Alternative Water Supply Plan Update — CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission, March 12, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.

525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488

February 27, 2024

To: Commissioner Tim Paulson, President
Commissioner Anthony Rivera, Vice President
Commissioner Newsha K. Ajami
Commissioner Sophie Maxwell
Commissioner Kate H. Stacy

Through: Dennis J. Herrera, General Manager

From: Steven R. Ritchie, Assistant General Manager, Water Paula Kehoe, Manager, Water Resources Division

Subject: Alternative Water Supply Plan

Enclosed please find the Alternative Water Supply Plan (AWS Plan). This report describes the planning framework for developing alternative water supplies and guides the priorities as SFPUC staff continue to advance dry year supply projects. It is intended to be a reference document that will be updated periodically.

The Draft AWS Plan was published on June 28, 2023 and there was a two- month comment period, during which staff received 14 written comment letters.

Staff also presented the Plan to various stakeholders. Appendix D of the AWS Plan includes responses to comments received. Additionally, the document reflects the most current Capital Improvement Plan proposals that were approved by the Commission on February 13, 2024.

In addition to periodical AWS Plan updates, staff will continue to provide progress reports to the Commission annually on the AWS Program, with the next report to be provided by June 30, 2024.

cc: Nicole Sandkulla, BAWSCA
Tom Francis, BAWSCA

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY PLAN
FEBRUARY 2024

CONTENTS
Acronyms & Abbreviations vi
Executive Summary x
Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Planning History 2

1.2 Water Supply Planning Challenges 5

1.3 Alternative Water Supply Program and Plan 7

1.3.1 The SFPUC’s Regional Focus for the AWS Program 8

1.3.2 Role of Wholesale Customers and BAWSCA in the AWS Program Development and Implementation 8

1.4 Organization of the AWS Plan 9
Chapter 2: Background 11

2.1 SFPUC Service Area and Customers 11

2.2 Regional Water System Overview 15

2.2.1 Operational Organization of the RWS 15

2.2.3 Bay Area Portion of the RWS 19

2.2.4 RWS Infrastructure and WSIP 21

2.3 Water Supply 21

2.3.1 Current Water Availability with WSIP Implemented 22

2.4 SFPUC Obligations and Demands 24

2.4.1 The SFPUC’s Legal and Contractual Obligations with the Wholesale Customers 24

2.4.2 Retail Service Area Obligations 27

2.4.3 Current and Historical Demands 27

2.4.4 Projected Future Demands 30
Chapter 3: Future Water Supply Gap 33

3.1 Approach for Identifying the Future Water Supply Gap 33

3.1.1 Contribution of Rationing to Address the Future Water Supply Gap 34

3.2 Drivers Affecting Water Availability 35

3.2.1 The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment 35

3.2.2 Potential Future Regulations 38

3.2.3 Climate Uncertainty 38

3.2.4 SFPUC Planning Assumptions for Projecting Dry-Year Wat er Availability 39 II

CONTENTS

3.3 Drivers Affecting Obligations and Customer Demands 39

3.3.1 Supply Assurance under the Water Supply Agreement and Retail Allocation 40

3.3.2 Additional Supply if San Jose and Santa Clara are made Permanent Customers 40

3.3.3 Projected Customer Demands 41

3.3.4 Customer Reliance on RWS Supplies 41

3.4 Future Water Supply Gap (2045) 42
Chapter 4: AWS Program Role in Addressing
the Future Water Supply Gap 45

4.1 Demand Reduction through Water Conservation A ctivities 46

4.2 Reducing Demands on the RWS through Local Water Projects 47

4.3 Other Projects to Increase the Availability of
Existing Surface Water Supplies 51

4.4 AWS Planning Approach 52

4.4.1 Challenges Unique to Alternative Water Supply Planning 53

4.4.2 AWS Program Goal 57

4.4.3 AWS Planning Principles 57

4.4.4 Purpose of the AWS Plan 60

4.4.5 Strategies for Supporting Informed Decision-Making 60 Chapter 5: AWS Projects 63

5.1 Characterization of AWS Projects 63

5.1.1 Type of Project and Water Supply 63

5.1.2 Supply Availability 66

5.2 Overview of AWS Projects 66

5.2.1 RWS Supply Assumed and Project Capacity 72

5.2.2 AWS Staffing Considerations 72

5.2.3 AWS Cost Considerations 73

5.3 Project Description Tables 76
Chapter 6: AWS Recommendations 111

6.1 Avoid Widening the Water Supply Gap 112

6.1.1 Water Supply Benefits of Existing WSIP Projects 112

6.1.2 Other Actions Affecting Water Availability fr om the RWS 114

6.1.3 Baseline Demands on the RWS 116
III

CONTENTS
TABLES
Table 2-1: Overview of SFPUC Customers 12
Table 2-2: Dry-Year Water Availability 23
Table 2-3: SFPUC Customer Projected Demands on the RWS in 2045 30 Table 3-1: Projected 2045 Water Availability during Dry Years, with and without the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment 36
Table 4-1: AWS Planning Principles 58
Table 5-1: AWS Project Summary Table 68
Table 6-1: Comparison of Wholesale Customer Purchases
from the RWS (FY 2008-09 to present) 118
Table 6-2: Summary of Recommendations 129

