 15 16 - NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of 17 Petaluma hereby sets the following:fees and charges: - 18 19 Section 1 - Metered Services -Fixed.Service Charge 20 211 Minimum-Monthly 2? Meter Size Service Charge 24 5/8 or 3/4 inch $3:00 25 • l inch $3.60 �6 1 1/2 inch $6.00 57 2 inch $8.70 51 3 inch $16.80 29 4 inch $21.60 30 6 inch $31.20 31 8 inch $43.20 3, 10 inch$60.00 33 34 Section 2 -Water Consumption 35 "36 51.08 for each 100 cubic feet of water registered through the meter. 37 38 Section 3 - Private Fire Protection 39 40 • Fixed Monthly 41 Connection Size Service Charge 42 43 . • 1 1/2-inch ' . . $3:25" 44 2 inch $4.70 45 3 inch $7.00 46 4 inch $9.35' 47 6 inch - $14.00 48 8 inch $13.70 9. 10 inch$23.40 0 51 Water consumed for fire or other uses shall be charged.atthe consumption rate in Section 57 2 Res, 3a 0.4-.Y17.. NG5. 1 Section 4 -Public Fire Hydrant Service to City or Other Public Authority 2 3 A) Water consumed;for fire or other public related uses shall be charged at the 4 consumption rate in Section 2. 5 6 B) There shall be a minimum charge of$2.00 per hydrant per year. 7 8 Section 5 - Billing Period and Pro-ration 9 10 A) The billihg,period shall be bimonthly which is an average of every 60.8 days. 11 12 B) The,monthly fixed charges,in other sections of this resolution shall be doubled for 13 purposes of the bimonthly billing and pro-ration of the bimonthly bill 14 15 C) Pro-ration of the bill shall^be done if the billing period is less than 54 days or greater 16 than 66 days. 17 18 Section 6 -Return Fee Shall Be $15 19 20 Section 7 - Turn-on-due.to resumption of service from payment of delinquent bill shall be $30.00 21 - 22 Section 8,- Turn-on or off of service or other services at the request or caused by consumer, 23 regardless.of reason, after 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, holidays or weekends shall be 24 $60.00.per'service.call. 25 26 Section 9 - Deposit to open account or re-establish an account due to delinquency shall be 27 $50.00. 28 29 Section TO -.The first delinquent notice mailed to the consumer shall cause a$5 charge-to be 30 added to the consumer account. . 31 32 Section 11 - Meter Testing Deposit 33 34 Deposit 35 Meter Size Amount 36 - 37 1-inch or less $10:00 38 Greater than 1 inch $15.00 40 Section 12 - Miscellaneous Fees and Charges. 41 42 Actual cost for various services plus a 20% administrative charge will be charged to the consumer 43 for services requested or caused by the consumer. 44 45 Section 13 -Meter Penalty Charges 46 47 A) There is a $50 first time penalty for a meter valve being turned on and/or unauthorized 48 taking of water by anyone other than City employees. This penalty also may be imposed. 49 for damaging or unauthorized tampering of city water service. 50 .- 511 B) There is a $200 penalty for each additional action. Reso. 94-317 NCS • 1 Section 14 -Fire:Hydrant Load Meter 2 3 A) A$1,200 deposit shall be required by the consumer in order to obtain a meter and connection to a fire hydrant. 6 B) A $2.00 per day meter charge will be levied for use of the.meter. 7 8 C) The applicant will be charged for the actual water use based on the rates in Section 2. 9 10 Section 15 - Bridge Meter 11 12 A) A$600 deposit shall be.required by the consumer in order to obtain a meter and 13 , connection to a fire hydrant. 14 15 B) A $2.00 per day meter charge will be levied for use;_of the meter. 16 17 C) The applicant will be charged for the actual water use based on the rates in Section 2. 18 19 Section 16 - Construction Service 70 Z1 A) A $100 deposit shall'be required for a 3/4 inch or 1 inch construction meter set at curb 2? stop. 23 24 B) A $1.00 per day metercharge'will be levied for use of the meter. 15 26 C) The applicant will be charged for the actual water use based on the rates in Section 2. 27 Section 17 - The charges in Resolution 93-258 NCS shall remain in effect until the effective date of the charges in this Resolution. 31 Section 18 - The charges in this resolution.shallbe effective as follows: 32 A) The charges,in Section 2 - Water Consumption - shall be effective for all bills issued 34 after January 31, 1995. - 35 36 B) All other charges in this resolution shall be effective for services provided after 37 December 1, 1994. • Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council'by the Charter of said City, REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was,introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) moitccuanclevaia meeting. 'rm on the _ 5th ""'__ day of _...'_. ecenib2L__..'_."_......-, 19..94, by the:' following.vote: - City • ttorney AYES: Parkerson, Read, Barlas, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss *NOES: None ABSENT: Hamilton • - , ' - • AiilbST: �• . R.:( . � /i}..2 ./i'LCdL'— T9 // i ji ity Clerk Mayor Co,mdl F' -ry- CA 10 R5 Rcs. Nn v CS. .2111199 �. - - 1999 URBAN ARgA TOTAL ANNUAL'WATER COST COMPARISON • Typical Detached Single Family Home Annual Consumption= 125,664 Gallons • $0 $ioo $200 5300 $400 $500 $500 $700 , �Marin Municipal WD fi� Ns ; � 557346�� / j ,,$yf"'li 42- Y V.} � ri j / Contra Costa WO (2) "' ,"'q'iJ'� �' * wY'§Yi 4'4"-t,i7r'�/ �-yJrygL r ry�� $543.92 ( h Belmont CWD f. a j��/�/�j/ j��jjj� :1268 East Bay MUD (2) CyysA_$379:30 City of Napa (2) / j/ $378.88 • Valley of the Moon (1) ,f 41.:4; �j S345.13 City of y.:)t 4;415',..0:1/2/1 ,r $342 0 San Jose Water Co ia: .c. i4.,:4 s,j �� 3 �. t I)9 M � � 1 City of Sonoma (1) txfi< 11/ ����� $321:11 . 4 ii , AlamedaCWO r,`"sue ) d?f�:`%/ � 1= $320:16. T. I � Forestville CWD (1) _ Tl , llit 4. jjf . $28227 cejt Ci ty of Santa Rosa(1) ,,4r j $2l 4.71 - 41 r City of San Francisco ����j/ $25 148 0 NORTH MARIN (1)(2) .ps Vt?r'� 42$236.65 -41— -l;ti City orcotati (1) i 2-!