2022-09-27; City Council; ; Authorize City and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Support for the Encina Wastewater Authority’s One Water North San Diego County Water Reuse Studies — Carlsbad City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 212 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: Trussell Technologies, Inc.

Reviewed by: RMC / Woodard & Curran
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study
Element: EWPCF Improvements
2,736,000$
Installation of Aeration Basin and Clarifier Equipment 1 LS $2,736 ,000 2,736,000$ Cost Summary
Subtotal
Primary Effluent Flow Equalization 7,900,000$
Aeration Basins (4) 8,620,000$
Secondary Clarifiers 7,000,000$
Tertiary Filters 19,300,000$
Equipment Installation 2,736,000$
Raw Construction Subtotal 45,556,000$
Construction Contingency 25% 11,389,000$
Construction Cost Subtotal 56,945,000$
Tax on Materials 8.00% 2,278,000$
Shipping 15% 3,417,000$
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15% 8,542,000$
Estimated Total Construction Cost 71,182,000$
Environmental Documentation and Permits 5% 3,560,000$
Engineering Services (Design) 10% 7,119,000$
Construction Management 5% 3,560,000$
Engineering Services During Construction 5% 3,560,000$
Total Capital Cost 89,000,000$
Subtotal
Power
Aeration Blowers 1,143 hp 13,420,000 kWh 0.15 $ 2, 013,000$ IMLR Pumps 69 hp 810,667 kWh 0.15 $ 122,000$ Anoxic Zone Mixers 27 hp 313,333 kWh 0.15 $ 47,000$ Equipment
Equipment Rehabilitation and Replacement 71,500$
Total Annual O&M Cost 2,254,000$
O&M Costs
EWPCF Improvements
Equipment Installation

Page 2 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 213 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Reviewed by: RMC / Woodard & Curran
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Treatment Unit Operations and Buildings 57,372,000$
Ultrafiltration System 1 LS $9,225,000 9,225,000 $
Reverse Osmosis System 1 LS $10,978,000 10,978,000 $
Ultraviolet/ Advanced Oxidation Process System 1 LS $2,050,000 2,05 0,000$ Product Water Tank 1 LS $1,047,000 1,047,000 $
Carbon Dioxide System 1 LS $854,000 854,000 $
Lime System 1 LS $1,719,000 1,719,000 $
Chemical System 1 LS $2,543,000 2,543,000 $
Feed Pipeline + Pump Station 1 LS $1,527,000 1,527,000 $ Brine Pipeline + Pump Station 1 LS $1,561,000 1,561,000 $ Yard Piping 1 LS $3,608,000 3,608,000 $
Process Building 39,600 SF $350 13,860,000 $
Admin. and Maintenance Building 14,000 SF $350 4,900,000 $ Electrical Building and Electrical Rooms 14,000 SF $250 3,500,000 $ Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Factored Costs 26,339,000$
Site work 5% 1 LS $2,868,600 $2,869,000
Electrical & IC 30% 1 LS $14,691,600 $14,692,000
Mechanical 25% 1 LS $8,778,000 $8,778,000
Cost Summary
Subtotal
Treatment Unit Operations and Buildings 57,372,000$
Factored Costs 26,339,000$
Raw Construction Subtotal 83,711,000$
Construction Contingency 25% 20,927,750$
Construction Cost Subtotal 104,639,000$
Tax on Materials 8.00% 4,186,000$
Shipping 15% 6,279,000$
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15% 15,696,000$
Estimated Total Construction Cost 130,800,000$
Environmental Documentation and Permits 5% 6,540,000$
Engineering Services (Design) 10% 13,080,000$
Construction Management 5% 6,540,000$
Engineering Services During Construction 5% 6,540,000$
Total Capital Cost 163,500,000$
Subtotal
Power
Element: 16 mgd AWTF "a" (FAT)
Treatment
O&M Costs
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Page 3 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 214 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Reviewed by: RMC / Woodard & Curran
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Element: 16 mgd AWTF "a" (FAT)
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study
UF 152 hp 1,782,353 kWh 0.15$ 267,353$ RO 864 hp 10,141,176 kWh 0.15$ 1,521,176$ UV/AOP 100 hp 1,170,588 kWh 0.15$ 175,588$ Product Water Conditioning 12 hp 135,294 kWh 0.15$ 20,294$ Chemical Dosing Systems 5 hp 52,941 kWh 0.15$ 7,941$ Building HVAC Systems 115 hp 1,347,059 kWh 0.15$ 202,059$ Feed Pump Station 85 hp 1,000,000 kWh 0.15$ 150,000$ Brine Pump Station 105 hp 1,235,294 kWh 0.15$ 185,294$ Misc. Facility Power 10 kW 87,600 kWh 0.15$ 14,000$ Chemicals
UF Pretreatment and Cleaning 496,000$
RO Pretreatment and Cleaning 565,000$
UF 93,000$
UV/AOP 98,000$
RO 139,000$
UV/AOP 43,000$
Product Water Conditioning 3,000$
Chemical Dosing Systems 22,000$
Electrical Equipment 112,000$
Product Water Conditioning 1,047,000$
Pipeline Chlorination 73,000$
Replacement of Consumables
MF Modules 296,000$
RO Cartidge Filters and Membrane Elements 536,000$
UV Lamps and Ballasts 77,000$
Maintenance
Site Security 69,000$
Landscaping 23,000$
Janitorial Services 69,000$
Hazardous Waste Clean-up 6,000$
Labor
O&M Labor 624,000$
Total O&M Cost 7,000,000$

Page 4 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 215 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Reviewed by: RMC / Woodard & Curran
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O3/BAF+FAT 80,418,000$
LOX Feed Facility 1 LS $1,429,000 1,429,000 $
Ozone Generation Facility 1 LS $5,504,000 5,504,000 $
Ozone Contactors Facility 1 LS $4,943,000 4,943,000 $
Biologically Activated Carbon System 1 LS $8,265,000 8,265,000 $ Ultrafiltration System 1 LS $9,225,000 9,225,000 $
Reverse Osmosis System 1 LS $10,978,000 10,978,000 $
Ultraviolet/ Advanced Oxidation Process System 1 LS $2,050,000 2,050,000 $ Product Water Tank 1 LS $1,047,000 1,047,000 $
Carbon Dioxide System 1 LS $854,000 854,000 $
Lime System 1 LS $1,719,000 1,719,000 $
Chemical System 1 LS $2,528,000 2,528,000 $
Feed Pipeline + Pump Station 1 LS $1,527,000 1,527,000 $ Brine Pipeline + Pump Station 1 LS $1,561,000 1,561,000 $ Yard Piping 1 LS $3,588,000 3,588,000 $
Process Building 48,000 SF $350 16,800,000 $
Admin. and Maintenance Building 14,000 SF $350 4,900,000 $ Electrical Building 14,000 SF $250 3,500,000 $
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Factored Costs 39,431,000$
Site work 5% 1 LS $4,020,900 4,021,000 $
Electrical & IC 30% 1 LS $21,605,400 21,605,000 $
Mechanical 25% 1 LS $13,804,500 13,805,000 $
Cost Summary
Subtotal
O3/BAF+FAT 81,000,000$
Factored Costs 39,431,000$
Raw Construction Subtotal 120,000,000$
Construction Contingency 25% 30,000,000$
Construction Cost Subtotal 150,000,000$
Tax on Materials 8.00% 6,000,000$
Shipping 15% 9,000,000$
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15% 22,500,000$
Estimated Total Construction Cost 187,500,000$
Environmental Documentation and Permits 5% 9,375,000$
Engineering Services (Design) 10% 18,750,000$
Construction Management 5% 9,375,000$
Engineering Services During Construction 5% 9,375,000$
Total Capital Cost 234,400,000$
Element: 16 mgd AWTF "b" (FAT + O3/BAF)
Treatment
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Page 5 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 216 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Reviewed by: RMC / Woodard & Curran
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Element: 16 mgd AWTF "b" (FAT + O3/BAF)
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study
Subtotal
Power Ozone 381 hp 4,476,471 kWh 0.15 $ 671,471$ BAC 4 hp 41,176 kWh 0.15 $ 6,176 $
MF 152 hp 1,782,353 kWh 0.15 $ 267,353$ RO 864 hp 10,141,176 kWh 0.15 $ 1,521,176$ UV/AOP 100 hp 1,170,588 kWh 0.15 $ 175,588$ Product Water Conditioning 12 hp 135,294 kWh 0.15 $ 20,294$ Chemical Dosing Systems 5 hp 52,941 kWh 0.15 $ 7,941 $ Building HVAC Systems 115 hp 1,347,059 kWh 0.15 $ 202,059$ Feed Pump Station 85 hp 1,000,000 kWh 0.15 $ 150,000$ Brine Pump Station 105 hp 1,235,294 kWh 0.15 $ 185,294$ Misc. Facility Power 10 kW 87,600 kWh 0.15 $ 14,000$ Equipment Rehab/Replacement
BAF Filter Media Replacement 134,000$
MF Modules 296,000$
RO Cartidge Filters and Membrane Elements 536,000$
UV Lamps and Ballasts 77,000$
Ozone 77,000$
Chemical
Ozone 364,000$
MF Pretreatment and Cleaning 496,000$
RO Pretreatment and Cleaning 565,000$
UV/AOP 98,000$
Product Water Conditioning 1,047,000$
Pipeline Chlorination 73,000$
BAF 34,000$
MF 93,000$
RO 139,000$
UV/AOP 43,000$
Product Water Conditioning 3,000$
Chemical Dosing Systems 22,000$
Electrical Equipment 112,000$
Special Contracts
Site Security 69,000$
Landscaping 23,000$
Janitorial Services 69,000$
Hazardous Waste Clean-up 6,000$
Labor 936,000$
T
otal O&M Cost 8,600,000$
O&M Costs

Page 6 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 217 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Reviewed by: RMC / Woodard & Curran
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O3/BAF+FAT+ WTP 96,382,000$
LOX Feed Facility 1 LS $1,429,000 1,429,000$
Ozone Generation Facility 1 LS $5,504,000 5,504,000$
Ozone Contactors Facility 1 LS $4,943,000 4,943,000$
Biologically Activated Carbon System 1 LS $8,265,000 8,265,000$ Ultrafiltration System 1 LS $9,225,000 9,225,000$
Reverse Osmosis System 1 LS $10,978,000 10,978,000$
Ultraviolet/ Advanced Oxidation Process System 1 LS $2,050,000 2,050,000$ Engineered Storage Buffer 1 LS $1,625,000 1,625,000$
Chlorine Dosing System 1 LS $493,000 493,000$
Aqua Ammonia Dosing System 1 LS $311,000 311,000$
Ultrafiltration System 1 LS $13,255,000 13,255,000$
Product Water Tank 1 LS $1,047,000 1,047,000$
Carbon Dioxide System 1 LS $854,000 854,000$
Lime System 1 LS $1,719,000 1,719,000$
Chemical System 1 LS $2,528,000 2,528,000$
Feed Pipeline + Pump Station 1 LS $1,527,000 1,527,000$ Brine Pipeline + Pump Station 1 LS $1,561,000 1,561,000$ Yard Piping 1 LS $3,588,000 3,588,000$
Process Building 48,800 SF $350 17,080,000$
Admin. and Maintenance Building 14,000 SF $350 4,900,000$ Electrical Building 14,000 SF $250 3,500,000$
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Factored Costs 48,940,000$
Site work 5% 1 LS $4,819,100 4,819,000$
Electrical & IC 30% 1 LS $26,394,600 26,395,000$
Mechanical 25% 1 LS $17,725,500 17,726,000$
Cost Summary
Subtotal
O3/BAF+FAT+ WTP 96,382,000$
Factored Costs 48,940,000$
Raw Construction Subtotal 145,322,000$
Construction Contingency 25% 36,330,500$
Construction Cost Subtotal 181,653,000$
Tax on Materials 8.00% 7,267,000$
Shipping 15% 10,900,000$
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15% 27,248,000$
Estimated Total Construction Cost 227,068,000$
Environmental Documentation and Permits 5% 11,354,000$
Engineering Services (Design) 10% 22,707,000$
Construction Management 5% 11,354,000$
Engineering Services During Construction 5% 11,354,000$ Total Capital Cost 283,900,000$
Element: 15.8 mgd AWTF "c" (FAT+O3/BAF + WTP)
Treatment
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Page 7 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 218 of 279
Subtotal
Power Ozone 381 hp 4,476,471 kWh 0.15 $ 671,471$ BAC 4 hp 41,176 kWh 0.15 $ 6,176 $
UF (FAT) 152 hp 1,782,353 kWh 0.15 $ 267,353$ RO 864 hp 10,141,176 kWh 0.15 $ 1,521,176$ UV/AOP 100 hp 1,170,588 kWh 0.15 $ 175,588$ UF (WTP) 152 hp 1,782,353 kWh 0.15 $ 267,353$ Product Water Conditioning 12 hp 135,294 kWh 0.15 $ 20,294$ Chemical Dosing Systems 5 hp 52,941 kWh 0.15 $ 7,941 $ Building HVAC Systems 115 hp 1,347,059 kWh 0.15 $ 202,059$ Feed Pump Station 85 hp 1,000,000 kWh 0.15 $ 150,000$ Brine Pump Station 105 hp 1,235,294 kWh 0.15 $ 185,294$ Misc. Facility Power 10 kW 87,600 kWh 0.15 $ 14,000$ Chemical
Ozone 364,000$
MF Pretreatment and Cleaning 496,000$
RO Pretreatment and Cleaning 565,000$
UV/AOP 98,000$
UF Pretreatment and Cleaning 496,000$
Product Water Conditioning 1,047,000$
Pipeline Chlorination 73,000$
Equipment Rehab/Replacement
BAF Filter Media Replacement 134,000$
UF Modules (FAT) 296,000$
RO Cartidge Filtera and Membrane Elements 536,000$
UV Lamps and Ballasts 77,000$
UF Modules (WTP) 296,000$
Ozone 77,000$
BAF 34,000$
UF (FAT) 93,000$
RO 139,000$
UV/AOP 43,000$
UF (WTP) 93,000$
Product Water Conditioning 3,000$
Chemical Dosing Systems 22,000$
Electrical Equipment 112,000$
Special Contracts
Site Security 69,000$