6.2 Fill the Water Supply Gap 119

6.2.1 AWS Projects 119

6.2.2 AWS Program 124

6.3 Reduce the Water Supply Gap 127

6.3.1 New Local Supplies 127

6.4 Summary of Recommendations 129
Glossary 132
Appendix A: Customer Profiles A-1
Appendix B: Water Availability Modeling A-29
Appendix C: AWS Program Cost Development Approach A-35 Appendix D: Response to Comments A-45
Iv

CONTENTS

FIGURES
Figure 1-1: SFPUC’s History of Water Supply Planning 2
Figure 1-2: Elements of SFPUC Future Water Supply Planning 6 Figure 2-1: SFPUC Wholesale Service Area and Customers 13 Figure 2-2: SFPUC Retail Customer Locations 14
Figure 2-3: The RWS and Main Facilities 16
Figure 2-4: Components Used to Estimate Dry-Year W ater Availability 23 Figure 2-5: v isual Representation of Wholesale Customers 26 Figure 2-6: Historical Retail and Wholesale Demands on the RWS (2000-2022) 28
Figure 2-7: Projected Retail and Wholesale Demands on the RWS (2025-2045) 31
Figure 3-1: Approach Used to Calculate the Water Supply Gap 33 Figure 3-2: Drivers which Affect the Future Water Supply Gap 34 Figure 3-3: Estimated Contributions of New Water Supplies and Rationing Needed to Fill the Future Water Supply Gap 35 Figure 3-4: Water Supply Gap for Meeting Obligations and 2045 Demands in Dry-Year Conditions 42
Figure 4-1: Long-Term Water Supply Planning Coordina ted Approach of Local and Regional Actions 45
Figure 4-2: Wholesale Customer 2045 Demand Projections by Source 50 Figure 5-1: Map of AWS Project Locations 67
v

CONTENTS
$ mil Dollars in millions
$/AF Dollars per acre-foot
1984 Agreement 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering ACWD Alameda County Water District
ACRP Alameda Creek Recapture Project
AFY Acre-foot per year
AWS Alternative Water Supply
AWTF Advanced Water Treatment Facility
AWS Plan or Plan Alternative Water Supply Plan
AWS Projects Alternative Water Supply Projects
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
Bay-Delta Plan
Amendment
2018 Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
BDPLs Bay Division Pipelines
Cal Water California Water Service Company
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CDD City Distribution Division
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
Coastside CWD Coastside County Water District
DPR Direct potable reuse
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
ACRONYMS & ABBREvIATIONS
vI

ACRONYMS
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FY Fiscal year
gpcd Gallons per capita per day
gpm Gallons per minute
HHWP Hetch Hetchy Water and Power
IPR Indirect potable reuse
ISG Individual Supply Guarantee
ISL Interim Supply Limitation
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LOS Level of Service
LTVA Long-term Vulnerability Assessment
LVE Los Vaqueros Expansion Project
mgd million gallons per day
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGO Non-governmental organizations
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PEIR Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
RGSR Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery
RWS Regional Water System
San Francisco City and County of San Francisco
SBA South Bay Aqueduct
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
State State of California
continued on next page
vII

ACRONYMS
SVCW Silicon Valley Clean Water
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
The Peninsula San Francisco Peninsula
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USD Union Sanitary District
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Westside Project Westside Enhanced Water Recycling Project WQD Water Quality Division
WSA Water Supply Agreement
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
WSTD Water Supply and Treatment Division
WTP Water treatment plant
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
ACRONYMS & ABBREvIATIONS
Blue text within this document indicates key terms that are defined in the glossary.

They are not highlighted every time they appear, or necessarily even the first time they appear, rather only when it serves to emphasize a main theme of the section. vIII

ACRONYMS
SVCW Silicon Valley Clean Water
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
The Peninsula San Francisco Peninsula
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USD Union Sanitary District
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Westside Project Westside Enhanced Water Recycling Project WQD Water Quality Division
WSA Water Supply Agreement
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
WSTD Water Supply and Treatment Division
WTP Water treatment plant
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
Information and assumptions contained in this document are based on the latest available data as of May 2023. Changes related to capital budget planning were updated as of December 2023.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is the third largest municipal utility in California, providing drinking water for more than 2.7 million residents and businesses within San Francisco and three other Bay Area counties by way of the San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS). The RWS draws approximately 85% of its water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the Sierra Nevada’s Tuolumne River watershed and the remaining 15% of its water supply from local surface waters in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds.

RWS supplies serve both retail and wholesale customers. These include retail customers located within the City of San Francisco (in-City retail customers), retail customers located outside San Francisco (suburban retail customers), and 27 wholesale customers located in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties.

Of the wholesale customers, 26 are represented by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA).