-..1.,.34 7; A`$224251 Annual Cost Average $336.33 ' City of.Petaluma (1) ff*ir �� $217.4; Median $327:30 l NNW $236:65 City of Rohnert Park (1) i ' z"t t,, ;5180:00 it LEGEND (1)Sonoma County Water Agency Customer }". __ (2)Weighted Avenge.Commodity Charge-All Zones 111 la Minimum D Commodity 6Taxes(3) (3)Based on AV of 5201 534'tor Me Typial Single Family Home • NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT 1999 URBAN AREA WATER,COST COMPARISON FOR TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING As of February 11, 1999 Typical Detached Single Family_Residence is Served by a 5/8'x 3/4'Meter • Annual Consumption is-Ealculated at 168-C-cfper Year- No,of Tax'Rate Bimonthly' • Water Annual. Total' ater Per Taxes Minimum Commodity Commodity Annual -enc Note Services $100/A-V, Paid 1 Chaise Ratelccf Gila :e(2)` Cost Mann Municipal',WO (3)` 58';804 -. 575:00 '$1621 $2211$4.08 $401_20 $57346. Contra Costa WO (4) 59,397 $0.0099 57-36 533;21' 52.008 92 $337.7 Belmont CWD . (5) 7.743 - 6 $412.68 $15.82 51.00/$2'04 $317.76 $412.6 East Bay MUO (6) 364,921 50.0146 529.42 516.08 51.506 City of Napa (7) 22,000 - - 5378.40 5378.30 SO.gq .52255` 5378:88 5378.88 Valley of the Moon 6,800 - - $6.00 51840. City of Vallejo (8) 37,000 $ $16.00 246.00 5342. 0 .00 51.07!$1.52 5246.00 5342:000 San Jose Water Co (9) 215:000 - - $15.33 51:437 $241:49 $333.48 City of Sonoma (10) 3,555 $10.00 51.05/51:76 $261.1'1 $321.11 Alameda'CWO 74,886 50.0140 528.15 57.90 51.456 5244.81 5320.16 Forestville CN1D 11 521 $1.608 ( ) 895 so:ooso 5,2.os .50 Vat,e 528227 City of Santa Rosa 44,256 ,- $8.62 $1.399 City of San Francisco 165,000 $6 51260 234:99 $274';71 .80 5160 $2da.68 525248 NORTH•MARIN (12) 17,990 $0.0100 $20.15 ;8.00 $1:003 $168.50 $23665'i- City of Cotati (13) 2,195 - 513.50 50:853 $181.44 $22 City of Petaluma 17.000 $6.00 51•:080 City of Rohnert Park (13) 8;430 - - $164.4( $180. • $30.00 $180:00 Notes: (1)Based on.Mann County:Assessor's 1998-99 average net assessed value of Novato--single-family residence of 5201,504. (2)Based on median single-family detached residential consumption'of 168 Cd per year (3)Three.eleredrate stucture. Rate/Cd.=5221..$4.08 &`57.83. Summer tiers(6/1-11/30)0-35 Cd.36-88 Cd, 88*. Winter tiers (1211-5/31)i0-21 act,22-48 Cd,484-. Tax is a flat amount per parcel.levied td;finance improvements to increase flow volume for fire protection. (4)Tax rate,applies,to.unimproved land value only Commodity:charge goalies to 80%of customers. (5)First 4 Cd bimonthly'@$1:00/Cd„additional at52:04/Cd.,Bimonthly minimum charge includes 54:36 Capital Expense Chame. (6)Weighted average commodity charge-all zones. -1st Zone Charge(0-2001 Is 0-172.gpd'Q 51.23/Ccf- 172 to 393 gpd @ Si.53; use in excess of 393 gpd©$1.87/Cd. Additional 24¢/Ccf:for customers in Elevation Zone i2(200-6001 additional'520/Cof for customers above 6000 (7)Weighted average,commodity charge- 1st Zone Charge '=53.00/1,000 gallons Upper Zone 5115/1000. (8) Four tiered rate structure. First 2 Cd bimonthly @ 51:07/Cd;3 to 5'Ccf @$1.30/Ccf;6r50;@ 51.52;51-'Cd @;$1.64/Cd. Commodity raterincrease of approx 3%scheduled for Mardi 1. 1999.. (9)Rates and,charges-ineiude_5%:Utility User Tax and 1.4%;PUC tax. (10) First 6;000 gallons•bimonthly @ 51.4011,000;audi'.ions!@ 52.25/1,000. Annual;.Cost •(11) 10,000:gallons bimonthly included in minimum charge. Aver2Q0 $336:33 (12) Comrrodityrate is the weighted average charge for all zones.. _ Median $327:30 (13)Significant share ofsource water is naturally replenished ground water. NMWD $236.65 . Comparison of Water District Charges'for Service Lines & Connections Surveyed January 22; 1999 1"Service sib" Service • Connection service Line Connection Service Line Fee bMeter Total Fee 8 Meter Total Contra Costa"WD 531,750 51;595 533;345 512,700 $1,537 $14,237' East Say MUD 19,250 2;580 2 21,830 8,430 ' 2,555 ' 10,985 Valley of the Moon WD 10,554 1 1,336 11,89d 5,861 ' 1,221 7,081 Mann Municipal_WD 7,032 • 1,750 8;782 7,032 • 1,700 8.732 Alameda County WO - 5,837 1 140 " 5,977 5,837 ' 85 " 5,922 Vallejo, City of 4;200 ' • 994 5,194 ', 4,200 ' 892 5,092 -Fs North Marin WD 3212 ' 1:710 4;922 3212 ' 1,660 4,872 Forestville WD 3,575 910 ' 4.485 1,430 . 810 ' 2,240 Sonoma, City.of '3,200 " 1,130 4,330 3,200 '° 1,050 4,250 Petaluma, City of 3,435 1' 600" 4,035 ;435 600 '= 4,035 Cotati. City of 3;670 170 " 3,840 3,000 " 120 '' 3,120 Rohnert Park, City of Z440 n 0 " 2.440 2 440 IS 0 '° 2,440 Santa Rosa, City of 2;101'12 150 " 2,251 2,101 " 100 " 2.201 Average $7,712 $1,005 $8;7171 $4,837 $948 $5,785 Median 53,8701 $994 .34:9221 $3,435 $392 $4,872 General Assumptions:- • Charges are farsingle family unit • Lot s¢eis 60'x>700'=6;000 sq.ft • Front footage is 60' ' Connecbon.fee(System Capacity Charge)is based`:on the average fee for Ciihda, Moraga, Lafayette and San Ramon Valley,Walnut.Creek EBMUD'utilizes`a fee range based upon seven different regions: The range for 1'service is 56.420- 522,800; 5/8'3ervice is$1?640-39,980: There is£also:a separate SCC schedule for six outlying areas not factored into me average used above. That range for 1' service is..322,200-558,500"and'5/8-,Is.31;1,100.532,400. 'Service line and meter fee is based on installation in paved conditions. If unpaved;then charges are: 1'_5628; 5/8' - 3602. ' Includes a minimum front footage charge of 32,736. ' Based on estimated annual usage-at322'400/AF Average usage is.a Itttleless-than 1/3 AF. Quoted 57,032 average charge. 3 Connection Fee components: Facilities Connection'Charge$4.860/unit lot size 6.000 sq. I. or greater 54,229/unrt lot size less than 6;000 so. b.. Facilities.Acreage.Charge$5;335/acre.(6.000/43:560 x`55.33.5=S747) Standare Acreage Charge$1 670/acre(6,000/43,560 x 31,570=5230) Front Foe/Charge'(existing mains). Range: 6---18', s18lft-360P Mean. 12'-335/ft(60'-x 535.=,$2:100) Most insfallations'do not require ram foot charge. 'Alameca County WO does not install 6/8'service due to legislation r"ecuinng firersprink;er service. • 1110 c nsa 4.1CGM . - Page oft • -�•• N� • -•• �r rearm 1.