Landscaping 23,000$
Janitorial Services 69,000$
Hazardous Waste Clean-up 6,000$
Labor 1,092,000$
Total O&M Cost 9,900,000$
O&M Costs

Page 8 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 219 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: K. Erickson
Reviewed by: N. Chase
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Option F: Carlsbad Desalination Plant 73,100,000$
Pump Station 1,000 hp $6,500 6,500,000 $
Segment 1 Pipe 30 inch 15.8 mgd 13,200 LF $750 9,900,000 $ Trenchless Freeway 2 500 LF $2,000 2,000,000 $ Trenchless Palomar Airport Road 1 500 LF $2,000 1,000,000 $ Trenchless Railroad 1 200 LF $2,000 400,000 $ Discharge Appurt at Desal plant wet well 1 LS $250,000 250,000 $ New Clearwell with Baffling at Desal Plant 350,000 gallon $3.00 1,050,000 $ Pump Station at Desal Plant wet well 8,000 hp $6,500 52,000,000 $ Cost Summary
Subtotal
Option F: Carlsbad Desalination Plant 73,100,000$
Raw Construction Subtotal 73,100,000$
Construction Contingency 25% 18,275,000$
Construction Cost Subtotal 91,375,000$
Tax on Materials 8.00% 3,655,000$
Shipping 15% 5,483,000$
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15% 13,707,000$
Opinion of Total Construction Cost 114,220,000$
Environmental Documentation and Permits 5% 5,711,000$
Engineering Services (Design) 10% 11,422,000$
Construction Management 5% 5,711,000$
Engineering Services During Construction 5% 5,711,000$
Total Capital Cost 142,800,000$
Subtotal
Pumping Power 9,000 hp 105,683,646 kWh 0.15$ 15,853,000$ Pipeline O&M Labor 1 hr/yr/100 LF 14,400 LF 75.00$ 11,000 $ Conveyance Infrastructure Rehabilitation/Replacement 1% 1,143,000$ Total O&M Cost 17,007,000$
Element: Option F Conveyance (North)
Conveyance
O&M Costs
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Page 9 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 220 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: K. Erickson
Reviewed by: N. Chase
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Option G: San Dieguito Groundwater Basin and Aqueduct #2 (All Phases) 147,112,000$ Pump Station EWA 800 hp $6,500 5,200,000 $ Segment 1 Pipe 30 inches 43,824 LF $750 32,868,000 $ Trenchless Lagoon Crossing 3,600 LF $2,000 7,200,000 $ Pump Station SEJPA PS 3,200 hp $6,500 20,800,000 $ Segment 2 Pipe 20 inches 33,264 LF $500 16,632,000 $ Trenchless Freeway 500 LF $2,000 1,000,000 $ Segment 3 Pipe Existing 24 inches 27,456 LF $0 - $ Segment 3 Pipe Slip Line 24 inches 23,250 LF $120 2,790,000 $ Segment 3 Pipe Open Cut 24 inches 2,200 LF $180 396,000 $ Discharge Structure to San Dieguito Res. (incl. dechlorination) 3.1 mgd 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000 $ Pump Station to Badger WTP 4,800 hp $6,500 31,200,000 $ Segment 4 Pipe 30 inches 11,088 LF $750 8,316,000 $ Segment 5 Pipe 12 inches 12,144 LF $300 3,643,000 $ GW Desalter (ext. wells, desal, brine, product conveyance) 1.0 m gd 1 MG -- - $ GWR Injection Wells in San Dieguito Basin 2.0 mgd 2 MG $1,000,000 2,000,000 $ GW Desalter expansion - Extraction Wells 2.0 mgd 2 MG $1,033,333 2,067,000 $ GW Desalter expansion - pre+RO treatment 2.0 mgd 2 MG $5,500,000 11,000,000 $ GW Desalter expansion - Brine Disposal -- -- - $
GW Desalter expansion - Product Water Conveyance -- -- - $ Element: Option G Conveyance (South)
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Page 10 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 221 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: K. Erickson
Reviewed by: N. Chase
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Element: Option G Conveyance (South)
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study
Cost Summary
Conveyance Subtotal
Option G: San Dieguito Groundwater Basin and Aqueduct #2 (All Phases) 147,112,000$ Raw Construction Subtotal 147,112,000$
Construction Contingency 25% 36,778,000$
Construction Cost Subtotal 183,890,000$
Tax on Materials 8.00% 7,356,000$
Shipping 15% 11,034,000$
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15% 27,584,000$
Estimated Total Construction Cost 229,864,000$
Environmental Documentation and Permits 5% 11,494,000$
Engineering Services (Design) 10% 22,987,000$
Construction Management 5% 11,494,000$
Engineering Services During Construction 5% 11,494,000$ Total Capital Cost 287,400,000$
Subtotal
Pumping Power 8,800 hp 103,335,121 kWh 0.15 $ 15,501,000$ Treatment Power 400 hp 4,697,051 kWh 0.17$ 799,000$ Pipeline O&M Labor 1 hr/yr/100 LF 157,326 LF 75.00$ 118,000$ Conveyance Infrastructure Rehabilitation/Replacement 1% 2,299,000$ Total O&M Cost 18,717,000$
O&M Costs (All Phases)

Page 11 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 222 of 279
Date: 1/25/2018
Project Number: 0305-059
Prepared By: K. Erickson
Reviewed by: N. Chase
Cost Opinion Type: Planning (Class IV)
Item Description Size Units Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Option H1: SDCWA Second Aqueduct and San Marcos Groundwater Basin 92,343,000$ Pump Station EWA 5,600 hp $6,500 36,400,000 $ Segment 1 Pipe 30 inches 39,600 LF $750 29,700,000 $ Trenchless Freeway 500 LF $2,000 1,000,000 $ Pump Station to SDCWA turnout 2,000 hp $6,500 13,000,000 $ Discharge Appurt at SDCWA turnout 1 LS $250,000 250,000 $ Segment 2 Pipe Existing 12 inches 14,256 LF $0 - $ Segment 2 Pipe Slip Line 12 inches 14,256 LF $100 1,426,000 $ GWR Injection Wells in San Marcos Basin 2 MG $1,000,000 2,000,000 $ GW Desalter expansion - Extraction Wells 2 MG $1,033,333 2,067,000 $ GW Desalter expansion - wellhead treatment 2 MG $3,250,000 6,500,000 $ GW Desalter expansion - Product Water Conveyance -- -- - $ Cost Summary
Subtotal
Option H1: SDCWA Second Aqueduct and San Marcos Groundwater Basin 92,343,000$ Raw Construction Subtotal 92,343,000$
Construction Contingency 25% 23,085,750$
Construction Cost Subtotal 115,429,000$
Tax on Materials 8.00% 4,618,000$
Shipping 15% 6,926,000$
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15% 17,315,000$
Estimated Total Construction Cost 144,288,000$
Environmental Documentation and Permits 5% 7,215,000$
Engineering Services (Design) 10% 14,429,000$
Construction Management 5% 7,215,000$
Engineering Services During Construction 5% 7,215,000$
Total Capital Cost 180,400,000$
Subtotal
Pumping Power 7,600 hp 89,243,968 kWh 0.15$ 13,387,000$ Treatment Power 150 hp 1,761,394 kWh 0.15$ 265,000$ Pipeline O&M Labor 1 hr/yr/100 LF 54,356 LF 75.00$ 41,000$ Conveyance Infrastructure Rehabilitation/Replacement 1% 1,443,000$ Total O&M Cost 15,136,000$
Element: Option H Conveyance (East)
Conveyance
O&M Costs
Project: Encina Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Page 12 ends

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 223 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Attachment 4 - TM4: Phasing of Preferred Project
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 224 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 225 of 279

July 2018 1

Technical Memorandum No. 4
EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
Subject: Phasing of Preferred Project
Prepared For: Encina Wastewater Authority
Prepared by: Nathan Chase, P.E., Martha de Maria y Campos | Woodard & Curran Reviewed by: Scott Goldman, P.E. | Woodard & Curran
Date: July 2018 (Draft: July 2018)

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Feasibility Study Background ....................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Initial Phase for Secondary and Advanced Treatment Facilities .......................................................... 4 EWPCF Improvements ................................................................................................................. 4 AWTF Pilot/Demonstration Study ................................................................................................ 5 3 Evaluation of AWTF Size and Phased Expansion ................................................................................ 7 EWA Facilities Footprint Analysis ............................................................................................... 7 Conveyance and SDCWA System Integration ............................................................................. 7 Sensitivity Analysis of Conceptual Costs ..................................................................................... 9 Comparison of EWA Water Costs to Regional Alternatives ...................................................... 11 4 Implementation Plan and Schedule ..................................................................................................... 13 Regulatory Activities .................................................................................................................. 13 Environmental Documentation ................................................................................................... 15 Source Water Analysis ................................................................................................................ 15 Engineering, Design, and Construction Activities ...................................................................... 15 Funding Applications .................................................................................................................. 16 Stakeholder/Public Outreach ....................................................................................................... 17 Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................................ 18 5 Conclusions and Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 19

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 226 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Phasing of Preferred Project
July 2018 2

List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Proposed AWTF Treatment Train for RWA. ............................................................................. 5 Figure 3-1: Project Treatment Facilities Footprint Layout (16 mgd RWA) ................................................. 8 Figure 3-2: Capital Cost Summary for Option H Phasing .......................................................................... 10 Figure 3-3: Cost of Water Summary for Option H Phasing ........................................................................ 11 Figure 3-4: Comparative Cost of Water for EWA’s Option H and SDCWA Projected Costs ................... 12 Figure 4-1: Regulatory Approval Process Steps. ........................................................................................ 13 Figure 4-2: Implementation Schedule for EWA’s Potable Reuse Project (Phase 1) .................................. 18

List of Tables
Table 3-1: Cost Summary for Option H, Phase 1 ......................................................................................... 9 Table 3-2: Cost Summary for Option H, Phase 2 ....................................................................................... 10 Table 4-1: New Facilities Required for the Initial Phase of Option H ........................................................ 16

\\wc\shared\Projects\RMC\IRV\0305 - Encina Wastewater Authority\59 - Water Reuse FS\B. Project Work\4. Phasing\EWRFS_TM4_Phasing of Preferred Project.docx Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 227 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Phasing of Preferred Project
July 2018 3
1 Introduction
Feasibility Study Background
As required by Encina Wastewater Authority’s (EWA) 2020 Business Plan, this Water Reuse Feasibility Study (Study) will identify a path to maximize beneficial reuse of effluent from the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF)—which by 2040 is projected to reach an average of approximately 31 million gallons per day (mgd).

This Study will focus on developing a portfolio of options for potential reuse projects; identify and analyze a short list of options; deve lop an approach to phasing of the preferred water reuse project —the focus of this technical memorandum (TM); identify funding opportunities; develop a stakeholder involvement plan; and coordinate with EWA member agencies and other stakeholders to engage with the Study development and recommendations. Ultimately, the Study will serve to advance EWA’s mission of resource recovery and contribute to sustaining and enhancing the region’s water resources.

Objectives
This TM presents a phasing approach to implemen ting Option H, which was identified under TM3 as the preferred water reuse project for EWA. Option H primarily consists of raw water augmentation (RWA) into the San Diego County Water Authority’s (SDCWA) Second Aqueduct, Pipeline No. 5.

As presented in TM3, Option H may also include groundwater augmentation (GWA) into the San Marcos groundwater basin, which is within the Vallecitos Water District’s service area. However, the feasibility of the smaller (~2 mgd) GWA aspect of Option H is dependent on:
• Moving forward with the larger (~ 16 mgd) RWA Project to deliver advanced treated water to the Second Aqueduct in the vicinity of the San Marcos basin; and, • Further investigation of the suitability of the San Marcos Basin for GWA.

If the GWA component of the Project is pursued, it is expected that the planning, design, permitting, regulatory coordination, and other activities would be initiated and led by Vallecitos Water District.

Therefore, additional detail on the GWA aspect of Option H is excluded from this TM. Furthermore, given the long history of GWA projects in California, the pathway to a GWA project in the San Marcos basin is better understood and would require less early planning than the core RWA aspect of Option H.