Crystal Springs Reservoir, 2019
While the SFPUC serves as both a wholesale and retail water supplier, the SFPUC is undertaking the development of the Alternative Water Supply Program (AWS Program) with a regional focus as the operator and steward of the RWS responsible for delivering reliable supplies to customers throughout its service area. x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The SFPUC is undertaking the Alternative
Water Supply Program for two main reasons.

First, the SFPUC faces potential future
reductions to its existing water supply that
could require the development of new
supplemental sources to improve long-term
water supply reliability. Climate change
and future regulatory uncertainties could
exacerbate the need for new diversified and
distributed supply sources.

Second, the SFPUC Commission faces a
policy decision by December 31, 2028 of
whether or not to make the cities of San Jose
and Santa Clara permanent customers of the
SFPUC; these two cities have held temporary,
interruptible status with the SFPUC since the
1970s. By identifying a supply source(s) to
address San Jose and Santa Clara’s demands,
the AWS Program can help provide relevant
information to the SFPUC Commission to
make this decision.

Addressing the Water Supply Gap
The SFPUC’s water supply planning reflected in the AWS Program is based on anticipated supplies compared to obligations and projected demands in 2045. By comparing factors both on the supply side, which affect future water availability, and on the demand side, which consider obligations and future demands, the SFPUC can identify and address a potential water supply shortfall or water supply gap. The AWS Program identifies a future water supply gap in dry years, both to meet existing and potential obligations to its customers, and to meet future customer demands.

Future Water
Supply Gap
Water
Availability
Obligations
2045
Customer Demands
This AWS Plan is intended to
guide decision-making and
provide recommendations on
project implementation and
areas for future analysis.

The AWS Plan includes:
• Identification of the
anticipated water supply
gap through the 2045
planning horizon
• Description of ongoing
efforts to reduce demands
and optimize RWS supply
availability
• Description of AWS
Projects that can augment
RWS supply and address
the future water supply gap
• Recommendations that
will further advance
the AWS Program
xI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
One of the most pronounced drivers affecting water availability is the potential implementation of the 2018 Amendment to the State Water Resources Control Board’s San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control Plan (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment). Unlike other factors that could affect SFPUC’s water supply, such as climate change, the effect of implementing the Water Quality Control Plan update would be immediate. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, if implemented as adopted in 2018, would result in new instream flow requirements that would reduce projected water availability from the RWS in dry years, as expressed as total system yield, from 257 mgd to 152 mgd. This reduction in water availability would result in a significant water supply gap in dry years. However, the requirements of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment are still under review as part of a Proposed Voluntary Agreement and may change as a result of ongoing negotiations between the SFPUC and the State. The results of these negotiations will impact water availability, which will in turn impact future water supply gap estimates.

For this AWS Plan, the future water supply gap is characterized as a range of 92 mgd to meet 2045 customer demands to 122 mgd to meet obligations. Based on the SFPUC’s rationing policy, rationing could contribute to filling approximately 12% of the water supply gap. The remaining gap would need to be addressed through the development of new regional alternative water supply projects (AWS Projects).

Water Availability through the RWS a
152 mgd
(assumes implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) Total Existing and
Potential Obligations
265 mgd
(existing Retail and Wholesale)
+ 9 mgd
(San Jose and Santa Clara)
Total 2045 Demands
on the RWS
244 mgd
(including Retail, Wholesale,
San Jose and Santa Clara)
Water Supply Gap b
-122 mgd c
(to meet obligations)
Water Supply Gap b
-92 mgd d
(to meet 2045 demands)
a Represents the total system yield. The total system yield is the sum of the firm yield of the RWS plus rationing (134 mgd firm yield and 18 mgd of demands addressed by implementing the rationing policy [see Chapter 2 for additional detail]). b The water supply gap estimates: 1) the total difference between water availability and obligations and 2) the difference between water availability and customer demands on the RWS in 2045.
c As rationing is a function of water supply availability, to close the gap with new supplies and rationing, new supplies of 107 mgd would be required. Up to 15 mgd of the water supply gap can then be met by rationing.
d As rationing is a function of water supply availability, to close the gap with new supplies and rationing, new supplies of 81 mgd would be required. Up to 11 mgd of the water supply gap can then be met by rationing.
xII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project and Programmatic Recommendations
To avoid overbuilding new water supply projects, the approach reflected in the AWS Program is to Plan for Obligations and Build for Demands. This approach recognizes the importance of developing water supplies to meet obligations while prioritizing investments that focus on the most imminent need of meeting customer demands.

Furthermore, the AWS Program outlines a
dynamic planning process that is adaptive to
changing conditions and challenges. As water
availability and demand projections continue
to be updated, the approach requires that
the projected gap and AWS Plan be revisited
periodically as changes occur, thereby enabling
the AWS Plan to move forward in a stepwise
manner. This allows recommendations to be
phased in order to balance forward action
and progress of project development, while
minimizing the risk of overcommitting financial
resources.