„5trcr enarges tor entice LineS & Connections Suive led January 22; 1999' Generelly:charge.5l8'connection fee for service size through 1'. Additional cnarges if elevation is too'higr to be'served by the crynide Sgnd;pressure area Additional charges for installations encompassing.service areas outside Vallejo City proper. I ncludes$272 reimbursement funcicharge,tnat may de refunded in•part to developers reouirecito,oversize mains. Note. NNIWD's charge is reduced by 5700 if the developer installs'storage and by another 5175 if the developer.installs.andllary pumping faafities. °Service line is a minimum charge`or actual cost whichever is greater, 1'.7 5800; 5/8'-5750. Most installation costs are below the minimum.charge. • 'a Fee of 52,000 plus.aaront footage charge of;520/foot where:there are existing mains(60'x520=$1,200). If no main exists, the builder is responsjblifôf the installation and'no frontfootage is charged. " Fee differs by geographic area;&,is'based on 1990 improvement program where the city annexed new area: '.ZoneA(annexed erea),fee of 53,435 includes an assessment for the improvements made in the 1990 program;`Zone 3(old part of town)fee is 31,250; most new construction is in Zone 4 • "Most service installation is doneas part of public improvement projects;if main isadjacent to.property„within`6'.ofcurb,the city installs at an average cost of 5500;if main is Felt within 6'of curb, owneribuilderinstalls. Installatfo`ns are•split evenly with approximately half*thin Tend half exceeding 6'from.he curb. "Developer is responsible foe installing the service line from the main to the meter "Cotati does not instaL518'service;fees are.for%' service 1 If property fans outside the 1965.Assessment.lnfrastructure,.fee=$17,715/acre(6;000/43550 x 517,715=52440). If propertyliwithin the 1965 Assessment Infrastructure;fee=51,715/unit Developer is responsible for service line and meter installation. • Includes$111 processing charge per connection. Developer is responsible for service line installation. • • • • • :air Pa 14 PIA Fade 2 0! • Resolution No. N.C.S. DRAFT ' go of the City of Petaluma, California 3 4 SETTING WATER RATES AND 5 CHARGES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16.16 OF THE 6 PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE 7 REPEALS RESOLUTION 94-317 N.C.S. 8 9 10 WHEREAS, the Petaluma.Municipal Code Title 15 provides for the establishment and operation 11 of a water system and the charging of certain fees and charges; and 12 13 WHEREAS, Chapter 15.16 provides the setting of certain fees and charges by resolution; and 14 15 WHEREAS, Resolution 94-317 N:C:S. adopted December 5, 1994 set various fees and charges 16 currently in effect. 17 18 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Petaluma 19 hereby sets the following fees and charges: 20 21 Section 1 —Metered Services —Fixed Service Charge. 22 Minimum Monthly Meter Size Service Charge 25 26 5/8 or 3/4 inch S.:3-.-90 $4.00 27 1 inch $3.60 $5.00 28 1 1/2 inch $6.00 $8.00 29 2 inch S.8779 $11.00 30 3 inch 816.80 $20.00 31 4 inch $31.60 $25:00 32 6 inch S31.20 $40.00 33 8 inch $44739 $50.00 . 34 10 inch $60-00 $80:00 35 36 Section 2 — Water Consumption. 37 38 $-1448 $1.25 for each 100 cubic feet of water registered through the meter 39 . 40 • • Resolution No. N.C.S. S,STAFF/SB/WATER/SS/WATER RATES&CHARGES 2 Section 11 — Meter Testing Deposit. 3 4 Deposit 5 Meter Size Amount 6 7 1 inch or.less $10.00 8 Greater than 1 inch $15.00 9 10 Section 12 —Miscellaneous Fees and Charges. 11 12 ' Actual cost for various services plus a 20% administrative charge will be charged to the 13 consumer for services-requested or caused by the consumer. 14 15 Section 13 —Meter Penalty Charges. 16 17 A) Thee is a$50 first time penalty for a meter valve being turned on and/or unauthorized 18 taking'of water.by,anyone other-than City employees. This penalty also-maybe imposed 19 • for damaging or unauthorized tampering of City water service. 20 21 B) There is'a 5200 penalty for each'additional action. 77 23 Section 14— fire Hydrant,Load Meter. 24 • 25 A) A_$1,200 deposit shall be required by the consumer in order to obtain a.meter and 26 connection to afire hydrant. 27 28 B) A $2.00 per day meter charge will be levied for use of the meter. 29 30 C) The applicant will be charged for the actual water use based on.the rates in Section 2. 31 32 Section 15 —Bridge Meter. 33 34 A) A $600 deposit shall be required by the consumer in order to obtain a meter and 35 connection to afire hydrant. 36 37 B) A S2.00 per day meter charge will be levied for use of the meter. 38 3.9 C) The-applicant will be charged for the actual water use based on the rates in Section 2. 40 41 Section 16— Construction'Service. 42 43 A) A $100 deposit shall be required for a 3/4 inch or 1 inch construction meter set at 44 curb stop. • 45 - • 46 B) A $1.00 per day meter charge will be levied,for use of the meter. • S/STAFF/SB/WATER/SS/WATER RATES&CHARGES • • 1 • C) The applicant,will be charged forthe actual water use based on the rates in Section 2. 4 Section 17 — The charges in Resolution 94-317 N.C:S. shall remain in effect until the effective 5 date of the charges in this Resolution. 6 7 Section 18 —The charges in this Resolution shall be effective as follows: 8 9 A) The charges in Section 2— Water Consumption— shall be effective for all bills issued 10 after August 31, 2000. 11 12 B) All other charges in this-Resolution shall be effective:for services provided after 13 August 31, 2000. 14 15 16 17 S/SB/Water/SS/Water Rates&Charges 18 19 S Under the.power-and authority conferred'upon this Council by.the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: - . I`hereby certify the foregoing.Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting form on the day of , 19 by the - following:vote: . . City Attorney AYES: �S. ABSENT: - ATTEST: _ .. SiSTAF&t$r EIMLITER/SS/WATER RAPES&CHARGES .Mayor _ Council'File.._ �'A:IO:Hn Hk Au. A.CS. S ATTACHMENT #13 6/27/00 E-MAIL FROM STEVE SIMMONS TRANSMITTING: • ® OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR SOUTH PETALUMA AQUEDUCT ® MAY 15, 2000 WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES ® JUNE 19, 2000 WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING • . Thomas Hargis - m: Steve Simmons Tuesday, June 27, 2000 4:12 PM ThomasHargis • Subject: FW:• ven newer • Xastana Cntena WACtumta051500.d 062700 doe s Here is the Operating MOD. . . I 'm OK with it. . . .NMWD is OK and I 'm confident MMWD is also. . . . . I talked with Debbie Webster of the SCWP. today. She had some miner concernslout nothing that would change my- opinion. . .As I said this morning; there is language in the: MOO Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Aliocatton During Temporary Impairment that is really _the teeth 'to keeping water in Kastania Tank for Petaluma's benefit (see section. 4-e.) . . . . I have also attached the May 15, 2000 minutes from the Water Advisory Committee Meeting. . :the first couple of pages include the metering- discussion we had with the City of Rohnert Park I would recommend the city accept the metering plan as proposed in the final version of the: -MOD. At this point I don't have any serious concerns with asking Council for approval of Amendment 11 and the two MOD's . Original Message From:. Joyce [mailto:JArnold @nmwd..com] Sent : Tuesday, June 27, 2000 3:35 PM. ssimmons @ci.petaluma.ca.us • .ect: Even newer * This message contains the file "Kastania Criteria 062700.doc ' , which has been * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use * the browser' s eXtract function to lift '€he original contents * out to a file, otherwise you 'will have to extract the message * and uudecode it manually. • • 1 • OPERATING PROCEDURE;FOR SOUTH PETALUMA AQUEDUCT 1.0 BACKGROUND' The,Sonoma.County WaterAgency's(SCWA) Ely yPump Stationserves SCWA's Petaluma Aqueduct customers,(Petaluma, North Marin Water District(North Marin) and Mann Municipal Water District (MMWD)) by pumping water into SCWA's Kastania Tank in south Petaluma. SCWA's - Kastania Pump Station receives peak period water supply from Tank and/or the Ely Pump Station and delivers water to.North Marin and MMWD. It is recognized by the parties to this procedure that at times the ElyPump Station may not have sufficient capacity to meet all of the water demands of the.Petaluma Aqueduct customers. At those times, Kastania Tank may reach levels that will reduce the reliability of water service provided by.the facility. • 2.0 KASTANIA'PUMPING PLANT OPERATIONAL CONTROL Pursuant to-Section 3.4 of the Agreement Among the Sonoma County Water Agency, North Marin Water District and Mann Municipal Water District for Acquisition'of the North Marin Aqueduct and the Kastania Pumping Plant;dated April 13, 1999 North Mann shall'maintain operational control 5 of the Kastania Pumping Plant'for the' purpose of delivering water to North Marin and Marin Municipal. Operational Control means starting and stopping the pump or purnps either automatically by a set point established by North Marin in North Marin's hydraulic First;Zone storage system or manually. North Marin will install:further operational control to automatically start and stop the pump or pumps as set forth in Section below. • 3.0 ELY PUMPING PLANT'OPERATIONAL CONTROL SCWA operates and maintains the transmission system including Ely Pumping Plantin accordance with'provisions of the Tenth Amended Agreement for Water Supply and Construction of the Russian.River— Cotati Inter-tie Project dated October 25, 1974 and last amended'on November 14, 1997 (Tenth Amended Agreement). SCWA.shall maintain its operational control to automatically start and`stop pump or pumps asset forth in Section 4belbw. SCWA,will maintain in stock a spare pump and motor'for replacement of pump/motor sets at Ely Pumping plant as maybe necessary from time to time to assure reliable operation of the system. 4.0 ACTION LEVELS Level 1 - 30feet+at Kastania Tank. • Q\TEMPKastan,a criteria 062700.dot 1 Last printed 6/29/00 10:36 AM- The SCWA will operate all pumps at Ely Pumping Plant whenever Kastania tank reaches this level and will continue operating all pumps until Kastania Tank level reaches at-least 38 feet. Level 2'— 20 feetat Kastania Tank At this stage North,,Marin will turn off the 450 horsepower pump at Kastania pump station and utilize only the 250 horsepower pump at astahia pump station. Level.3.— 15 feetat.Kastania Tank All pumps at Kastania pump station will be turned off until such time as Kastania tank regains storage level to 20 feet. 4.1 Drawdown for Water Quality During low demand periods (November through March), the SCWA may draw down the Kastania tank level to 15 feet to preserve water quality upon notification of the,Petaluma Aqueduct customers. 5. PROCEDURE MODIFICATION ANDTERM On or about April 1;of each year,thesignatories herewith agree to review this procedure and make necessary modifications to avoid operational conditions which may'be-injurious to an •party. The• signatories agree to consider modifications to this procedure that increase compromise positions to provide the maximum benefits while;minimizing adverse effects on each party. This procedure shall remain in place during the period that the Memorandum of Understanding, Regarding 'Water Transmission System. Capacity Allocation'During Temporary Impairment is effective and shall end upon said Memorandum of Understanding.s`termination. The undersigned concur and agree with the above operating procedure: C1TEMP4castanla Criteria 062700doc 2 Last printed 6/29/00 10:36 AM • CITY OF';PETALUMA Tom Hargis, Director of Water Resources and Conservation Fred Stouder, City Manager NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT Mike McMaster, Operations Superintendent Chris DeGabriele, General Manager MARIN MUNICIPAL.WATER;DISTRICT Dana Roxon, Senior Engineer/Operations Planner Pam Nicolai, General Manager SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY Hody Wilson Randy Poole, General Manager/Chief Engineer • • c.\TEMP‘Kastania Criteria 062700 ciao 3 Last printed 6/29/00 10:36 AM • Water Advisory CommitteesMeeting May 15,2000 MINUTES. A. Call to Order The meeting was called td order at 9:08 a.m. B. Introductions The attendees made inttOductions. C.