This TM is organized as summarized below:
• Initial Phase for Secondary and Advanced Treatment Facilities • Evaluation of Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) Size and Phased Expansion • Framework Implementation Plan and Schedule
• Conclusions

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 228 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Phasing of Preferred Project
July 2018 4
2 Initial Phase for Secondary and Advanced Treatment
Facilities
A comprehensive and efficient approach to ensuring that water quality requirements and goals are met for EWA’s water reuse project includes changes to the existing secondary treatment provided at the EWPCF to provide higher quality source water for the proposed AWTF. This is discussed in detail in TM3. Major capital investments recommended include the following:
• Primary effluent flow equalization, including addition of new tankage and associated conveyance infrastructure.
• Conversion of the secondary treatment process to biological nutrient removal, including retrofits to the aeration basins to implement a nitrification – denitrification (NDN) process, such as the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process.
• Tertiary filtration (e.g., addition of granular media filters).

Based on the improved treated effluent quality characteristics from the EWPCF, it is expected that pilot testing and/or a demonstration study for the proposed AWTF treatment train will be required to confirm expected performance and satisfy stakeholders (including project partners, regulators, and the public).

This section presents a step-by-step framework for the initial phase of improvements to the EWPCF and the AWTF facilities proposed for the preferred option for EWA’s water reuse project.

EWPCF Improvements
The following steps are recommended for the first phase of EWPCF improvements:

1. Identify method to produce nitrified effluent from the EWPCF, including the following:
• Timeframe and cost for full nitrification to inform pilot studies • Determine if nitrification in only a portion of the EWPCF is practical (e.g., one aeration basin) • Determine approach to separating a s ide stream of primary effluent to run a pilot-scale NDN treatment train

2. Identify location and approach to achieve primary equalization, evaluating the following:
• Use of the existing primary equalization provided by Aeration Basin No. 4 (and implications for approach to NDN)
• Conversion of the East secondary equalization basin (and implications for peak wet weather flow management)
• Construction of new primary equalization basin, considering siting and conveyance requirements • Management of waste side streams (e.g., re-routing ahead of primary treatment and/or separating from treatment train serving the AWTF)

3. Use a treatment process model/simulator to estimate projected secondary treatment performance for the EWPCF and key water quality parameters for the influent to the AWTF.

4. Develop a preliminary design for the conversion to NDN treatment, including the following retrofits to existing aeration basins and EWPCF systems:
• Baffle walls
• Mixers
• Mixed liquor return pumps
• Blower and aeration system requirements
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 229 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Phasing of Preferred Project
July 2018 5
• Scum and foam control

5. Identify location of the two additional secondary clarifiers required for the increased flows at the plant.

6. Identify the location and requirements for tertiary filtration including the following:
• Type of filters
• Approach to disposal of backwash (location of return, equalization, etc.) AWTF Pilot/Demonstration Study
A critically important part of the Project planning process is to determine the extent of a pilot or demonstration study for the advanced purification technologies using effluent (treated wastewater) from EWPCF. Typically, a pilot study is conducted ove r a shorter duration and at a smaller scale than a demonstration study, while the facilities for a demonstration study are often intended for stakeholder interaction and remain in use until a full-scale facility is near completion.

At a minimum, a pilot s tudy is recommended as the initial phase to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed AWTF processes on the EWPCF secondary effluent, support public outreach, and test alternative advanced oxidation processes. The piloting/demonstration phase would serve to test and develop design criteria for the following AWT technologies, shown in Figure 2-1:
• Ozonation with biofiltration (O3/BAF)
• Ultrafiltration (UF)
• Reverse osmosis (RO)
• Advanced oxidation process (AOP) using ultraviolet (UV) light • Stabilization (lime/CO2)
• Chemical dosing (e.g., free chlorine)

Figure 2-1: Proposed AWTF Treatment Train for RWA.

2.2.1 Test Plan Objectives
Prior to testing, a pilot/demonstration study plan should be prepared to determine the following requirements:
• Location and options for pumping secondary effluent from EWPCF to pilot treatment train. • Evaluate potential locations for the treatment train to be tested , considering process equipment footprint, site access (for equipment setup and operations, deliveries, facility tours, etc.), availability of electrical supply and SCADA connections, discharge of product water and reject water, etc. Locations to be considered include the existing EWPCF, EWA’s South Parcel, and/or the Carlsbad WRF site.
• Identify critical control points and monitoring strategies.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 230 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Phasing of Preferred Project
July 2018 6
• Review and determine timing requirements and approximate costs for pilot/demonstration studies.

It may be beneficial to conduct pilot tests in ph ases for separate testing of the different treatment technologies that are proposed in the advanced water treatment train.

2.2.2 Operating Conditions and Performance
The pilot/demonstration plant would evaluate various operating conditions to aid in process opti mization and to determine recommended design criteria for a future treatment facility. Key conditions to evaluate include:
• O3/BAF performance in reduction of TOC, pathogens, and nutrients • MF/UF performance with acceptable intervals between chemical cleani ngs (e.g., at least 30 days) by testing different operating conditions for flux, chemically enhanced backwash frequency, and disinfection method
• RO performance with acceptable intervals between chemical cleanings (e.g., at least 180 days) by testing different operating conditions for flux, recovery, membrane configuration, and membrane type. RO testing could also be used for the following:
o Determine if a 2 -stage or 3 -stage RO configuration provides more efficient, reliable performance at an 85 percent hydraulic recovery rate.
o Determine whether operation at a high flux rate (e.g., greater than 12 gfd ) provides an advantage or is a detriment to membrane fouling.
o Verify performance of alternative monitoring technologies such as online fluorescent dye monitoring (e.g., Trasar®)
• UV AOP approach, including the following:
o Verify the performance of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) as an oxidant for the UV AOP. o Evaluate the effectiveness of the UV AOP to destroy trace organic compounds not completely removed by RO.
o Determine UV AOP effectiveness at destroying NDMA and other CECs, meeting the minimum requirement of 1.2-log NDMA reduction and 0.5-log 1,4-dioxane reduction.

Baseline operating conditions for testing could be chosen based on operational information at existing AWTFs. By optimizing these operating conditions through multiple testing runs , a more efficient and effective treatment process can be designe d for the future AWTF. The pilot/demonstration testing should also confirm that the proposed treatment train can reliably meet the Project water quality goals, remove constituents of emerging concern (CECs), and perform comparably to other operational AWTFs.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 231 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Phasing of Preferred Project
July 2018 7
3 Evaluation of AWTF Size and Phased Expansion
To achieve sufficient economies of scale and ensure the cost of water produced is reasonable, it is anticipated that the initial project would produce approximately 16 mgd of advanced treated water . A second phase expansion could potentially increase the production to 2 0 mgd based on the projected 20 40 EWPCF flows, while still allowing for peak summer NPR production of 8 mgd at the facilities that rely on EWPCF effluent (i.e., Carlsbad WRF and Gafner WRF) . An additional expansion to 25 mgd production may be possible if wastewater flows reach the liquid capacity of the EWCPF or if NPR demands decrease in the future.

EWA Facilities Footprint Analysis
The AWTF for the preferred option at 16 mgd of production is estimated to require a total area of approximately 290,000 ft2 (6.6 acres). Figure 3-1 shows the footprint of the assumed improvements to the EWPCF, the AWTF sized for 16 mgd of production for RWA, and the RO concentrate (brine) disposal connection to the Encina Ocean Outfall. If the AWTF were expanded to 25 mgd of production, the space required would increase to approximately 390,000 ft2 (8.9 acres), which could still be sited within the 22.8- acre footprint currently available at EWA’s South Parcel.

Conveyance and SDCWA System Integration
To accommodate the potential future increased flow to 20 or 25 mgd versus the “baseline” 16 mgd, the pipeline to the SDCWA Second Aqueduct would need to be upsized from a 30 -inch to a 36 -inch, along with increased pumping capacity at the pump s tation sited at the AWTF and at the booster pump station required to match the pressure in the SDCWA raw water pipeline.

Activities to determine the requirements for integration with the SDCWA system may include the following:
• Identify potential corridors for a 36-inch pipeline to convey up to 25 mgd maximizing use of public right-of-way.
• Obtain utility information for selected potential alignments. • Identify potential locations to connect to the Aqueduct and the SDCWA requirements. • Perform preliminary hydraulic analysis to determine pump station(s) needs. • Identify preferred alignment, size of corridor, easement requirements, etc. • Update preliminary costs for conveyance of raw water to the Aqueduct. • Summarize results in a Technical Memorandum.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 232 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 8
Figure 3-1: Project Treatment Facilities Footprint Layout (16 mgd RWA)

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 233 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 9
Sensitivity Analysis of Conceptual Costs
Following the same methodology as outlined in TM3, a sensitivity analysis of the conceptual costs was developed to consider the potential impact of increased availability of flow and/or outside funding sources.

For the purposes of the sensitivity analysis, the following phases and variants of Option H are presented:
• Phase 1: 20.5 mgd influent (16 mgd product water, for RWA only) • Phase 2: 25.5 mgd influent (20 mgd product water, for RWA only) A cost summary for each option is provided in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, respectively.

Table 3-1: Cost Summary for Option H, Phase 1
Option H: RWA to Second Aqueduct (16 mgd) Cost Notes
EWPCF Secondary Improvements $89,000,000 at 31 mgd flow rate Advanced Treatment (FAT + O3/BAF) $234,400,000 at 20.5 mgd influent rate Conveyance - East $157,000,000 at 20.5 mgd influent rate Total Capital Cost $480,400,000
Annual O&M Costs
Power - Treatment (EWPCF + AWTF) $5,403,000 24/7/365 operations Power - Conveyance $9,864,000 24/7/365 operations
Equipment Rehabilitation/Replace, Consumables $5,537,000 All new facilities (incl. EWCPF) Labor $1,134,000 AWTF + Conveyance
Total Annual O&M Cost $21,938,000
Cost of Water
Annualized Capital Cost $21,450,000 2.0% rate, 30-yr term Total Annual Cost $43,388,000 for first 30 years
Annual Yield 17,800 acre-feet
Unit Cost of Water $2,450 per acre-foot

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 234 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 10
Table 3-2: Cost Summary for Option H, Phase 2
Option H4: SDCWA Second Aqueduct; Reduced
NPR Cost Notes
EWPCF Secondary Improvements $89,000,000 at 31 mgd flow rate Advanced Treatment (FAT + O3/BAF) $281,511,221 at 25.5 mgd influent rate Conveyance - East $191,900,000 at 25.5 mgd influent rate Total Capital Cost $562,411,221
Annual O&M Costs
Power - Treatment (EWPCF + AWTF) $6,189,000 24/7/365 operations Power - Conveyance $12,252,000 24/7/365 operations
Equipment Rehabilitation/Replace, Consumables $6,843,000 All new facilities (incl. EWCPF) Labor $1,330,732 AWTF + Conveyance
Total Annual O&M Cost $26,615,000
Cost of Water
Annualized Capital Cost $25,112,000 2.0% rate, 30-yr term Total Annual Cost $51,727,000 for first 30 years
Annual Yield 22,200 acre-feet
Unit Cost of Water $2,340 per acre-foot

A summary of the capital costs for each of the two phases for Option H is provided in Figure 3-2, representing the difference in costs for the AWTF and conveyance . The required investment in EWPCF improvements would be the same regardless of AWTF production.

Figure 3-2: Capital Cost Summary for Option H Phasing

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 235 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 11
Figure 3-3 compares the cost of water for each phase with and without outside funding over the assumed 30-year financing period. The outside funding scenario assumes that grant funding would be obtained to offset 20% of the capital costs, and that production incentives (local rebates) would reimburse the participating agencies $500 per acre-foot for the first 25 years of operation.

Figure 3-3: Cost of Water Summary for Option H Phasing

Comparison of EWA Water Costs to Regional Alternatives
To evaluate the competitiveness of EWA’s Option H project, its associated costs to produce and deliver advanced treated water for RWA were compared with the rates projected for SDCWA —the main water wholesaler in the North San Diego County region. Although both untreated (raw) and treated rates for SDCWA were reviewed, EWA’s RWA product water would be directly comparable to the raw water rates.

The SDCWA projected rate increases for the 2025-2045 period were based on a 10-year projection prepared by SDCWA for the period 2017-2027. Projections of water rates after 2027 were developed by Helix Water District and Padre Dam Municipal Water District in their financial a nalysis of a potential East San Diego County surface water augmentation project and presented publicly on several occasions.