As summarized in the table below, this AWS Plan describes the six AWS Projects that are currently being planned and evaluated to address the water supply gap : one recycled water project that offsets groundwater pumping, three regional purified water projects, and two storage expansion projects with associated conveyance alternatives and supply, as needed. Based on current planning estimates, these projects can augment supplies of 22 mgd to 48 mgd in future dry years. Each of the projects are at different stages of planning and design, and their need for funding and commitment for implementation will be staggered. The dry-year supply benefit they can provide for the SFPUC may also continue to change. Measured project-specific recommendations can help advance the AWS Projects so they can continue being planned while limiting financial and operational risks of overbuilding or overcommitting financial resources.

The goal of the AWS Program
is to identify water supply
projects that increase the
dry-year reliability of RWS
supplies and address the
long-term water supply gap
in alignment with the Level of
Service Goals and Objectives.

San Antonio Reservoir, 2008
xIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Project Type Project Status Earliest
Online Date

1. Daly City Recycled Water
Expansion
Recycled Water/
Groundwater Design 2030

2. PureWater Peninsula Purified Water
(Potable Reuse) Planning 2039

3. ACWD-USD Purified Water Purified Water
(Potable Reuse) Planning 2039

4. South Bay Purified Water Purified Water
(Potable Reuse) Planning 2038
5A. Los Vaqueros Expansion
(LVE) Storage Planning 2030
5B. Conveyance Alternatives
for LVE Conveyance Planning 2030
5C. Supply Alternatives for LVE Transfers and/or
Alternative Supply Planning
2030
(for transfers)
to
2040
(for alternative supplies)

6. Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Storage
(with conveyance) Planning 2035
to 2039*
* Online date and supply depend on which of the Calaveras Dam raise options is selected, the range shown represents the smallest and largest dam raise options
Regional Supply Assumed AWS Plan Recommendations

0.7 mgd
• Continue developing agreement terms with partners and potential customers • In anticipation of near-term approval of agreements, funding of $114.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete final design and construction of the project
6 mgd
•
Continue planning through environmental review and 10% design • Funding of $5.3 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete planning, environmental review, and 10% design

5.4 mgd
•
Continue planning through environmental review and 10% design • Funding of $8 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete planning, environmental review, and 10% design

3.5 mgd
• Continue planning through environmental review and 10% design • Funding of $6.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete planning, environmental review, and 10% design

3.9 mgd
• Develop water supply strategy for LVE Supply Options and agreement terms for conveyance
•
Based on supply strategy, AWS staff will recommend whether to approve participation in the LVE the project in 2024
•
Funding of $42.5 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete the design and construction of the storage component
•
Funding of $4.3 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete the design and construction of the conveyance component
•
Funding of $6.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to continue planning the supply component
--
--

2.7 – 28.6 mgd*
• Continue planning through the Alternatives Analysis
• No additional funding is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP XIV XV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alternative Water Supply Projects
Quarry
Lakes San Antonio
Reservoir
Calaveras
Reservoir
Lake
Del Valle
San Francisco
Bay
San Andreas
Reservoir
San Pablo
Reservoir
Crystal
Springs
Reservoir
Pilarcitos
Reservoir
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
Bethany
Reservoir
Briones
Reservoir
Colma
Cemeteries
Palo Alto
San Jose
Hayward
San Leandro
Oakland
Richmond
Martinez
Antioch
Livermore
Pleasanton
Sunol
San Francisco
Half
Moon Bay
San Mateo
Walnut
Creek
Pleasant Hill
Danville
San Ramon
Pi/t_tsburg
Altamont
Brentwood
Tracy
Orinda
Clayton
1 2
3 4
Daly City Recycled
Water Expansion
Project
PureWater Peninsula
Project

ACWD-USD
Puriﬁ ed Water
Project
Los Vaqueros
Expansion Project
Calaveras Reservoir
Expansion Project
South Bay
Puriﬁ ed Water
Project
1 Daly City Recycled Water Expansion Project
2 PureWater Peninsula Project
3 ACWD-USD Puriﬁ ed Water Project
4 South Bay Puriﬁ ed Water Project
5A Los Vaqueros Expansion Project
5B Conveyance Alternatives for Los Vaqueros
Expansion Project
5C Supply Alternatives for Los Vaqueros
Expansion Project
6 Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project
LEGEND All locations and sizes shown are approximate and represent the general vicinity for potential facilities.

Shaded circles serve to indicate project facilities associated with each project; they do not indicate project size or volume of water produced.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AWS Planning Challenges and Areas of Future Focus
Many of the planning challenges with developing new and alternative water supplies are different from those faced for traditional water supply planning at the SFPUC.

From introducing new supply sources to treating purified recycled water under a new regulatory regime for drinking water—and addressing the institutional considerations associated with the partnerships central to many of the projects—the AWS Projects will require new approaches for implementation and operation. With projects largely still in the early stages of planning, costs will also be further developed and affordability for SFPUC customers will be a key issue to address. As such, the AWS Plan also includes programmatic recommendations in the following key areas: operations planning, purified water planning, and financing and affordability. Programmatic recommendations are specific to the current phase of program development, and additional programmatic recommendations will likely be identified in the future as planning progresses.