- Public Comment • None. D. Approval of Minutes 111 A motion was made by Chris DeGabriele. NMWD, and seconded by Bill Massey, Forestville Water District to approve the meeting minutes from March 13, 2000 and April 17, 2000. The Water Advisory Committee members:approved;themotion. E. a. . - ••. C - .61 1 • f• A le - u • t -•. • i. • . . n u. 'II System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and Take Other Actions Recommended by WAC MOTI Subcommittee John Olaf Nelson, Water ResourcesManagement, led a review and discussion of the Draft#9 MOU, a two-page-Fact Sheet of the draffMOU and a document entitled @Recap of CUWCC Best Management Practices.@ Mn Nelson noted that attorneys for the Sonoma County Water Agency and the City of Santa Rosa have proposed minor changes that do not change'the•content of the MOU but will require a tenth draft. • Mr. Nelson stated that the major area of change in the ninth draft is in Section 7 regarding Rohnert Park. Language has been changed to extend the implementation schedule for Items b and c of BMP 5 to five years. rather than 2-1/2 years, and specify that water meter installations start at 2-1/2 years, Joe Gaffney, City of Rohnert Park. discussed the City=s plan for meter implementation. Mr. Gaffney noted thfee areas that affect the tithing of the plan: . Financing for the $3-1/2 million program; • S Studyingthe:most:effective way of program implementation; A backlog in meter orders which may cause cone-year delay. Mr. Gaffney said the.City of Robert Park is confident that implementation will start • before the 2=1/2'year timeline. Rohnert Park prefers to make the transition to metered billing atone time, rather than in:stages. The City of Robert Park currently bills at,a flat rate of$15.00 per month. Mr.'Gaffney stated that Robert Park has approximately 7,500 accounts without meters. Seven thousand of these accounts have a meter box`and straight piece of pipe-that would allow for quick:installation of meters, possibly in one year=s time. The remaining 500 accounts would require location of the lateral and installation of a-metef and•box that would be niore time-consuming and difficult. The City of Robert Park plans to contract for all meter installations, rather than contract in phases. Mr. Gaffney.noted that additional personnel will be,required;in the Utilities and Public Works departments to read and maintain the new water meters and maintain the new billing system. Randy Poole,-Sonoma County Water Agency„requested additional language for an intermediate step'between implementation'and installation that would specify a timeline for ordering meters. Mr. Poole also requested'a requirement to have a.time line for development of a metering plan. • Mr._Nelson suggested implementation of a tiered;flat rate system during the.summer months to signal that metering,is coming, reduce summertime demand and create additional funds for the meter implementation. Mr. Gaffney said that a tiered billing system would be difficult to implement.until the City of Robert.Park can show an. advantage to reduction through;metering comparisons. Joe Netter, City of Robert Park, stated that a entire tiered rate plan program:will need to be developed on metered'reads. There was a consensus from the Water Contractors to accept the MOU with the language changes noted above. Steve Simmons, City of Petaluma, asked whether the changes to Section 7 required changes to the liquidated damages portion of,Section 4 of the MOU. Mr. Nelson:stated that the Water Advisory Committee could listen to the City of Rohnert Park=s case if problems arise that delay the•meter implementation program. Mr. Netter asked for clarification of the triggering points for liquidated damages. Mr. Nelson replied that three trigger points would include: Develop meter:implementation,plan within six months; Start meter installation within 2i1/2years; , Complete 20% of meter installations each year. If any of these timelines are missed, the Water Advisory Committee may initiate review and recommend.a surcharge. Mr.,Netter requested a realistic time frame that will help the plan succeed.•Mr. Nelson stated that changes could be made to the MOU if a request 7 • is brought to the Water Contractors•and theydetermine there is a good and valid reason to change. Mr. DeGabrielerequested the.language iniSection6 (a) of-the MOU be modified to require implementation of practices &lin to of better than the BMP=s. Mr. DeGabriele also requested that the MOU terminate on September 30, 2005 and the ability to extend the term of the MOU be eliminated. Mr. Nelson noted that the MOU requires the Water Contractors to join the CUWCC and implement the BMP=s. He stated that this requirement goes beyond the 1 l'h Amended Agreement, and will be included in the 12'h Amended Agreement. Toni Bertolero, City of Cotati, discussed plans for the City=s overall water conservation ordinance. The City Of,Cotati=Wants to include water waster-prohibitions (Stage 1), - educational programs regarding,conservation, Stage 2'and 3 conservation measures and have a tie-in with the Urban Water Management Plan. Art Bolli, VOMWD, referred,to,Section 9 of the draft MQ,U and asked who is responsible. for termination of service to surplus customers. Mr. Poole'said the Agency notifies the Water Contractors when it is necessary to turn off the surplus customers, usually 3 to 4 times during the summer months fora few days at a time The turn off is usually system- ' wide rather than`isolated.to one,line. Mr. Poole stated surplus customers are at risk and do not have a guaranteed supply of water. Pam Jeane, SCWA, added that the Water Contractors need to be sure the:surplus customers have a clear understanding of this risk in their agreements. - F. SCWA Time I ine to Meet Information Requests in Fetter from NMWD Mr. DeGabriele asked fora time line.from the SCWA on financial plans for facilities, - Collector#6,the Petaluma South Transmission Project and the Sonoma Pipeline. Mr. Poole responded