Note that the projections do not reflect the current status of litigation between SDCWA and MWD which is pending a final ruling by a trial court following the 2017 Court of Appeals decision. These projections also do not reflect MWD’s recent decision to finance approximately two thirds of the cost of the $15 Billion California WaterFix twin tunnels Bay Delta Conveyance Project. This represents a significant increase from the previous 26% MWD cost responsibility included in the rate projections shown in Figure 3 -4 and is expected to result in higher SDCWA water rates than anticipated. The water rates that are shown are in comparison with the projected range of costs for EWA’s Option H on Figure 3-4. The range of costs for Option H as shown are with capital costs inflated at 2.5 percent per year and O&M cost escalated at 1.5 percent annually.
$1,210
$547
$1,140
$451
$375
$375
$368
$368
$304
$304
$279
$279
$554
$554
$552
$552
$2,450
$1,780
$2,340
$1,660
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Option H
16 mgd RWA
Option H
16 mgd RWA
+ Funding
Option H
20 mgd RWA
Option H
20 mgd RWA
+ Funding
Cost of Water ($/af)
Power
(Conveyance)
Power
(Treatment)
Other O&M
Annualized
Capital
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 236 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 12
Figure 3-4: Comparative Cost of Water for EWA’s Option H and SDCWA Projected Costs

By identifying the points of intersection between the costs of water for EWA’s Option H and raw water provided by SDCWA, Figure 3-4 shows that EWA’s project could be cost-competitive as early as 2025 or as late as 2040, depending on flow available and level of outside funding . As previously noted, the projections for SDCWA rates do not reflect the final decision in the SDCWA —MWD rate litigation and exclude any additional cost increases associated with implementing the California WaterFix project, which may accelerate the timeframe within which EWA’s project would become more cost-competitive.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 237 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 13
4 Implementation Plan and Schedule
Additional planning, pilot studies, environmental review, public outreach and regulatory discussion are needed to refine the selected potable reuse project concept and verify e conomics. In addition, regulations related to RWA are not expected until at least 2023 after further research is completed. To move the project beyond this Study phase, additional work is required to address the following:
• Regulatory Activities
• Environmental Documentation
• Source Water Analysis
• Engineering, Design, and Construction
• Funding Plan and Applications
• Stakeholder/Public Outreach
The following sections present a summary of the activities under each category for the Preferred Project.

Regulatory Activities
As a first step, details of the regulatory strategy for the Preferred Project would be identified. Regulatory oversight of potable reuse projects is carried out by DDW and the San Diego RWQCB. The general responsibilities of each agency through the regulatory approval process are illustrated in Figure 4-1:

Figure 4-1: Regulatory Approval Process Steps.

Footnotes:
a ER – Engineering Report; ROWD – Report of Waste Discharge. b Conditional approval may include conditions recommended by DDW for the RWQCB to include in the permit. c The CEQA documentation must be certified before the tentative permit is released for public comment.

Engineering Report. As part of the DDW approval process, a draft Engineering Report must be submitted to DDW and RWQCB. The purpose of the engineering report is to describe how the Project would comply with the Title 22 Criteria, the Basin Plan, and SWRCB Plans and Policies. The report would include the following types of information:
• Project purpose and goals
• Project participants (agencies or entities that w ould be in involved in the desig n, treatment, distribution, construction, and O&M of the facilities)
• Applicable rules and regulations
Submit
Draft ER
and
ROWDa
DDW and
RWQCB
Review
Draft ER
Final ER
Public
Hearing
DDW
Condition-
ally
Approves
Projectb
RWQCB
Issues
Tentative
Permitc
RWQCB
Holds
Public
Hearing
RWQCB
Issues
Final
Permit
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 238 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 14
• Project facilities, including location, general design criteria for the treatment processes, reliability features, etc.
• EWA’s industrial pretreatment/source control program
• Chemical quality of the source water (EWPCF raw wastewater) • How compliance with the Title 22 Criteria pathogen control requirements would be achieved • The quality of the recycled water and how it meets Title 22 Criteria • The proposed monitoring program
• A contingency plan
The development of the draft Engineering Report and supporting technical studies is anticipated to take approximately two and half years, with an additional six months to finalize the report (e.g., addressing DDW and RWQC B comments and revising the text) . The actual time necessary for finalizing the report may be shorter or longer depending on the progress of other RWA projects in California, the availability of DDW to review the draft report, and resolution of regulatory comments on the draft report.

Public Hearing. Once the report is finalized, the lead agency would schedule a public hearing to receive comments on the project. DDW would attend the hearing. Following the public hearing, depending on the comments received, DDW would send a letter to the RWQCB that conditionally approves the project and recommends that the RWQCB issue a tentative permit. The approval letter may contain conditions that must be implemented (and included in the permit) prior to operation of the project. The time necessary to receive the conditional approval letter is a function of organizing the hearing, DDW availability to participate in the hearing and approve materials to be presented at the hearing, and the time for DDW to issue the approval letter. This overall process is estimated to take about three months.

RWQCB Permit – Waste Discharge and Water Recycling Requirements (WDR/WRR) . A Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) for the proposed recycled water use is submitted to the RWQCB to initiate the RWQCB permitting process. The ROWD must identify proposed treatment , discharge facilities and operations, and characterize potential impacts on water quality. The ROWD is typically submitted along with the draft Engineering Report. In addition, another ROWD would be required for the ocean outfall National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit revision to discharge the proposed RO brine to the Encina Ocean Outfall.

After DDW has issued its conditional approval letter and after the project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document is certified, the RWQCB would issue a tentative WDR/WRR. It is also possible to request that EWA be given the opportunity to review a pre-public draft of the permit to resolve any significant issues in advance of the public review period.

Ongoing Regulatory Coordination . It would be important to e ngage with DDW and RWQCB through project permitting and implementation beginning early in the process . The DDW process is characterized by ongoing consultation between the project proponent and DDW throughout the project planning, predesign, design, and construction phases. Consultation with the RWQCB should occur both before and after submittal of the ROWD. Pre-submittal consultation is directed toward ensuring that the ROWD is structured to adequately address all RWQCB issues and concerns. Post-submittal consultation may be directed toward addressing subsequent RWQCB questions or reques ts for additional information. The timing and manner of engagement (e.g., in-person meetings versus conference calls) should be worked out with the regulators based on their schedules and availability.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 239 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 15
Environmental Documentation
All public projects in California must comply with CEQA. If a project is not exempt, CEQA provides for the preparation of an Initial Study (IS) to analyze whether the project would have a significant impact upon the environment. A Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND/MND) could be issued if the analysis in the IS determines that the project or action, as proposed or as proposed with specific mitigation measures, would not have a significant impact upon the environment. If the analysis in the IS determines that the project or action has the potential to result in a significant impact(s) to the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would need to be prepared to further address such impacts. It is anticipated that EWA will need to complete an EIR for the Preferred Project.

In addition to CEQA, a project is subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if it is jointly carried out by a fed eral agency, requires a federal permit, entitlement, or authorization, requires federal funding, and/or occurs on federal land.

CEQA certification is required prior to RWQCB action to adopt the discharge permit. The RWQCB staff typically defers preparation of the tentative discharge permit until after full CEQA certification has been completed.

Source Water Analysis
Contaminants of Concern- Source Control Plan. An assessment will be required to determine the fate of DDW -specified contaminants th rough the wastewater and recycled water treatment systems. The constituents are those considered of importance based on industrial discharges to the wastewater system and the source control program inventory of contaminants. These contaminants may include pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, and other wastewater indicator chemicals as specified by DDW based on the review of the Engineering Report. In addition, EWA’s existing source control program should be reviewed and augmented as necessary to satisfy the Title 22 Criteria.

EWPCF Effluent Monitoring and Operations Analysis . Analysis of the EWPCF current operational procedures should be reviewed to determine their suitability to support the preferred project. Operational improvement and optimization opportunities should be identified to increase the reliability of the secondary treatment per the Title 22 Criteria.

Engineering, Design, and Construction Activities
The new facilities for Option H are summarized in Table 4. This section discusses the effort needed to develop and implement the capital improvement projects identified for the initial phase, including EWCPF improvements, construction of the AWTF, conveyance pump stations, pipelines, and conveyance of RO brine to the Encina Ocean Outfall (EOO).

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 240 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 16
Table 4-1: New Facilities Required for the Initial Phase of Option H New Facility Description Quantity
EWPCF Improvements
• Primary Effluent Flow Equalization
• Secondary Process Conversion to MLE

• Tertiary Filtration
• 2 x 140-foot dia. tanks
• 4 aeration basins (retrofits), 2
new secondary clarifiers
• 6 tertiary filters
AWT Facility
• Treatment Facilities, including O₃/BAF,
UF, RO, AOP with UV/NaOCl, and
conditioning of product water
• Appurtenant Facilities, including
roadways, administration/maintenance
buildings, electrical facilities, product
water tank, and brine disposal to EOO.
• 16 mgd product water
Conveyance to SDCWA
Aqueduct No. 2 and
Integration with Pipeline
No. 5
• AWT product pump station
• Pipeline to RWA site
• Booster pump station
• 3 pumps, 5,600 hp
• 30 inch, 7.6 miles
• 3 pumps, 2,000 hp
O3 – ozone; BAF – biological activated filtration; UF – ultrafiltration; RO – reverse osmosis; UV – ultraviolet irradiation; NaOCl – sodium hypochlorite; hp – horsepower; LF – linear feet; psi – pounds per square inch

Preliminary Design. Detailed facilities plans would be prepared for all the new facilities identified for the project, including revised facilities layout for the AWTF, pipeline alignment evaluation, as well as revised capital and O&M cost estimates based on vendor quotes an d proposals. During pre liminary design, the concepts developed in this Study would be further refined, and assumptions would be updated, validated and documented. The conveyance pipeline alignments and booster pump station siting would be addressed as well. Alternative project delivery methods should be evaluated at this stage also (e.g., design -build vs. traditional design-bid-build).

Final Design. Following pilot/demonstration testing and any recommended equipment pre-selection, the design packages would be prepared for the AWT facilities. Design for conveyance pipeline and booster pump station could proceed independently of the AWTF design. After permitting is completed, the b id package would be prepared (assuming a design-bid-build approach).

Bidding/Contract Award, Construction, and Startup . Bidding and contract award would commence once the bid package is complete. Following construction, a startup period of approximately 6 to 12 months is anticipated, along with final approvals of the AWT facility and overall project.

Funding Applications
As described in TM5, the EWA Water Reuse Project would be eligible for funding from multiple federal, state, and regional programs. To ensure the project maximizes its chances of receiving funding, a Funding Plan could be prepared to confirm the potential funding sources and to identify the specific funding assistance activities. Funding assistance activities include researching, identifying, and applying for federal, state, and private foundation funding sources for utility -related projects including wastewater treatment plant facilities and recycled water projects. This would further require the development of grant applications tailored to specific projects in such a way as to make th e projects more competitive for potential grant funding. The necessary supporting technical and financial information is important when identifying how much is needed in matching funds, including contributions from potential project partners. Funding assistance activities are expected be required throughout implementation of the preferred project.

Pursuit of the Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) and San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program grants could provide funding in the near -term, with Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN), Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program, and MWD Local Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 241 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 17
Resources Program / SDCWA Local Water Supply Incentive Program (LRP / LWSD) funding available in the longer term.

Stakeholder/Public Outreach
A public information program is an essential element for the Water Reuse Project because of the importance of educating and informing the public about the use of a new water supply and commu nicating that the overwhelming scientific evidence has shown that potable reuse is a safe, feasible solution. An effective public information program includes both outreach and participation, each serving different functions.

Outreach is a way of disseminating or collecting information to educate the public; participation implies a means for stakeholders to actively engage in and influence a plan.

There is a track record of successful potable reuse projects that have the following characteristics in common:
• They are designed to improve water quality;
• They augment water supplies or prevent seawater intrusion versus being designed to dispose of wastewater;
• They maintain a database of historical water quality of treated effluent and conduct research to support success;
• They are managed by agencies with established experience and that have gained the confidence of regulatory authorities.

Thus, a public engagement program for the potential project should be initiated early in the planning process and incorporated into EWA’s existing community relations program to reinforce the project purpose and need. Elements of an outreach program to be developed for EWA may include:
• Planning Workshops. To identify EWA’s communication goal and objectives for the project, project challenges and opportunities, and key messages and audiences • Purpose and Need Statement. Review EWA’s reason for examining potable reuse and ensure that the purpose and need for the project are clearly stated. This could be the basis for key messages, informational materials, presentations and all other project communication. • Survey. Conduct a baseline public opinion survey so that perceptions, awareness and knowledge about water supply needs and sources, recycled water and potable reuse c an be measured at the very start of the project. Key messages could also be tested to determine if they help respondents understand the project more clearly.
• Communication Plan. Develop a strategic communication plan that includes: a situation analysis; project challenges and opportunities; EWA’s communication goal and objectives; strategies or a list of how the goal and objectives would be accomplished; and outreach tactics , activities, and communication tools that carry out the strategies and meet the goal or objectives. • Informational Materials. Develop a fact sheet and frequently asked questions document that can be posted on EWA’s website and printed for distribution at appropriate locations, including EWA offices and at community presentations or events.
• Website. Evaluate the need for a separate project website or a page on EWA’s existing website.

Post all information about the potable reuse project on the website. • Community Advisory Group. Consider establishing a community advisory group to work with EWA staff and the project team on an identified task related to the project. This task could be for the community advisory group to review the communication strategies and provide input on additional ways to expand outreach about the project in the service area.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 242 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 18
Implementation Schedule
An overall implementation plan for the preferred project is shown schematically on Figure 4-2, which indicates an overall duration of approximately ten years before project startup. Although there are currently no permitted DPR projects in California (raw or treated drinking water aug mentation), recent experience with surface water augmentation projects is proceeding on similar timeframes (such as San Diego Pure Water or the East County Advanced Water Purification Program) once a decision is made to proceed. Key phases of the EWA RWA project and interdependencies are summarized as follows:
• Initial work should focus on planning for the major capital improvements (including a pilot/demonstration phase) and developing the regulatory strategy for RWA. • By the time the planning studies are completed, regulatory requirements for RWA projects should be better defined, allowing the project to move ahead with preparation of the Engineering Report. • Environmental documentation should be done in parallel with the design and DDW coordination phases. CEQA certification is needed before RWQCB can issue the tentative permit. • Construction of the project can begin after the RWQCB issues the final permit. • Funding application and stakeholder/public outreach efforts will occur during the life of the project, though the public outreach activities are not expected to ramp up until the pilot/ demonstration facilities are operating.