The recommendations included in this AWS Plan are intended to address the water supply gap that the SFPUC faces. Several have financial implications for the SFPUC and cannot be evaluated without the full context of all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities of the SFPUC. Between May and December 2023, the capital planning process for the SFPUC’s FY 2025-2034 CIP was underway and project planning continued to advance. As a result, some recommendations in Chapter 6 shifted from those that were presented in the June 2023 Draft AWS Plan.

Furthermore, public comments also resulted in some clarifications and additions to Chapter 6. Recommendations included in the final AWS Plan reflect the most current recommendations as of December 2023. Still, until a final budget is adopted by the SFPUC in February 2024, any funding associated with the recommendations is subject to change.

Turner Dam Condition Assessment, 2022
xvII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lake Eleanor, 2011
Chapter 1: Introduction
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC), a department of the City and County
of San Francisco (San Francisco), is the third
largest municipal utility in California, providing
drinking water for more than 2.7 million
residents and businesses within San Francisco
and three other Bay Area counties by way of
the San Francisco Regional Water System
(RWS). The RWS draws approximately 85% of
its water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the
Sierra Nevada’s Tuolumne River watershed ,
which it delivers 167 miles by gravity through
an aqueduct system to Bay Area reservoirs to
serve SFPUC customers. The RWS draws the
remaining 15% of its water supply from local
surface waters in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds. In addition to enabling the SFPUC to manage deliveries during normal water years, the RWS’s network of reservoirs allows the SFPUC to store water during wet years for use during dry periods. This storage-based approach is integral to the operation and reliability of the RWS.

RWS supplies serve both SFPUC retail and wholesale customers throughout the Bay Area. The SFPUC provides water to 27 wholesale customers in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. Together, these customers comprise approximately two-thirds of RWS demand. Retail customers, who are located primarily in San Francisco, but also include a small number of customers outside of San Francisco, make up the remaining one-third of demand on the RWS.

The SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Program (AWS Program) is the focus of this Alternative Water Supply Plan (AWS Plan or Plan) and supports the SFPUC’s mission. Specifically, the AWS Program enhances the SFPUC’s ability to reliably meet customers’ future water supply demands in a manner that is consistent with its legal and contractual obligations and Level of Service (LOS) Goals and Objectives, as well as environmental and regulatory requirements.

This chapter introduces the AWS Program and Plan in the larger context of the SFPUC’s water supply planning history.

SFPUC MISSION
The SFPUC’s mission is
to provide our customers
with high quality, efficient
and reliable water, power,
and sewer services in a
manner that is inclusive
of environmental and
community interests, and
that sustains the resources
entrusted to our care.

INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 Planning History
San Francisco’s water system developed over time from local streams and groundwater wells within its borders during its earliest days to today’s complex system of dams, reservoirs, tunnels, and pipelines. This system brings water from the Sierra Nevada by gravity across California together with supplies from Bay Area watersheds and groundwater sources. Many extraordinary events and milestones have shaped the RWS, and thanks to its original planners’ exceptional foresight, the SFPUC is able to provide today’s Bay Area with high quality drinking water supplies and fulfill its role as a regional water purveyor as the RWS’s designers intended. The SFPUC has a long history of water supply planning and providing water for the Bay Area through the RWS (Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1: SFPUC’s History of Water Supply Planning
1976-1977
Drought
San Francisco
Earthquake
and Fire
1906
1934
RWS Supplies
from
Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir
ﬁrst reach
San Francisco
Peninsula
1923
Completion of
O’Shaughnessy
Dam & creation
of Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir
2019
WSIP
98% completed
1967
Construction
initiated on
Don Pedro
Reservoir
enlargement
Voters approve
bond to rebuild
treatment plants
and pipelines
1984
SFPUC develops
long-term Capital
Improvement Program
(later known as WSIP)
2002
1987-1992
Drought
Loma Prieta
Earthquake
1989
AWS
Program
initiated
2019
San Francisco
purchases the
Spring Valley
Water Company
1930
Voters approve
water system
expansion
1961
Droughts used for SFPUC
planning purposes
San Francisco
purchases the
Spring Valley
Water Company
1930
Raker Act
passed
1913
San Francisco’s need for reliable public water
supplies became very apparent after the
devastation of the San Francisco Earthquake
and Fire of 1906. The creation of the SFPUC
by 1932 City Charter followed San Francisco’s
purchase of the Spring Valley Water Company
for $39.96 million in 1930. The Spring Valley
Water Company’s system included over
40,000 acres of watershed lands on the
San Francisco Peninsula and in the Alameda
Creek watershed, as well as Pilarcitos, San
Andreas, Lower Crystal Springs, and Calaveras
dams and reservoirs. Congressional approval
of the Raker Act in 1913 (38 Stat. 242) allowed
San Francisco to construct Hetch Hetchy
Pulgas Water Temple, 1934
2 INTRODUCTION
Reservoir and related infrastructure on National Park and Forest lands between 1914 and the early 1930s. Construction of the RWS facilities during this period required hydraulic engineering across more than 160 miles of mountain wilderness, San Joaquin Valley farmlands, and the Coast Range. San Francisco developed new technologies and construction techniques, mastered impassable terrain, and overcame financial challenges to complete the monumental RWS. Supplies from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir first reached the San Francisco Peninsula (the Peninsula) in 1934, representing the culmination of an investment by the people of San Francisco of more than $100 million.