that the Agency plans to have a report on facilities cost estimates and timing by January/February, 2001. He added that a project needs to be requested by the Water Contractors as defined in,Section2.2 of the Ill" Amended Agreement. G. Section 7 Schedule Mr. Poole informed the Water Contractors thata public meeting on the fish hatchery operations of the Section 7 Consultation is scheduled for Friday, May 19 in Ukiah. A complete assessment should be completed by next April or May (2001) and will be submitted to NMFS. A biological opinion should..be completed by July 2001. This will determine what the•EIR/EIS will look like for future projects. The Agency is currently in • discussion with NMFS on how to perform research for the assessment and whether there is enough presence of Coho to implement a recovery plan. H. Putter Valley Alternatives (Cost Schedule) Mr. Poole'informed;the Water Contractors that,a CPUC/PG&E Agency Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 16in Ukiah. He stated it is clear that the parties are trying to decommission the Potter Valley plant. Mr:Poole asked the Water Contractors to urge their Councils and Boards to offer support for continued operation of the facility. Mr. Massey-asked for a.fact sheet for lay people regardingthe affects of closing down the Potter Valley facility. Mr. Poole replied that Mr. Nelson is currently working on this document. Mr: Nelson said that the Water Contractors should submit written comments. to the CPUC to•include analysis:of impacts on the lower basin of the`Russian`River watershed-and its Water Contractors. He will supply a letter formatter use by the Water Contractors. I. Development ofT,egislative Contact T ist Mr: DeGabriele requested that lists be,developed in.each Water Contractor area identifying established relationshipsbetween Council.members, Board members and community members with elected officials,in Sacramento and`Washington D.C. Mr. Poole said that the Water Contractors should submit information;to Tim Anderson, SCWA,who will coordinate development of a contact list. Mr. Poole stated it is important to have key Legislative staff people present in any meetings with our elected o • fficials to ensure they receive:all the necessary information. J. Bark-up(s) for Possible Energy Brownouts Over Summer Miles Ferris, City of Santa Rosa, informed the Water. Contractors.thattheyshouldexpect brownouts'and some complete losses of electricity during the`summer months. According to CPUC,engineers. a number of plants have been decommissioned, no new plants are being built within the next two years, there is less connected capacity and more demand and high:ternperatures will lead to rotated blackouts. 'Mr. DeGabriele:asked about the Agency='s back-up generation capabilities during energy losses. Mr. Poole,said the Agency would provide'the Water Contractors with the information. Dana Roxon, MMWD, informed the Water,Contractors that`rotating;outage blocks,are.listed on the PG&E bills. He said that some systems have several different outage blocks.' Mr. Roxon suggested that the Water Contractors try, to get their systems on the same block, which makes it easier to maintain the process. K. :Other•Rusiness: Day:id Zensius. Department of Health Services, reported that Dave.:Clark, DHS, is moving along with the-impairment report. It is being reviewed by the DHS staff and will be presented to the Water Contractors. Mr. Nelson stated that a draft of the Stage 213 rationing plans would be ready by mid- 4 • June;2000. Mr. Poole said the County Council is reviewing the operating criteria for the Petaluma and Sonoma.aqueduct. Mr. DeGabriele noted the criteria would not require a governing body signature,just the operator and manager. The criteria are not attached to the MOU. Mr. Bolli asked Mr. Gaffney to explain the groundwater study referenced in an article in the Press Democrat. Mr. Gaffney responded that PES`Environmental of Novato, California performed a course-level study of aquifer wells. The study recommended that, after the MOU is signed, the increased allocation should be the primary water supply with the ground water as a back-up-supply. Mr. Zensius stated that the application for funding of Collector #6 has been submitted to the Department of Water,Resources. The DWR has questions about the impact on Water Contractors and bills in.regard-to repayment of the loan., Mr. Nelson responded that current information on Agency customers is available and he will provide a copy to Mr. Zensius or the DWR. L. 'terns for Next Agenda, No agenda items were submitted at this time. The next Water Advisory Committee S meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 19, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. at.the Laguna Treatment Plant. M. Adjourn . The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m. • WACminutes051500 5 0 Water Advisory Committee'Meeting, June 19, 2000 • MINUTES, . A. Call to Order ' DRAFT The meeting was called to order at,9d10ra.m. B. Introductions . The attendees made introductions. C. Public Comment ' None. D. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Joe Gaffney, City of Rohnert Parkkand.seconded by Al Bandur, City of Sonoma to approve the meeting minutes from May 15,2000. The Water . Advisory Committee members approved.theimotton E. Approve MOD re. Temporary Impairment and AssociafedLActions Recommended by Tnhn OlafNelson_Water Rrcoiirres`ManaoemPnr Pam Jeane, SCWA, distributed,copies of a schedule forptesentation of the MOU to the boards and councils. John Nelson, Water Resources Management, discussed'the final,draft MOU. He stated the Table 1 figures have remained.thesame since the fifth draft of the document. Mr. Nelson said the changes requested by the City of Cotati have:been dealt with and all other attorneys are ready to recommend the MOU to their respective councils and boards. He added that the final MOU incorporates a.commitmentof time and money from the Water Contractors and the SC WA for development of local