Figure 4-2: Implementation Schedule for EWA’s Potable Reuse Project (Phase 1)

Planning
EWPCF Improvements
AWTF
Pilot Testing
Pipeline Alignment
Funding
Funding Plan
State
Federal
Regulatory
Strategy
Engineering Report
Permitting
Environmental
CEQA
Design/Construction
EWPCF Improvements
AWTF
Conveyance
Stakeholder/Public Outreach
Stakeholder Outreach
Public Outreach
Start of Project Operations
TASKS 9 105 6 7 841 2 3
YEARS
●
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 243 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 19
5 Conclusions and Next Steps
EWA’s wastewater flows and facilities represent a unique opportunity and a centralized location for large- scale production of recycled water that could capture economies of scale to the benefit of the region. EWA’s experience in water treatment and water quality may well make it suitable to take on the responsibility for the AWTF required for potable reuse. The presence and available capacity of a deep ocean outfall is conducive to siting the AWTF near the EWPCF for disposal of reject streams.

Demand for non -potable reuse in the region is not projected to be sufficient to fully utilize the available effluent at the EWCPF, especially considering the seasonal nature of irrigation demands. Therefore, potable reuse would be necessary to minimize discharge s of EWPCF effluent to the Pacific Ocean. Although the cost of water estimated for EWA’s RWA option is higher than current SDCWA untreated water rates (like other recycled water projects being implemented in the region), SDCWA’s costs are projected to rise over time and EWA’s RWA Project may become cost -competitive by the time it could begin delivering water in the mid to late 2020s.

Because the production of a new water supply by EWA is not required to comply with its NPDES permit or any other state or federal requirement, the cost of the RWA Project beyond wastewater treatment and disposal would be the responsibility of water purveyors. As such, future planning and implementation activities should be pursued on a cost share basis with participating local and regional water suppliers.

However, it should be noted that the draft Amendment to the Recycled Water Policy released by the SWRCB on May 9, 2018 identified the following:
• Goal: Increase the use of recycled water from 714,000 afy in 2015 to 1.5 millio n afy by 2020 and to 2.5 million by 2030.
• Goal: Minimize the direct discharge of treated municipal wastewater to […] ocean waters, except where necessary to maintain beneficial uses. Under this goal, treated municipal wastewater does not include brine discharges from recycled water facilities or desalination facilities. • The State Water Board will evaluate progress toward these goals and revise the goals or establish mandates as necessary.

As shown on the RWA Project Implementation Schedule included in Secti on 4 above , the activities identified during the initial phases of the Project are focused on:
• Identifying the potential impacts on the EWPCF.
• Refining the design criteria for the AWTF and pilot testing. • Strategizing the approach to defining the regulatory requirements for RWA. • Developing a funding plan to maximize the opportunities for outside funding. • Determining a likely corridor for the conveyance pipeline to the SDCWA raw water pipeline.

If EWA’s Board of Directors authorizes staff to continue planning and permitting activities beyond this Study, future stakeholder outreach should focus on developing a formal partnership with the water purveyor(s) that would use the purified raw water produced from EWPCF effluent. The anticipated cost of recommended activities over the first two years is estimated to be approximately $800,000. This cost will likely be shared by local and regional water purveyors in terested in continuing to refine the costs and partnering on the project.

Defining EWA’s role after the Feasibility Study will be key to any implementation plan of wider reuse of EWA’s valuable water resources. EWA should invite continued discussions with its potential partners (retail water agencies), and the next steps could also involve significant policy and financial deliberations by its Board and Member Agencies.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 244 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM4: Project Phasing
July 2018 20
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 245 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Attachment 5 - TM5: Funding Opportunities

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 246 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 247 of 279

July 2018 1

Technical Memorandum No. 5
EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
Subject: Funding Opportunities
Prepared for: Encina Wastewater Authority
Prepared by: Alexis Cahalin, Rosalyn Prickett, AICP | Woodard & Curran Reviewed by: Nathan Chase, P.E., Scott Goldman, P.E. | Woodard & Curran Ken Weinberg | Ken Weinberg Water Resources Consulting LLC Date: July 2018 (Draft Issued: October 2017)

Contents
1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Regional Funding .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 San Diego IRWM Program ........................................................................................................... 3

2.2 MWD Local Resources Program .................................................................................................. 5 3 State Funding ........................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Clean Water SRF Program ............................................................................................................ 7 4 Federal Funding .................................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program ....................................................................... 9 5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Summary of Funding Opportunities for EWA’s Reuse Project .................................................. 11

5.2 Recommended Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 13

List of Tables
Table 1: Funding Program Financial Benefit Example ............................................................................... 11 Table 2: Funding Program Ranking ............................................................................................................ 12

\\wc\shared\Projects\RMC\IRV\0305 - Encina Wastewater Authority\59 - Water Reuse FS\B. Project Work\5. Funding\EWRFS_TM5_Funding.docx Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 248 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 2
1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Background
As required by Encina Wastewater Authority ’s (EWA) 2020 Business Plan, the Water Reuse Feasibility Study (Study) will identify a path to maximize beneficial reuse of effluent from the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF)—which by 2040 is projected to reach an average of approximately 31 million gallons per day (mgd).

The Study will focus on developing a portfolio of options for potential reuse; identify and analyze a short list of options; develop an approach to phasing of the preferred water reuse project; identify funding opportunities for projects; develop a stakeholder involvement plan; and coordinate with EWA Member Agencies and other stakeholders to engage with the Study development and recommendations. Ultimately, the Study will serve to advance EWA’s mission of resource recovery and contribute to sustaining and enhancing the region’s water environment.

1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to identify local, state, and federal funding opportunities for EWA’s water reuse project. For each funding source, the TM explain s the funding program objectives, eligibility criteria, cost share requirements, and activities that could be funded, thereby reducing the cost to local agencies and their retail water customers. The TM is organized as follows:
• Regional Funding: San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management ( IRWM) Program , Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Local Resource s Program, and a potential San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) Local Water Supply Development Program.
• State Funding: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program, and Water Recycling Funding Program.
• Federal Funding: Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program , and Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Program.
• Conclusions: Conclusions regarding the level of funding that could be available for project implementation, as well as recommendations for funding future phases of the project development process if EWA and any partnering agencies determine there is a feasible project to move forward with.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 249 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 3
2 Regional Funding

2.1 San Diego IRWM Program
The Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Grant Program is supported by bond funding through the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) . This program funds competitive grants for multi- benefit projects that develop long-term water supply reliability, improve water quality, and protect natural resources. Funding is distributed regionally and applied for at the local level.

Proposition 1 provides $52.5 million for the San Diego Funding Area (which includes southern Orange and Riverside counties) for projects that help meet the long -term water needs of the State. Eligible grant applicants include public agencies, non -profit organizations, public utilities, federally -recognized Indian Tribes, state Indian Tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s Tribal Consultation list, and mutual water companies.

The San Diego IRWM Program – managed by a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) comprised of San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), County of San Diego, and City of San Diego – will receive $38.2 million for distribution to local water resource management projects. The application process occurs through the local program prior to and concurrent with each round of funding made available by DWR. One round of Proposition 1 funding has alre ady been awarded locally, totaling $4.9 million, which leaves $33.3 million available for future rounds. The IRWM Grant Program will fund planning, design, environmental, and construction costs. The San Diego IRWM Program requires inclusion of public outreach and construction components in all funded projects.

Eligible project types for the IRWM Grant Program are announced with each solicitation, but generally include the following:
a. Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and indirect potable reuse. b. Water-use efficiency and water conservation.
c. Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects.
d. Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration of separate water systems. e. Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects, including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve water supply reliability.
f. Storm water resource management projects.
g. Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities. h. Water desalination projects.
i. Decision support tools to model regional water management strategies to account for climate change and other changes in regional demand and supply projections. j. Improvement of water quality, including drinking water trea tment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff.

The San Diego IRWM Program application process typically begins approximately six months prior to DWR’s deadline, with a local Call for Projects. One or more workshops are generally held before and during the Call for Projects for local project sponsors to identify opportunities to strengthen their project and receive assistance with submitting their project for consideration. Submitted applications are scored in accordance with the scoring criteria established by the Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) for that round of funding, and project scores are presented to stakeholders for comments. Following project scoring , a Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 250 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 4
workgroup is selected from RAC members. The workgroup evaluates each project and conducts interviews with project sponsors , finally selecting a list of project s for that round of funding . The list of selected projects is then approved by the RAC. Once the project list is approved, t he RWMG and consultants preparing the grant application coordinate directly with the project sponsors to obtain required information to prepare the application for submittal to DWR. To date, DWR has approved and fully awarded all of the San Diego IRWM Program’s grant applications.

DWR anticipates two rounds of implementation funding for Proposition 1. Applications for the first round of funding are anticipated to be due to DWR in late 2018, and the second round is anticipated to occur in 2020. Funding availability for the two future rounds is un certain, but estimated by the San Diego IRWM program to be $10-15 million in 2018 and $18-23 million in 2020. These grants require a minimum of 50% local cost share. Projects that score well in the San Diego IRWM Program are multi-benefit, have multiple (public and/or non-profit) partners, and have substantial public outreach components.

Evaluation for EWA Water Reuse Project
EWA’s Water Reuse Project would be competitive under the San Diego IRWM Program because water reuse is a priority for the Region. The project would address multiple goals and objectives of the San Diego IRWM Plan including improving the reliability and sustainability of regional water supplies, protecting and enhancing water quality, watersheds and natural resources, and prom oting and supporting sustainable integrated water resource management.1
EWA could become involved in the San Diego IRWM Program by attending RAC meetings as a member of the public, and potentially volunteering to sit on the RAC when the next set of seats become available at the end of 2018. EWA could also contribute projects during the Call for Projects for each round of funding, and attend public workshops associated with the funding opportunities. Participation in the San Diego IRWM Program is open to any entity involved in water management and would not have to be done through EWA’s Member Agencies.

Proposition 1 funding via the IRWM Grant Program could be used for planning , design, and construction activities. However, projects must be “shovel-ready” to be eligible for the IRWM Grant Program. Although planning components can be included, the project must contain a construction component that will deliver physical benefits (e.g., result in recycled water deliveries) to be funded. EWA might consider phasing the construction components and beginning design and CEQA compliance on early construction components, so that those deliverables can be submitted with the application. EWA might also consider coupling the planning phase of the Water Reuse Project with one or more capital projects at the EWPCF so that the total package is “shovel -ready”. All IRWM -funded projects must also contain a public/stakeholder outreach component that exceeds minimum regulatory (e.g., CEQA or Title 22) requirements.

The local process for the next round of Proposition 1 funding is anticipated to begin in early to mid-2018.

The subsequent round of Proposition 1 funding is anticipated to occur in 2020. EWA should become engaged with the San Diego IRWM Program by end of 2017 to receive all relevant information for the next funding opportunity. There is no maximum award level (minimum is $500,000), but the largest award to date was $6 million and the average award was $1.5 million.

The San Diego IRWM Region project prioritization and selection process would dictate whether EWA’s Project would be included in an application. Additional information is requested from projects selected for

1 Additional details on the San Diego 2013 IRWM Plan’s goals and 11 objectives can be found in Chapter 2 of the IRWM Plan, http://sdirwmp.org/pdf/SDIRWM_02_Vision_Objectives_Sep2013.pdf Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 251 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 5
inclusion in the Region’s application, which is then used by the RWMG and its consultant team to develop the Region’s application to DWR.

2.2 MWD Local Resources Program
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ( MWD) has provided incentives for the development of local water supply projects since 1982. The Local Resources Program ( LRP) began by providing up-front capital; after operation began, MWD would recover costs by selling its share of water to the participating agency. Since then, the LRP has evolved into a system in which MWD pays the agency for project water deliveries, essentially subsidizing th e higher cost of water that water agencies may face when developing a recycled water or groundwater recovery project. Today, there are three payment options, consisting of the following:

1. Sliding scale incentives up to $340/AF over 25 years

2. Sliding scale incentives up to $475/AF over 15 years

3. Fixed incentive up to $305/AF over 25 years
The sliding scale incentives are calculated annually based on actual project unit cost exceeding MWD’s prevailing water rate. The LRP is open to public and private water agenc ies within MWD’s service area.

Eligible projects are listed below, provided they include construction of new substantive treatment or distribution facilities:
a. Water recycling projects
b. Groundwater recovery projects
c. Seawater desalination projects
Since the program began, 78 water recycling projects and 25 groundwater recovery projects have been approved, for a total of 432,000 AFY expected production upon completion 2. Not all funded projects are operating at full capacity. Total investment to date is approximately $571 million.

MWD is currently involved in on -going litigation with SDCWA over its rates. SDCWA has filed four lawsuits against MWD to date, in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, claiming that MWD illegally charged SDCWA for transporting conserved Colorado River water through MWD’s conveyance system. SDCWA also claimed that MWD’s Rate Structure Integrity (RSI) provision which was included in LRP and water conservation funding agreements was unconstitutional. The RSI provision prevented agencies involved in litigation or legislation challenging MWD’s rate structure from receiving LRP or conservation funding.