Throughout the mid-1900s, the SFPUC and its ratepayers made critical and strategic investments in the RWS so it could continue to provide reliable water service to its Bay Area customers. In 1961, voters approved general obligation bonds for the construction of San Antonio Reservoir, Bay Division Pipeline No. 4, and San Francisco’s share of the Don Pedro Reservoir and other projects to keep pace with the growing water demands of its Bay Area customers. The SFPUC’s $45 million investment in the Don Pedro Reservoir, owned and operated by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts, enabled San Francisco to
utilize 570,000 acre-feet of
additional water storage in
lieu of building numerous
smaller mountain reservoirs.

This storage, which is key to
the SFPUC’s storage-based
system, allows the SFPUC to
pre-pay the water the SFPUC
owes the Districts under the
Raker Act. The water bank
also allows the SFPUC to
divert, deliver, and/or store
Tuolumne River water during
times it would have had to
bypass those flows to meet its
obligations to the Districts.

In addition to keeping pace with the Bay Area’s growing population, the SFPUC and its ratepayers have invested in the RWS’s emergency and disaster preparedness.

Emergencies and disasters are a reality in California, and the 1970s and 1980s brought both prolonged drought and a major seismic event. In 1976 and 1977, the Bay Area experienced two extremely dry years, which compelled the SFPUC to impose mandatory rationing of water supplies. One decade later, 1987 marked the first year of a prolonged, six-year drought that lasted through 1992, stressed the RWS’s ability to deliver reliable water supplies, and again necessitated mandatory customer rationing Don Pedro Filling Ceremony, 1970
3 INTRODUCTION
of water supplies. In 1984, voters approved a $104 million bond measure to upgrade water treatment plants and pipelines. In 1992, the SFPUC expanded water treatment capacity on the Peninsula with an additional investment of $55 million.

On October 17, 1989, the Loma Prieta Earthquake
struck. Centered in Santa Cruz County about 60
miles south-southeast of San Francisco on the
San Andreas Fault, the magnitude 6.9 earthquake
gave San Francisco a major jolt and a field test
of the water system’s structural integrity and
reliability under severe seismic strain. Although
water mains in the Marina District failed, and
there were pockets of low pressure in certain
areas of San Francisco caused by power failure,
97% of customers in San Francisco had no loss of
water supply. On the Peninsula, the RWS dams
and transmission lines were unaffected.

Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the SFPUC began taking steps to further upgrade its water infrastructure, build new facilities with operational flexibility, and create interconnections with neighboring water systems to provide needed water supplies in an emergency. In 2002, Assembly Bill 1823, the Wholesale Regional Water System Security and Reliability Act, required the SFPUC to complete a capital improvement program to improve the reliability of the RWS. In response to the legislation, the SFPUC developed an ambitious long-term capital improvement program that became the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), along with strategic business and financial plans for its implementation. Through WSIP, the SFPUC has significantly upgraded its regional and local water systems to protect its ability to reliably provide water to its customers. The WSIP regional projects were over 98% complete as of 2019, when the SFPUC established the AWS Program, and is continuing to progress toward 100% completion. WSIP’s total cost is estimated to be $4.8 billion.

As demonstrated through this history, the SFPUC places a high priority on maintaining reliable delivery systems and disaster preparedness while adapting to changing needs through investments in RWS infrastructure. Looking ahead, the SFPUC is focusing its planning efforts to address both existing and emerging challenges, which will be particularly evident during dry years, including potential loss of water supply availability due to proposed environmental flow requirements and regulatory changes; changes in customer demand; the impacts of droughts, wildfires, earthquakes, and other emergencies; and additional uncertainties related to climate change. The SFPUC faces an urgent and pressing need to address these water supply planning challenges, which are discussed in greater detail in the following section and later chapters of this Plan.

Loma Prieta Earthquake
Damage, 1989
4 INTRODUCTION
In 2019, the SFPUC established
the AWS Program to evaluate
new and diverse water supply
options to improve the RWS’s
ability to reliably meet demands
through 2045. Implementing
the AWS Program is a critical
next step in the SFPUC’s water
supply planning. The SFPUC
assembled a new AWS planning
team to develop the AWS
Program, evaluate drivers that
impact future water supply
uncertainty, and make recommendations on how the SFPUC can position itself to be prepared to proactively address challenges expected to impact the RWS.

1.2 Water Supply Planning Challenges
Providing high quality and reliable water supplies for Bay Area residents and businesses is critical to the economic vitality, health and safety, and social well-being of the region.

For nearly a century, the SFPUC has served a growing Bay Area population primarily with surface water sourced from the upper portions of the Tuolumne River watershed combined with water collected in local Bay Area watersheds. Sustained stewardship of the environment from which RWS supplies are drawn is vital to the work of the SFPUC and a part of its mission. RWS supplies are increasingly vulnerable as the frequency and severity of droughts due to climate change reduces the amount of water available.