supply, water,conservation efforts and recycled waterprojects. Mr. Nelson stated the MOU,gives the.Water Advisory Committee the ability to approve funding for additional projects. He said the committee members will provide a report to the SCWA each September:identifying projects for the following years. The Water • Contractors will raise the monies for these projects through O&M rates. In response to a question from Chris`DeGabriele,.NMWD. Mr. Nelson clarified that the existing $15 5 million in the SCWA budget is only available for approved tier one projects. . • i Mr. Nelson explained that a requirement for signators'to the MOU is to sign on to the BMP's. He stated that the cost-effectiveness of implementation of a specific BMP is a legitimate reason to be excused from it: Toni Bertolero, City, of Cotati, asked about consequences if the Citydoesn't want to implement a specific BMP for reasons other than cost-effectiveness. Mr. Nelson responded that the Council,can opt out without recourse because the CUWCC contract has a clause (section 7,7) that states it"is not a contract." He noted that there might be private pressure from other Water Contractors and that bysigning the MOU, the City of Cotati is committed to signing on to the BMP's. Mr. Nelson-reviewed the three recommendations from his letter of June 8,2000 and asked the Water Advisory Committee to take action on them. Mr. DeGabriele moved to accept the:recommendations, the motion was seconded by George Roberts; Forestville Water District, and the Water Contractors approved the motion. - Randy Poole, SCWA, and Miles Ferris, City of Santa,Rosa thanked Mr. Nelson and-Ms. Jeane for their good work on development of the MOU. F. Overview of the Consumer Confidence Reports and Resultzfrom the Fmergencv Post Production Wells Ellen Simm, SOWA. updated the Water`Contractors on laboratory testing and results for the Todd Road, Occidental Road and Sebastopol Road wells. She said the wells are not in official,production, but remain in a standby status Ms. Simm said thereis ongoing • monitoring for iron and manganese and the Department of Health Services(DHS) may require treatment based on the results. She explained that the Occidental Road well will be tested for two more weeks and a report will,be sent to DHS. There has been no sign of iron or manganese since the.Occidental Road well has been run. Ms. Bertolero asked whether the-testing data;could be available by April is'next year, since'the,late date this year made it difficult:for the Water Contractors to incorporate the data in their reports. Ms Simm,replied that there was some confusion between the DHS in Sonoma and Mann counties regarding the process for turbidity, which caused the delayed data this year; there should-not be a problem meeting the April'ls` date next year. Mr. DeGabriele asked about potential problems with arsenic at the Todd Road well Ms. Sirmri responded that current data.is based on pumping the well for 20 minutes. She added that when the well is brought to-full production, there should not`be,a-problem. Mr. Nelson referred to the Consumer Confidence Reportprepared:by the City of Seattle and available:on the city's web site He said the report presents the information in a format that is easy to understand. Mr. DeGabriele said the legal.language-required:in the report is.very difficult to understand and he asked David Clark, Department of Health Services, to pass this concern on to officials in Sacramento. Mr. Ferris noted that the report needs to be.readable by the average customer so they are not-overwhelmed by the numbers. The Department.of Health Services officials at the meeting said-they will forward the comments to the Sacramento office. -- DRAFT • illG. Review-Stains of Triple-mental-ion of Stage 1 and Water Waste Ordinance Mr. Nelsonreviewed,the results of a survey of the Water Contractors regarding implementation of Stage 1 water conservation measures and the Water Waste Ordinance. The majority of Water Contractors have implemented a voluntary 15%reduction in water use during the sumrner'rnonths. The Water Waste Ordinance should be adopted by all the Water Contractors by the end of July 2000. H. Set Meeting of Rationing Plan Suh-Group - Mr.Nelson stated that Stage 1 rationing has been adopted,by all the Water Contractors. He added that Stages 2 and.3 need to be adopted and incorporated in the Urban Water Management Plan.(UWMP). The next meeting of the Rationing Plan Sub-Group is scheduled for Monday, July 17, . 2000 at 8:30 a.m. at,the Laguna Treatment Plant. Paul Gradolph, VOMWD, will replace Art Bolli as a member of the sub-group. I. Discuss Status of Potter Valley Project Re-licensing and_PG&F'sPrnnosalto Auction Project • ' Mr. Poole reported that,the status of the Potter Valley Project changes daily, as detailed in the press. The PUC will be-presenting an auction;plan,to PG&E. Mr. DeGabriele asked about the status of the Altemate,Divestiture Proposal. Mr. Poole said that nothinghas been filed yet, but, when it is, it Will require review. Mr. Ferris noted there is,a lot of pressure on PG&E to auction the site. He said a sale of the properties, with a.$4'.5 to $5-billion value, would stop additional costs on bills and end "stranded cost collection." J. Other Business • Mr. Nelson distributed copies of a survey started.in fall, 1999reflecting average water costs for a single family residence. He stated that he did not receive information from all the Water Contractors at thattime and asked for it so the survey can be completed. Mr. Ferris suggested that the costs for capital improvement and replacement projects be removed from the average cost. He stated that costs for those projects tend to alter the figures and makes some organizations look inefficient when they are not. He suggested that costs be isolated to operations and maintenance. Ms. Jeane distributed a.chart of a timeline for Collector ft6 Project. . 