In June 2017, the State Court of Appeal issued its opinion on the 2010, 2012 and 2014 litigation and among other findings ruled that MWD’s RSI language was unconstitutional and could not be used to bar SDCWA from LRP and conservation funding. MWD did not appeal that ruling to the California Supreme Court which in S eptember 2017 denied SDCWA’s petition for review on other issues and the appellate ruling became final. Now, SDCWA and its member agencies are once again able to receive LRP funding. Since that time, SDCWA member agencies began developing their applications for submittal to the LRP Program.

SDCWA has pending litigation which it filed in 2016 that challenges MWD Water Stewardship Rate that funds LRP. The status of that lawsuit and its effect on future LRP agreements are unknown presently.

2 MWD Board Report on MWD’s Efforts to Encourage Local Resources Development, http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/2794_001.pdf Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 252 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 6
SDCWA Local Water Supply Development Program
SDCWA had its own water supply incentive program that was originally intended as a supplement to MWD’s LRP based on financial need. Established in 1991, the program was originally called the Reclaimed Water Development Fund (RWDF) and was later changed to the Local Water Supply Development (LWSD) Program . The pr ogram provided agencies up to $100/AF of recycled water produced and beneficially reused within SDCWA’s service area, which offset a demand for imported water. In 2005, the program was amended to eliminate the requirement that award of funding was contingent upon receiving MWD’s LRP funding. In 2006 and 2008, the program was amended to allow eligible projects to include brackish and contaminated groundwater recove ry projects and seawater desalination projects and the incentive amount was increased to up to $200/AF . In 2010 , the LWSD Program ceased accepting new applications because it was believed there was no longer a financial need for SDCWA to provide its own incentive.

In November 201 7, SDCWA initiated a Cost of Ser vice Study (COSS) that will also examine the formulation of a new SDCWA local projects ince ntive program . This potential Local Water S upply Incentive Program (LWSIP) is expected to be consistent with SDCWA legal claims in their 2016 lawsuit.

It is anticipated that the COSS and a proposal for a potential LWSIP will be completed by Spring 2018.

It is likely that , between MWD’s LRP eligibility and SDCWA’s evaluation of its own program , regional financial incentives would be available for the EWA Water Reuse Project that would reduce cost for local ratepayers.

Evaluation for EWA Water Reuse Project
Because applicants must be a member agency of SDCWA or be sponsored by a member agency, EWA would be required to partner with a member agency; or, more likely, the member agency that beneficially reuses the recycled water would apply on their own and EWA would remain solely in a wholesaler role .

The terms of a Water Purchase Agreement between EWA and the end user of the supply would assign roles and responsibili ties among the parties. It is reasonable to expect that responsibility for obtaining either MWD or SDCWA financial incentives is more properly the role of the water supply agency.

The LRP incentives apply to the cost of delivered water only, so they may b e achieved only after all construction and start-up activities are complete. These programs do not provide financial support prior to operations such as during the planning, design, or construction phases. Currently, MWD has a target of annual water production under the LRP Program of 63,000 AFY. MWD has contracted for some portion of that target and may have to raise that target for the EWA Water Reuse Project. Continued uncertainty in imported water availability and comments by MWD staff indicate that rel ooking at that target which was adopted in 2009 is likely in the coming years.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 253 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 7
3 State Funding

3.1 Clean Water SRF Program
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of Financial Assistance. The SRF Program pro vides below-market rate financing to assist communities in preventing pollution of water resources. Repayments of loan principal and interest earnings are recycled back into SRF Program to finance new projects that allow the funds to "revolve" at the state level over time. Eligible applicants are any city, town, district or public body created under state law; Native Americ an tribal governments or author ized Native American triba l organizations having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial waste or other waste; any designated management agency under Clean Water Act §208; and 501(c)(3)s and National Estuary Programs.

The Clean Water SRF Program will fund construction costs and associated soft costs (e.g., planning, design, administration) as estimated in the application . Following contract execution, budget values are refined based on the final construction bid for the project.

Eligible projects include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Publicly-owned treatment works
b. Nonpoint source projects
c. National estuary program projects
d. Decentralized wastewater treatment systems
e. Storm water projects
f. Water conservation
g. Watershed projects
h. Energy conservation
i. Water reuse projects
j. Security measures at publicly-owned treatment works
k. Technical assistance
Funds would be limited only by EWA’s ability to borrow , and no match is required . Loan terms include 30-year amortization and low interest rates. Repayment begins one year after construction is complete.

SWRCB can offer principal forgiveness (i.e. , grants) to applicants if the project directly benefits a small, disadvantaged community (DAC).

The Clean Water SRF application process occurs at the state level. Four different application packages are submitted to the SWRCB – general information, technical, environmental, and financial security packages.

The application preparation and review process takes 9 -12 months, and loans are awarded based on readiness-to-proceed ( e.g., CEQA -Plus [state and federal environmental compliance documentation] completed and approved by SWRCB). Applications are currently accepted on a rolling basis but may transition to a formal application window in the future.

Although early disbursement requests can cover soft costs only, generally it is preferable to be ready for the construction bid process by completion of the SRF application process. SWRCB staff require submittal of and conduct their own federal environmental consultations with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agency and State Historic Preservation Office as part of the application review process. Additionally, any necessary Wastewater Change Petition must be completed prior to application approval.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 254 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 8
It should be noted that the Clean Water SRF Program is currently oversubscribed. However, because it is a revolving fund (i.e., 50% of all repayments are available for future awards), the status of the SRF Program could improve by the time a financing agreement with the SWRCB would be executed for the EWA project.

Water Recycling Funding Program
The SWRCB administers the Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) concurrent with the SRF Program to promote the beneficial use of treated municipal wastewater to augment fresh water supplies. The WRFP provides technical and financial assistance in support of water recycling projects and research. Proposition 1 provided $625 million under the WRFP for planning and construction of water recycling projects, which is being administered through the Clean Water SRF. Applications are accepted on an ongoing basis.

Two categories of grants are offered, planning grants and construction grants, which are described below:

1. Planning grants: Planning studies for facilities to determine the feasibility of using recycled water to offset the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies are eligible. Pollution control studies, in which water recycling is an alternative to disposal, are not eligible. The facilities planning report must include analysis of all the essential components of the project and identify a recommended project.
o A 50% match is required.
o The maximum grant award is $75,000. Funding is still available in this category.

2. Construction grants: Eligible applicants for construction grants are local public agencies, non - profit organizations, public utilities, federal ly- and state -recognized Native American Tribes, mutual water companies, and JPAs. Financial and technical assistance is available for projects that offset or augment state fresh water supplies. Projects focused on system process efficiencies including, but not limited to, operations and maintenance ( O&M) and process improvements not regulated by a waste discharge permit, are ineligible to receive funding. o A 50% match is required.
o The maximum grant award is 35% of the total project cost or $15 million , whichever is less. However, SWRCB has reported that all of the WRFP construction fu nding has been allocated; construction grants are no longer available. Recent passage of Senate Bill 5 (California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018) may provide additional funding for the WRFP, but it is uncertain at this time whether additional funding will be available under this program.

Evaluation for EWA Water Reuse Project
EWA and partnering agencies would likely qualify for planning grants and low-interest financing through the Clean Water SR F Program and WRFP. EWA could apply immediately for a WRFP planning grant, which would provide up to a $75,000 grant toward completion of a Feasibility Study , requiring a 50% match. JPAs are eligible entities for planning grants. EWA could utilize WRFP pla nning grant funds to expand this Study to meet SWRCB and USBR requirements, so that it complies with both Clean Water SRF and Title XVI/WIIN requirements.

Clean Water SRF would provide a low-interest loan (current interest rate is 1.7%) up to the full project cost.

Additional construction grant funds could be obtained through the WRFP if additional funding becomes available. Clean Water SRF loans are approved on a first -come, first-serve basis following approval of submitted applications. Because the applic ation review process takes 9 -12 months, the status of the SRF Program is expected to improve by the time a construction application is ready for the EWA Project.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 255 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 9
4 Federal Funding

4.1 Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program
The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) WaterSMART: Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program (Title XVI Program) includes funding for the planning, design, and construction of water recycling and reuse projects, including prior costs . The purpose of the Title X VI Program is to develop and supplement urban and irrigation water supplies through water reuse, thereby improving efficiency, providing flexibility during water shortages, and diversifying water supply. A water reuse project is a project that reclaims and reuses municipal, industrial, domestic, or agricultural wastewater and naturally impaired groundwater and/or surface waters. Reclaimed water can be used for a variety of purposes such as environmental restoration, fish and wildlife, groundwater recharge, municipal, domestic, industrial, agricultural, power generation, or recreation.

To receive Title XVI funding for a construction project, the project must receive congressional authorization (which has not occurred in the last few years due to the c ongressional earmark ban). Once a project has congressional authorization, a Title XVI Feasibility Study must be submitted to USBR for review and approval. USBR will then provide a Determination of Feasibility , which provides eligibility to pursue the annual Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs). Both USBR and congressional approval are required to be eligible to pursue Title XVI funding. The federal share for a Title XVI project shall not exceed 25%, up to the value authorized by Congress.

A Title XVI applicat ion is submitted in response to the annual FOAs and is evaluated against all other applications received from the Western States. The application requires project information and response (limited to 75-pages) to a series of evaluation criterion questions related to water supply, environment and water quality , energy efficiency, economic benefits, disadvantaged communit ies, and watershed perspective.

Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Program The WIIN Program is a s ubset of the Title XVI Program , established for agencies that have not received congressional authorization under Title XVI . The purpose of the WIIN Program is to develop and supplement urban and irrigation water supplies through water reuse, thereby impro ving efficiency, providing flexibility during water shortages, and diversifying the water supply.

This program includes $50 million for Title XVI projects that have received a Determination of Feasibility (i.e., they have submitted and received approval of a Feasibility Study from USBR) , but have not been congressionally authorized. The federal share for a WIIN project shall not exceed 25%, up to $20 million.

The WIIN Program is being administered similarly to the Title XVI Program , and the FOA for the 2017 fiscal year (which offered $10 million for WIIN grants) was released on July 17, 2017 . The next round of funding under the WIIN Program may be available as soon as Fall or Winter 2017.

The application process for WIIN grants is similar to the Title XVI Program, with comparable application requirements and evaluation criterion.

Evaluation for EWA Water Reuse Project
The USBR WIIN Program could be used to fund planning, design, and/or construction of all potential project components. Construction activities can be phased to pursue construction of different components of the Project in each 2 -year funding cycle until the $20 million grant is achieved. USBR does not award the full $20 million at once. EWA can submit multiple applications under the annual FOAs, with a fraction of the $20 million grant received each time.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 256 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 10
EWA would need to submit a Title XVI Feasibility Study to receive a Determination of Feasibility, after which the project would be eligible to apply for a WIIN grant. USBR does not expect to rece ive congressional authorizations for any new Title XVI projects – all future projects will now follow the WIIN process.

The FOA for this program is expected to be released annually in the Fall, with USBR moving toward a joint Title XVI/WIIN solicitation in the future. The Project would then be in direct competition with all other authorized and unauthorized projects. Projects that include a construction component score higher in the WIIN grant process. EWA might consider phasing the construction components and beginning design and CEQA compliance on early construction components, so that those deliverables can be submitted with each application.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 257 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 11
5 Conclusions

5.1 Summary of Funding Opportunities for EWA’s Reuse Project Five of the funding programs described in this TM are most applicable to various components of EWA’s water reuse project. Table 1 is a summary of the impact of each funding program on the potential cost of water produced by the EWA Project , based upon the c onceptual cost opinions developed under TM 4 for Option H3. For simplicity, all costs are shown in 2017 dollars.

Table 1: Funding Program Financial Benefit Example
Program Assumption Capital Cost Cost of Water
(incl. O&M) % Reduction
Baseline
(No Funding Support)
Assumes financing with a 30-year loan
at 2% interest rate $480 million $2,450/AF N/A
San Diego IRWM Assumes $5 million grant award $475 million $2,440/AF 0.4% SWRCB WRFP Assumes $15 million grant award $465 million $2,410AF 1.6% USBR WIIN Program Assumes $20 million grant award $460 million $2,400/AF 2.0% SWRCB Clean
Water SRF Program
Assumes low interest loan for the full
Project cost at 1.7% interest rate No change $2,400/AF 2.0%

MWD LRP /

SDCWA LWSIP
Assumes $540/AF incentive (LRP:
$340/AF for 25 years + LWSD:
$200/SF for 25 years)
No change $2,000/AF 4 18.4%

For each of the funding programs described above, the projected capital cost and cost of water has been calculated assuming the stated award. If EWA were to secure financial benefits from all programs identified in Table 1 , the overall projected reduction in the cost of water could be up to 24.5% based upon the following:
• $440 million total capital cost
• $1,850/AF cost of water
Several water supply agencies within the region have capitalized on multiple grant and loan programs in this way.