Water supply management in California is adapting to drier conditions in a changing climate. Instream flow requirements, for example, may increase in order to protect river ecosystems and other environmental resources, which would have a more significant impact on drinking water supplies during dry years when surface water supplies are naturally more limited. Storage-based water systems like the RWS can enhance dry-year reliability by leveraging carryover storage from wet and normal years for use during dry years. In the California Water Supply Strategy released by the Governor in August 2022, storage is identified as a key focus area for climate change adaptation.

The implementation of the 2018 Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (referred to as the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) could have a pronounced impact on future RWS dry-year water supply availability. The SFPUC and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts are involved in ongoing negotiations with the State on a Proposed Voluntary Agreement for the Tuolumne River that would implement the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment for an 8- to 15-year period.

Construction of Irvington Tunnel
as part of WSIP, 2011
5 INTRODUCTION
The results of these negotiations, and the
ecological response to changes in the river
flow regime over the term of the ultimate
agreement, will determine the impact of the
Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on the SFPUC’s
future water supply. Based on current RWS
supply and demand projections, if the Bay-
Delta Plan Amendment is implemented as
it was adopted in 2018, the SFPUC could
immediately experience a water supply
shortfall for meeting customer demands
in dry years. As a result, while the AWS
Plan uses a planning horizon of year 2045,
impacts to water supply could occur much
sooner, creating an urgency to find new
sources of dry-year supply to address
the projected gap between supply and
demand.

As shown in Figure 1-2, future water
supply planning will require a planning
approach that relies on a variety of
strategies that include both institutional
considerations and water supply
planning and development actions.

The uncertainties and challenges that
affect the continued availability of RWS
supplies require the SFPUC to broaden its water supply planning approach to include additional demand management and supply-side actions. Demand management actions, which aim to reduce customer demands on the RWS, include activities such as increased and expanded customer conservation and implementation of water projects at the local and individual customer level. Supply-side actions aim to address the availability of existing system supplies and augment RWS supplies with new, alternative water supplies at a regional scale.

Addressing the water supply planning challenges and filling the projected gap between future demands and system supplies will not happen quickly or easily. On the demand side, for example, water conservation efforts to achieve reduced demands on the RWS require broad participation by retail and wholesale customers and ongoing implementation to realize sustained benefits. On the supply side, development of new alternative water supply projects requires large infrastructure investments with long- term planning and implementation horizons, some extending decades. Therefore, there is an underlying urgency to plan thoughtful and diverse projects that can increase the reliability of SFPUC supplies in dry years.

Figure 1-2: Elements of SFPUC
Future Water Supply Planning
Planning Policies
& Regulations
Future
Water Supply
Planning
Regional Water
System SFPUC Mission
Water
Supply
Obligations
& Contracts
Alternative
Water Supplies
Demand
Management

THE BAY-DELTA PLAN
The Bay-Delta Plan establishes
water quality objectives for which
the State Water Resources Control
Board may assign a measure of
responsibility to upstream water
rights holders to protect the
beneficial uses of the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta Estuary tributary watersheds.
6 INTRODUCTION

1.3 Alternative Water Supply Program and Plan
The AWS Program looks beyond the RWS’s existing infrastructure, surface water supplies, and local groundwater sources to identify new and diverse Alternative Water Supply Projects (AWS Projects) such as projects involving expanded surface water storage, groundwater banking, transfers, purified water, and desalination, as well as technological innovations and other tools that can increase system-wide supply availability.

The AWS Program includes projects that help enable the SFPUC to meet more of its instream flow requirements and customer obligations, including legal and contractual obligations. The Program also includes a project that can assist the SFPUC’s decision-making on potentially bringing on new permanent customers, while preparing for future climate effects.

On June 23, 2020, by Resolution No. 20-0138, the SFPUC Commission directed SFPUC staff to “complete development of an Alternative Water Supply Plan to implement a collection of projects to achieve a water supply goal established through the AWS Planning Program […] no later than July 1, 2023.” In accordance with Resolution No. 20-0138, this AWS Plan is intended to guide the AWS Program decision-making process and provide recommendations on project implementation and areas for future analysis.

This AWS Plan includes:
• Identification of the anticipated water supply gap through the 2045 planning horizon
• Description of ongoing efforts to reduce demands and optimize RWS supply availability
• Description of AWS Projects that can augment RWS supply and addres s the future water supply gap
• Recommendations that will further advance the AWS Program The AWS Projects included in this Plan are mostly in the early planning stages. This Plan recommends actions to advance projects so they may address the water supply gap with limited financial and operational risks of overbuilding or overcommitting financial resources. This is reinforced in the AWS planning principle of “plan for obligations, build for demands,” discussed further in Chapter 4 (AWS Program Role The goal of the AWS Program is to identify water supply projects that increase the dry-year reliability of RWS supplies and address the long- term water supply gap in alignment with the LOS Goals and Objectives. 7 INTRODUCTION
in Addressing the Future Water Supply Gap), which recognizes the importance of developing water supplies to meet obligations while prioritizing investments that focus on the most imminent need of meeting customer demands.