0 Mr. DeGabriele asked for the status on the impairment report from the Department of Health Services. Mr. Clark replied that it is currently under internal review and a draft . DRAFT • should be available within the next 2 to 3 weeks. K. Items for Next Agenda None presented at this time. L. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m. in memory of Art Bolli;who unexpectedly passed away at the end of May. Michael Woods. VOMWD, expressed thanks for everyone's kind words and support. The next Water Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 24, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. at the Laguna Treatment Plant. WACminutes061900 DRAFT • • • 4 ATTACHMENT #14 WEIGHTED VOTING CLAUSE REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER TORLIATT AT APRIL 24, 2000 STUDY • SESSION (VOTING IS UNCHANGED FROM EXISTING AMENDMENT 10) • EXISTING AMENDMENT 10 PART 5 — WATER ADVISORY COMMTTTE=' AID 5 . 1 P (a) There is he reby created the WatE_ Advisory Committee . (1-2) he Purpose Of the Water Advisory Committee is to review proposals set fort: the n all capital outlay r by t.._ AOE.iCJ which involve a significant lay fo_ the Transmission 'System 'or - _any other pd] ect C which woul d significantly change the level Of service or ada •'- 2 significantly to the ocerations and mainte.^.a..^.ce expense of the Transmias ion " $ -em st - Y or other exn en_e to be borne by the Ovate- - contractors . ` . 2 Bowe s Except as provided herein to the contrary', the power of he Water Advisory Committee is l.lm''ted to that Of collective ` sPokeperson for the Water contractors and shall be advisory only in nature . Nothing shall preclude a water contractor from setting forth a. view contrary to that of the ma]',Ority Of the Committee. No action of the Committee lim:it5 or impairs n right or potter of any water contractor. any 5 . 3 Compos=ition (a) The Water Advisory Committee shall b composed epresentativ e r . c at one e sel_cto by east. Water cont_ettor. 'Each water contractors representati e '.vi:.l'1 ;be allocated' a weighted vote • p-. portional to the average day any ;montn water delivery limit set forth in section 3 . 1 (a) apolloable to such . wate_r Contractor. An affirmative vote of sa,_O i of Committee Shall r2^L''lre COL,^,. GL th2 following: t _ - ( 1) the c al :uatlye vote of more than fifty percent (50%) of the total we gntedvotes as defined above;- and (2 ) the affirmative vote of at least- five (5) r:epreeentatives : If the Water Advisory _ '-]' CQm^:.lttee, does i1Ct a.. i ` rRcc •:ve1V vote to approve any matter before it' for a deciS.ion, then' the matter shall be deemed not approved . The General Manager of the L i a_ i n .Municipal Aiater District, or his or her, des `.gnate_d re_preE2r't-at_ve, may attend and participate, oeba "_= express OcIn/-ons and present information at -meetings. O:i the� Water Advisory Committee but shall not have a vote. l ( b) Annually, e chic �v the Water On a Ca` Advisory committee , the C Pm' L. -= ei l ai =r oa°_ o" it=' members ` _ v_as chairperson for- t e e°s_ nc fiscal - - cc=e e a' i _mrer. o consec years . c Electionis held each ie Furthermore, cheimber=cm cam be remov=,-; and Provided all tlaced at a" / n = .,fro G_ '.l _r- v five Committee membeq CommTht=i m e_•.: s are not_f_ _ o'- i '_'i e. vcr."_ r a minimum 'e Ler-�n' s_' �. b_ _ - - - o.. _h . i ..a _ ec pre" `' e '�"S2 (a) C- }this On, • 35 PROPOSED. AMENDMENT 11 PART 5 - 'WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE • C����t c S (a) There is hereby created the Water Advisory ,mitt _ ry Cpl'..-I ��c_ . 7 (h) The purpose of the Water Advisor' Committee proposals Set f orth by the age '� C involve_ is to r " c J g1 9 Capita 7-nCV which involve 2 c � - 1 outlay for the ,Transmission System or 'any other 1 ,ront 0 'which would significantly chance the level of „ e �addec` 11 significantly to the operatl eE_ oen e add 7 cps and maintenance e:cber:sE of 'oh= 1 Transmiss'ion' System or other expense to be borne by the hater 13 contractors . 14 15 c 2 Powers, 16 Except as ed provid herein=_-in to the contrary, the owes w,.Zittee is .l�mite to that r c of `�e 13 water advisory Co l-'° spoke r water limited o_ collective 20 1'n keterson Nothing water contractors and shall be advisory only preclude a water contractor from 21 forth a view contrary to that of the majority ?2 23 Committee. No action of the Committee limits or pairs .6 right or power of any water contractor. impairs z„y 24. 25 5 . .1 Commas tion 25 (a) The Water Advisory Committee shall be CO:Sposed of one representative selected by each water contractor: 28 contractor' s ' representative will y Each V,water rbnorti 1 be allocated a weighted vote 30 F anal to the average day any month water delivery 71 set forth in section 3 . `y Limit_ 1 (z) applicable to such water COirtrcCtOr . 32 An a`firnati e vote of said Committee shall- re..uire both of t:';= following:: (1) the affirmative vote 3='. (50% of y ve vote of more thar. fifty ) o, the total weighted votes- as defined :Percent) the 35 affirmative. auOV vote, of at least a , .snd__(f,) tee 36 wale p five. (5) represertztives,.. - 1-= the . Advisory Committee toes not affirmatively vote to a^prove 37 any matter before it for a decision, then the matter shall c deemed not abbroved• The General Manager of the Ma Mun'l i Water District, or his or her iy -pal 40 zna ':participate, designated rem esenta iv.e, may attend pate, s , F depot_, express on'inions and o .,�- ''nformation at meetings of the Water erese.,� 4 2 g rid�.__ c:ClsOry Committed not have a vote_ but shall (b) Annuall /, on a date selected C 'ri:Toy tee - 7 t:: Wa 45 ter r r ✓:SvrV , the. Committee hall elec` rc of c of t `S .fie_ __ S' to serve as chairtersch for tie e c EG. fiscal year. The chaiterson _ : la !mum e o co s cu Ve. years avid that Ca =I Vi .3 1 7 i I ^ .each year Furthermore, t• e removed andr ace at any meeting called by five Committee members t.-ov, c all El _ Committee meMbers a e tot: ' or O _ Work 1c da C or_c _ _ nc C mum r to the meeting. Voting fel- . 52 on =hall be as p ided in subsection - 41111 . • • •