3 Note that the funding opportunities used in this example could apply to other EWA Reuse Project Options also. 4 To facilitate comparison to the other programs, this assumes the incentive subsidies per acre-foot are in place for the first 25 years, and a return to the baseline non-subsidized cost for the remaining 5 years of the 30-year term loan.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 258 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 12
As explained in Table 2, pursuit of WRFP and San Diego IRWM Program grants could provide funding in the near-term, with WIIN, SRF Program, and LRP / LWSD funding available in the longer term . The five programs are ranked as follows:

1. The WRFP ranks first beca use EWA could apply for a planning grant to support preparation of a Feasibility Study for the Water Reuse Project. Funding is available in the planning grant program.

2. The San Diego IRWM Program ranks second because it is the least competitive of the avail able programs and there is substantial funding available. However, EWA would need to be creative in developing a “Project” that meets the eligibility requirements, with some “shovel -ready” components.

3. The Title XVI WIIN Program is ranked third because it offers a larger grant maximum and the solicitations are expected to occur annually. However, the program is highly competitive, and a Title XVI Feasibility Study must be prepared to be eligible.

4. The Clean Water SRF Program ranks fourth because the program is currently oversubscribed, and it can take 9-12 months for the application review process to be complete. That said, it offers low interest rates that would be beneficial for such a large capital project and should b e pursued once the Project is further along.

5. The LRP / LWSIP Programs are ranked last because of the uncertainty of their reinstatement and their timing after construction and start-up. These programs should be tracked and applied for when the Project is farther along, if funds are available.

Table 2: Funding Program Ranking
Rank Program Explanation
1 SWRCB WRFP WRFP planning grant funds are currently available and could support development of a Feasibility Study with up to $75,000 at a 50% match. 2 San Diego IRWM
Program
IRWM funding is a strong option because the competition occurs at the regional scale, where local water agency partners can be an advocate for the EWA Project. Planning activities can be paired with other “shovel -ready” capital projects to secure g rant funding (using the capital project costs as match) or phased to allow for work to proceed in stages.
3 USBR Water
Infrastructure
Improvements for the
Nation (WIIN) Program
WIIN funding could be used to fund planning, design, and/or construction of all potential project components. Construction activities can be phased to pursue construction of different components of the Project in each 2 -year funding cycle until the $20 million grant is achieved.
4 SWRCB Clean Water
State Revolving Fund
(SRF) Loan Program
EWA and partnering agencies would likely qualify for low -interest financing through the Clean Water SRF Program, which would cover construction activities up to the full project cost . Extensive application materials are necessary, including completion of CEQA and all permits.
5 MWD Local Resources
Program / SDCWA
Local Water Supply
Incentive Program
The LRP and LWSIP are likely to become available to SDCWA member agencies again; however, the timeline or availability of funds is uncertain . Further, these funds only apply to the cost of delivered water, so they may only be awarded after all construction and start-up activities are complete.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 259 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 13

5.2 Recommended Next Steps
To increase the chances of receiving funding for any future phases of EWA’s water reuse project, it is recommended that EWA and any partnering agencies pursue all funding options available. In the short term, the following actions should be considered to further refine the project and position EWA and any partners for existing and future funding opportunities:
• Partner Agreements: EWA should identify one or more water agency partners to begin pursuing funding op portunities for the initial phases of work. Development of one or more MOUs with partner agencies may help facilitate funding pursuits by outlining roles and responsibilities. • WRFP Planning Grant Application : EWA could apply for WRFP planning grant funding to support preparation o f complete Feasibility Studies that, in turn, could be used in applying for additional funding as described below.
• Clean Water SRF/WRFP and Title XVI /WIIN Feasibility Stud ies: EWA should develop additional content to supplement this Study to ensure it complies with the requirements for a Clean Water SRF/WRFP and Title XVI /WIIN Feasibility Study, which would enable the project proponents to submit applications for funding with SWRCB and USBR. WRFP planning grant funding could be secured to support this effort.
• San Diego IRWM Grant Application : EWA could develop a package of activities that includes planning for the Water Reuse Project, as well as other capital projects at the EWP CF. If this is pursued, EWA should become engaged in the IRWM Program through RAC and stakeholder meetings.
• CEQA Environmental Review: Due to the construction phasing that is allowed by the WIIN and San Diego IRWM Programs, EWA might consider preparing a P rogram Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that addresses all facilities that may be necessary for the Project. EWA would then complete project -level CEQA through either Supplements or Addendums to the Program EIR, depending on the level of anticipated impac ts for each individual project component as those are moved forward into various funding programs.
• Clean Water SRF Application: As an initial step, EWA could prepare and submit General Information forms to get in the queue for the Clean Water SRF. This notifies SWRCB and others that the EWA Project will proceed and provides information about expected funding needs. In turn, this allows SWRCB to lobby for additional allocations from water bonds or the Legislature. If funds become available, this could ensure EWA is in a favorable position to obtain funding (e.g., for detailed facilities planning for a first phase of the Project). • Pilot Phase Funding: Once a pilot phase scope of work is determined and the Title XVI/WIIN Feasibility Study is complete , EWA could p repare applications for WIIN and San Diego IRWM funding for full-scale pilot facilities that would produce advanced treated water for potable reuse as an initial phase of the ultimate project.
• Funding Opportunity Tracking: Ongoing tracking of funding opportunities that may emerge and be relevant to EWA’s reuse project, including attending workshops and coordinating with funding agencies to determine eligibility and define requirements for app lication, is essential to be ready for each opportunity as it arises.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 260 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM5: Funding Opportunities
July 2018 14
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 261 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study

Attachment 6 - TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 262 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 263 of 279

July 2018 1
Technical Memorandum No. 6
EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
Subject: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
Prepared for: Encina Wastewater Authority
Prepared by: Ken Weinberg | Ken Weinberg Water Resources Consulting, LLC Rosalyn Prickett | Woodard & Curran
Reviewed by: Nathan Chase, P.E., Scott Goldman, P.E. | Woodard & Curran Date: July 2018 (Draft Issued: December 2016)

Contents
1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2 EWA’s Role as Water Wholesaler ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Existing Capabilities and Drivers for Increased Reuse ................................................................. 3

2.2 Financial Considerations ............................................................................................................... 3 3 Stakeholder Identification ..................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Core Stakeholders for this Study .................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Regulatory Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 EWA Board of Directors ............................................................................................................... 6 4 Stakeholder Outreach ............................................................................................................................ 7

4.1 Initial Outreach to Member Agencies ........................................................................................... 7

4.2 Stakeholder Workshops ................................................................................................................ 7

4.3 Timeline of Stakeholder Activities ............................................................................................... 9 5 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Memorandum of Understanding ................................................................................................. 10 Appendix A – Letter of Support ................................................................................................................. 11

List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Stakeholder Diagram for EWA Water Reuse ............................................................................ 5 Figure 4-1: Timeline of Stakeholder Activities ............................................................................................ 9 List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Initial Outreach Letters Sent and Responses Received .............................................. 7

\\wc\shared\Projects\RMC\IRV\0305 - Encina Wastewater Authority\59 - Water Reuse FS\B. Project Work\6. Stakeholders\EWRFS_TM6_Stakeholders.docx Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 264 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 2
1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Background
As required by Encina Wastewater Authority’s (EWA's) 2020 Business Plan, this Water Reuse Feasibility Study (Study) will identify a path to maximize beneficial reuse of effluent from the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF)—which by 2040 is proj ected to reach an average of approximately 31 million gallons per day (mgd).

This Study focuses on development of a portfolio of options for potential reuse projects; identification and analysis of a short list of options; develop ment of an approach to ph asing of the preferred water reuse project; identification of funding opportunities; development of a stakeholder involvement plan—the focus of this technical memorandum (TM); and coordination with EWA member agencies and other stakeholders to engage with the Study development and recommendations. Ultimately, the Study will serve to advance EWA’s mission of resource recovery and contribute to sustaining and enh ancing the region’s water environment.

1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this TM is to develop a stakeholder involvement plan that identifies the stakeholder activities to be completed as part of this Study and provides an overview of potential next steps for the ultimate water reuse project. The TM is organized as summarized below:
• EWA as Water Wholesaler: this section will define EWA’s role as a water wholesaler and identify the goals for water pricing to ensure the ultimate project allows full cost recovery (at a minimum) to EWA.
• Stakeholder Identification: this section provides a listing of local and regional stakeholders along with key contacts. Stakeholders will depend on the options that are investigated, but as a minimum are anticipated to include EWA Member Agencies, the San Diego County Water Authority, and the North San Diego County Reuse Coalition.
• Stakeholder Outreach: this section provides the methodology and timing for conducting stakeholder workshops as part of this Study, as well as how the outcomes of the workshops will be captured and communicated.
• Potential Next Steps : the final section identifies potential stakeholder activities that may be required for the next stage of the water reuse project arising from this Study , including discussion of the anticipated role for EWA.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 265 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 3
2 EWA’s Role as Water Wholesaler
Although EWA is taking the lead at this stage by developing this Water Reuse Feasibility Study, its role as a project proponent needs to be well -defined prior to engaging stakeholders. EWA would likely be the producer of recycled water , while the local water purveyors and others will ultimately control the end beneficial use. Developing the roles and responsibilities of EWA in a large-scale beneficial reuse project is critical to the formation of a business case and structure to implement a project if it is found to be technically and financially feasible.

2.1 Existing Capabilities and Drivers for Increased Reuse EWA facilities represent a unique centralized location for large-scale production of recycled water that could capture economies of scale to the benefit of the region. The regulatory standards for beneficial use of recycled water are continuously evolving and expanding the potential market for recycled water supplies.

This expanding market of permitted uses requires the availability of increased and cost-effective production of recycled water that can meet Title 22 non-potable standards or undergo advanced treatment for potable reuse under existing Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) regulations or under future Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) regulations.

EWA’s mission and core competencies are centered on the collection , treatment, and disposal of wastewater. Although authorized by its Board of Directors to be involved in developing water resources and spe cifically recycl ing waste water for beneficial uses, EWA is not in the business of the retail distribution of recycled water . That would be outside of EWA’s jurisdiction as a joint powers authority (JPA) and would require an expansion of its historic role a nd core competencies. Also, under California anti-paralleling laws , EWA would have significant difficulty in distributing recycled water to potential customers without the permission and cooperation of local water purveyors.

EWA’s experience in water trea tment and water quality may well make it suitable to take on the responsibility for the Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) required for potable reuse . The presence and availability of a deep ocean outfall is conducive to siting the AWT facility near the EWPCF. In addition, a portion of the 28 acres available at EWA’s South Parcel could be used as the site of the AWT facility, which would be consistent with the requirement of utilization for EWA -mission related purposes. This is a decision EWA should thoughtfully consider and it would still be consistent with a wholesaler role.

Given the constraints discussed above and its fiduciary responsibilities to wastewater ratepayers , the most appropriate role for EWA in maximizing beneficial reuse in North San Diego County and possibly throughout t he region is as a wholesaler of recycled water . T his role would be similar to certain characteristics of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) role as a wholesaler of imported water and desalinated seawater to retail water purveyors.

2.2 Financial Considerations
To facilitate engagement with external stakeholders on the concept of EWA as a recycled water wholesaler, this section identifies certain aspects and financial bottom lines of that role. While EWA’s relationship with its (potential future) wholesale recycled water customers will function as a partnership, it is also a business arrangement and key business issues are best defined as early in the process as possible. It is important to articulate these business features to potential retail water purveyors or other wholesale customers as wider participation in a potential reuse program is discussed.

While at this early stage of feasibility analysis it may not be possible to identify all the aspects of a wholesale structure, it may be possible to develop a framework around the known bottom line positions, as well as acknowledging those deal points that EWA is open to discussing with the stakeholders concerning its role in the potential project. Aspects of a water reuse project to consider will include costs for planning, design, Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 266 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 4
and construction of new facilities and improvements to existing facilities; ownership and operation of new facilities; permitting and compliance responsibilities; and financing and application for low interest loans, grants, and incentives.

EWA must consider its requirement to collect revenues for all its activities and note that the allocation of costs between wastewater ratepayers and water ratepayers will be a critical aspect of any cost responsibility and cost recovery structure. Currently, the clearest demarcation is defined by EWA’s existing NPDES permit requirements. In the even t those permit requirements change , or changes are made to State law limiting ocean outfall discharge volumes, additional cost allocation methods should be considered.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 267 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 5
3 Stakeholder Identification
Through an initial stakeholder identification effort, Figure 3-1 below was developed to provide a comprehensive view of stakeholders that may be involved in the planning and implementation of potential EWA water reuse projects.

Figure 3-1: Stakeholder Diagram for EWA Water Reuse

Because EWA is at an early stage of feasibility planning and has not yet determ ined whether it is either cost-effective or within its organizational mission to implement a project, a focused stakeholder involvement plan is appropriate to engage only those stakeholders considered essential to the development of the Feasibility Study. Additionally, EWA’s likely role as wholesale supplier of recycled water would suggest that it initially conduct a focused outreach to its potential wholesale customers and not the general public. It is the retail water purveyors that have the direct relati onship with the public and input from the public will be vitally important at a future phase if a program or project advances b eyond feasibility planning.

Another factor in using a targeted outreach is to avoid setting expectations among external stakehol ders prior to EWA’s Board of Directors (Board) determining how best to use the information arising from the Feasibility Study and deciding what, if any, future action should be taken to develop a water reuse project.

As a wholesaler whose potential custome rs include several EWA Member Agencies, the decision on whether a project is technically and economically viable ultimately rests with both the Board and the water purveyor agencies.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 268 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 6

3.1 Core Stakeholders for this Study
The proposed stakeholder outreach effort recognizes that neither EWA, its individual Member Agencies, nor the retail water purveyors have made any decision to move forward on what are the yet unknown results of the Study. These stakeholders are id entified on the inner circle of Figure 3-1 and include both EWA Member Agencies and other entities that might be part of the projects identified in the Study’s Portfolio of Options.

With the exception of the City of San Diego , the San Diego County Water Authority, San Dieguito Wa ter District, and Poseidon Resources , these agencies are all members of the North San Diego Water Reuse Coalition (NSDWRC) and have conducted extensive planning on how to maximize the beneficial use of available recycled water supplies. This core group of stakeholders is very educated on the topic of non- potable and potable water reuse, and their expertise will allow informed discussions and decisions by all the parties to proceed expeditiously. Their participation is also critical because many of the NSDWR C partners have invested in their own recycled water treatment and conveyance facilities, and it will be important to ensure that those assets are not stranded in the future. Definition of the EWA wholesale market will need to make sure that existing demands and users are not double-counted.

3.2 Regulatory Agencies
Although beyond the scope of the current Feasibility Study , discussions with regulatory agencies will be an important part of any future stakeholder outreach. Informal discussions with regulatory agencies during the Feasibility Study may be beneficial to better evaluate the feasibility of the Options being considered as they are an important participant and source of critical information. Water reuse opportunities are constrained by the existing or a nticipated regulatory environment , and the water purveyor (s) will be identified through determining the best means of complying with the regulatory scheme in a cost-effective manner.

In the event that additional studies and project development activities occur following the completion of the Feasibility Study, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control (Regional Board) and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) should be considered major stakeholders to be engaged in those future technical discussions.

3.3 EWA Board of Directors
The EWA Board of Directors (Board) is also a primary stakeholder in this process as they are the final evaluators of the Study and whether EWA will move beyond the feasibility planning stage. Providing updates and opportunities for discussion of strategic and business issues during development of the Feasibility Study will help keep the Board engaged in the process. The Board’s input will be critical to the results of the Study and key features of EWA’ s relationship with the water purveyors.

Board involvement should be concurrent with the core stakeholder outreach activities and is expected to be accomplished through two Board workshops . It is recommended that a Board workshop be scheduled following each stakeholder workshop. In this way, the Study Team will be able to provide the Board with the input received from the stakeholder discussions regarding the progress of the Feasibility Study and related policy issues , along with the technical advanceme nts of the Study . This approach will provide opportunities for the Board to give input into Study development and will familiarize the Board with the key policy issues prior to hearing the final results and EWA staff recommendations.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 269 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 7
4 Stakeholder Outreach

4.1 Initial Outreach to Member Agencies
The initial outreach activity was directed at EWA Member Agencies through a letter from EWA’s General Manager to each individual Member Agency informing them of the commencement of th is Feasibility Study and requesting confirmation of current data relating to existing recycled water commitments, treatment capacity, peak demand estimates, and future plans for indirect potable or direct potable reuse (see Table 4-1). This information is critical to the development of the Portfolio of Options.

Table 4-1: Summary of Initial Outreach Letters Sent and Responses Received Agency Date of Letter
from EWA
Date of Agency
Response
City of Carlsbad 10/28/2016 11/22/2016
City of Encinitas 10/28/2016 N/A
Leucadia Wastewater District 10/28/2016 10/31/2016
Vallecitos Water District 10/28/2016 N/A
City of Vista / Buena
Sanitation District 10/28/2016 10/28/2016
Vista Irrigation District 10/31/2016 11/3/2016

In addition to the letters, a presentation was made to the Member Agency Managers on November 1, 2016 to brief them on the Feasibility Study and discuss the initial Portfolio of Options , as well as the planned stakeholder activities.

4.2 Stakeholder Workshops
It is recommended that subsequent outreach to stakeholders will consist of the following:
• Two workshops, where collectively the local water purveyors will work with EWA staff and the Study Team to review the progress of the Feasibility Study and provide feedback on the initial recommendations.
• One-on-one technically-oriented meetings, as needed, where specific project alternatives will be refined in partnership with the potential water purveyor.

Because the NSDWRC is an established structure, it will provide a useful vehicle for advancing the goals of the Feasibility Study and integrating the local water retailers into the process. The NSD WRC meets regularly and their meetings present an ideal venue to hold workshops and achieve a high level of stakeholder participation.

Study Team members presented an overview of the Feasibility Study and the outreach approach to the NSDWRC at their November 7, 2016 meeting. It was agreed that the December monthly meeting would be used to conduct Workshop 1. Along with the NSDWRC, representatives of the City of San Diego and the SDCWA were also invited to attend the same meeting. At the current stage of analysis, the alternatives involving Poseidon are not considered to be favorable compared to other alternatives; therefore, Poseidon is not being considered for targeted outreach at this time.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 270 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 8

4.2.1 Workshop 1: Portfolio of Options
The goals of Workshop 1 will include achieving stakeholders’ familiarity with the Study Team, understanding EWA’s desire to complete the Feasi bility Study with input from the local water purveyors, provide an overview of technical approach to the Feasibility Study , and to present the technical details around the Portfolio of Options and the process used for selecting a “shortlist” for further consideration .

Another goal of Workshop 1 is to begin the conversation of what a water reuse partnership between EWA and the water purveyors could look like. This will be the initial identification of a business structure.

The agenda for Workshop 1 will include the following:
• Introduction of Feasibility Study and Historical/Regional Context o Emphasize EWA’s desire to obtain feedback from the local water purveyors to develop the best alternatives possible and to identify what if any next steps should be taken. • Overview of the Study’s Technical Approach and Schedule o Build on work done by NSDWRC
o Process for identifying and screening reuse opportunities o Regulatory context and assumptions for potential project timing and phasing • Discussion of EWA’s Role in Maximizing Reuse
o Indicating EWA’s initial positions relative to how the business relationship can be structured.
o Discussion of c ost responsibility a ssumptions, ownership of facilities and permit responsibilities. EWA Member Agencies will be in attendance at the Workshop and wil l be representing their agency’s wastewater and water supply interests, as applicable. • Discussion of the Study’s Portfolio of Options and Ranking o Describe the range of alternatives and potential timing of implementation. o Seek a consensus through group discussion on the initial screening criteria and the highest ranked alternatives.
• Action Items, Next Steps, and Overview of Workshop 2

4.2.2 Workshop 2: Best Option and Phasing
The purpose of Workshop 2 will be to present the Preferred Option of water reuse projects to potentially develop further for future consideration. Workshop 2 will begin with a review of what was accomplished in Workshop 1, including any updates to the Portfolio of Options, screening criteria, and ranking.

The Study Team will present its evalu ation of the options and how it arrived at the Preferred Option and suggested phasing. As part of Workshop 2, the Study Team will review cost estimates, cost estimating methodology, and provide a financial analysis of the option’s annual capital and operat ing costs. The financial analysis will also include identification of potential funding options that can reduce the cost to EWA and water purveyor ratepayers. It is important to note that the financial analysis will not include cost allocation approaches between wastewater and water agencies.

The agenda for Workshop 2 will include the following:
• Portfolio of Options Screening Criteria Review
• Refinements to Preferred Option(s)
• Financial Analysis
o Overall Cost per acre-foot
• Stakeholder Input Requests
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 271 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 9
o Review of draft Feasibility Study results
o Encourage attendance at the EWA Board meeting where the Study will be presented to demonstrate their engagement and support

4.3 Timeline of Stakeholder Activities
Following completion of Workshop 2 and finalization of the Study’s technical memoranda, the Study Team will prepare a final draft Feasibility Study for EWA review.

The final Feasibility Study and any recommendations should have the engagement and support of the retail water agencies. Ideally, presentation to the Board of the final Feasibility Study should include comment letters supporting the Feasibility Study and recommended next steps by one or more of the water agencies’ General Managers. Figure 4-1 below depicts the sequence of stakeholder activities.

Figure 4-1: Timeline of Stakeholder Activities

Expressions of Support
Ahead of the EWA Board Meeting at which the Draft Feasibility Study was presented, a letter of support was received from the General Manager of Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD (see Appendix A). At the meeting itself, the General Manager of San Elijo Joint Powers Authority (SEJPA) made a public comment in support of the Feasibility Study, th anking EWA ’s Board of Directors and staff for t heir leadership on this Study. Both OMWD and SEJPA are members of the NSDWRC.

EWA
Board
Mtg.
•Present Draft
Feasibility
Study
Stakeholder
Workshop
2 •Invite: key
stakeholders
•Present Best
Option and
Phasing
•Present
Financial
Analysis
EWA
Board
Mtg.
•Briefing on
Study and
Progress
Stakeholder
Workshop
1 •Invite: MAs,
SDCWA,
NSDWRC, City
of SD
•Present Study
Background
and Shortlist of
Options
Initial
Outreach
•Letters to
EWA's
Member
Agencies (MAs)
periodic briefings to MAM throughout
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 272 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
July 2018 10
5 Next Steps
In the event that the Board authorizes EWA staff to continue planning and permitting activities beyond the Feasibility Study, future stakeholder outreach should be focus on developing a formal partnership with the water purveyor (s). Defining EWA’s role in the post -Feasibility Study timeframe will be key to any implementation plan of wider reuse of EWA’s valuable water resources. It will invite continued discussions with its potential partners, the retail water agencies, and could involve significant policy and financial deliberations by its Board and Member Agencies.

5.1 Memorandum of Understanding
An early step in the future stakeholder process could be develo pment of a Planning Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EWA and the participating water purveyor (s). The Planning MOU would focus on roles, responsibilities and potential cost sharing between EWA and the partner agencies for additional planning work. It could also identify joint stakeholder outreach activities for a potential project, which will include additional entities shown in
that were not formally engaged in the Study phase.

The Planning MOU would define the mutually agreeable next steps for project development. Some of the key aspects for EWA to consider in defining its future role in a Planning MOU could include:
• Willingness to cost-share with partnering agencies for the next round of studies to mov e projects forward with potential for EWA receiving reimbursement later. • EWA can offer to fulfil an administrative role on project implementation, especially with regard to AWT and conveyance infrastructure, permitting and zoning, water treatment operations expertise, construction management, etc.
• Future regulatory changes may have a major impact on EWA’s role (e.g., a bill by Senator Hertzberg mandating reduction in ocean discharges of treated wastewater). This may require a more active and phased approach to EWA’s role that can be considered in future planning efforts.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 273 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Appendix A – Letter of Support

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 274 of 279

EWA Water Reuse Feasibility Study
TM6: Stakeholder Involvement Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 275 of 279
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 276 of 279

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 277 of 279

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 278 of 279
24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 180
Laguna Hills, California 92653
949.420.5300
woodardcurran.com   
Sept. 27, 2022
Item #10 Page 279 of 279
One Water
North San
Diego
Scott McClelland, P .E., BCEE
General Manager
Our Ask: Join Us In
One Water North San Diego
What is One Water North San Diego?
Non-Potable
Reuse
(NPR)
Level of
Complexity
Existing
[Carlsbad/
SEJPA/
Olivenhain]
Groundwater
Augmentation
(IPR)
Surface Water
Augmentation
(IPR)
Raw Water
Augmentation
(DPR)
Treated
Drinking Water
Augmentation
(DPR)
Level of
Complexity
+++
[City of SD]
Level of
Complexity
++++
Level of
Complexity
+++++
Level of
Complexity
++
[Oceanside]
Existing Regulations Regulations Expected by end of 2023 Ask: Become an Advocacy Agency
‣ Cooperate with EWA in refining
project concepts and costs
‣ Review and provide input on
outreach materials and deliverables
‣ Advocate and solicit additional
regional partners (wholesale and
retail)
‣ Participate in project concepts,
regulatory, and pursuit of funding
‣ Engage in discussion of potential
institutional arrangements
‣ Consider financial participation in
future phases

The Time is Now
Uncertainty
In times of drought
and water supply
uncertainty, we need
reliable, local supply
Funding
We need to capitalize
on available funding
opportunities
Sustainability
Reduced ocean
discharge is better for
the environment

Drought Impacts Region
NPR – September 1, 2022
New Local Sustainable Supply
8%
Local Surface
Water
6%
Groundwater
11%
Seawater
Desalination
9%
Recycled Water
13%
Canal Lining
Transfer
33%
IID Water
Transfer
2%
MWD
18%
Potable Reuse
With this project
18,000-25,000 AFY
of potable reuse
water could be
created by 2040
Water Authority’s 2035 Projected Supply Mix
North County Needs a
One Water North
San Diego
Demand > Supply
The Schedule
‣ Timeline
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Planning
Funding
Regulatory
Environmental
Design/Construction
Stakeholder/Public
Outreach
Next Steps: Advocacy Activities
‣ Meet with potential Advocacy
Agencies
‣ Discuss and develop Project
concepts & alternatives
‣ Refine Project concepts
‣ Complete funding and
regulatory strategies
‣ Update concept designs and
cost estimates
‣ Complete Potable Reuse
Strategic Plan

Join Us In
One Water North San Diego

Carlsbad City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Carlsbad City Council
September 27, 2022