1.3.1 The SFPUC’s Regional Focus for the AWS Program
While the SFPUC serves as both a wholesale and retail water supplier, the SFPUC is undertaking the AWS Program with a regional focus as the operator and steward of the RWS responsible for delivering reliable supplies to customers throughout its service area, including San Francisco and locations in other Bay Area counties.

Consistent with its mission statement, the SFPUC intends to continue to provide all of its customers with high quality, efficient, and reliable water, in a manner that is inclusive of environmental and community interests, and that sustains the resources entrusted to its care. This requires both securing and maintaining the reliability of the RWS. As such, the AWS Program focuses on supply options that can provide a regional benefit to customers throughout the SFPUC service area.

The SFPUC will balance utilizing available resources with exploring new and different options in its efforts to plan for long-term water supply reliability in the face of numerous challenges and uncertainties. As the AWS Program aims to help fill the projected water supply gap, it will be thoughtful and adaptive, recognizing that some of the drivers that impact the water supply gap may change in the future.

1.3.2 Role of Wholesale Customers and BAWSCA in the AWS Program Development and Implementation
As a regional supplier and owing to its contractual obligation, the SFPUC has a responsibility to keep its wholesale customers informed of the actions and progress of the AWS Program. In considering the planning, funding, and implementation of this AWS Plan and AWS Projects, the SFPUC will continue to engage with its wholesale customers, and with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which represents 26 of the SFPUC’s 27 wholesale customers (see Section 2.1). The SFPUC will also continue to solicit and consider BAWSCA’s input and recommendations in the AWS Program planning efforts.

Service Area - Peninsula, 2011
8 INTRODUCTION

1.4 Organization of the AWS Plan
The AWS Plan is organized into six chapters.
• Chapter 1: Introduction – Describes the role of the AWS Program and this Plan in the SFPUC’s water supply planning efforts
• Chapter 2: Background – Includes relevant background information that provides the context related to the SFPUC’s water supply sources, service area, customers, and agreements that frame the SFPUC’s water supply obligations, water use and demands, and factors affecting future water supplies • Chapter 3: Future Water Supply Gap – Quantifies the future water supply gap by comparing the SFPUC’s water supply obligations and projected future demands against water availability
• Chapter 4: AWS Program Role in Addressing the Future Water Supply Gap – Outlines the local and regional activities the SFPUC is undertaking throughout its service area that impact long-term water supply planning and details the elements of the AWS Program planning approach
• Chapter 5: AWS Projects – Provides details on AWS Projects that would diversify SFPUC water supplies and help address the future water supply gap • Chapter 6: AWS Recommendations – Outlines AWS Project and AWS Program level recommendations
9 INTRODUCTION
O’Shaughnessy Dam, 2022
Chapter 2: Background
Chapter 2: Background
This chapter provides relevant context for the AWS Program, including background on the SFPUC service area and customers, an overview of the RWS, water supplies, and the SFPUC’s obligations and demands. Chapter 2 is intended to provide baseline information on water supply availability. Chapter 3 builds on this baseline and describes how dry-year water supply availability could change with the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment.

2.1 SFPUC Service Area and Customers
The SFPUC is the third-largest municipal utility in California, providing drinking water that serves more than 2.7 million residents and businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The SFPUC currently delivers water to 27 wholesale customers in the Bay Area that purchase water for resale to retail customers in their individual service areas.

BAWSCA represents the collective interests of 26 of these 27 wholesale customers.

The one wholesale customer not represented by BAWSCA is the Cordilleras Mutual Water Company, a small water association serving 18 single-family homes located in Redwood City in San Mateo County. Throughout this Plan, references to the Wholesale Customers mean the 26 wholesale customers that are members of BAWSCA. For more detailed information on each of the SFPUC’s 26 Wholesale Customers, see Appendix A.

The SFPUC also provides direct retail water service to a population of nearly 900,000 customers in San Francisco (referred to as in-City retail customers) and a number of retail customers outside San Francisco (referred to as suburban retail customers). The suburban retail customers are generally located right off of RWS transmission pipelines and do not form one contiguous service area. Some of the SFPUC’s suburban retail customers include the Town of Sunol, San Francisco International Airport, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Moffett Federal Airfield, Castlewood County Service Area, and Groveland Community Services District
1, among others. This Plan refers to the in-City and suburban retail customers collectively as Retail Customers.
1 Groveland Community Services District can be characterized as either a suburban retail customer or a wholesale customer. This Plan treats Groveland Community Services District as a suburban retail customer, as RWS supplies to Groveland Community Services District are accounted for in the retail supply allocation of 81 mgd.

BACKGROUND
11 Table 2-1 provides an overview of the SFPUC’s 27 wholesale customers and the SFPUC’s Retail Customers.

Table 2-1: Overview of SFPUC Customers
Customers Location
Wholesale
26 Wholesale Customers in Alameda, Santa Clara, and
San Mateo counties (represented by BAWSCA)
1 wholesale customer in Redwood City (Cordilleras Mutual Water District)
Retail
Customers in the City of San Francisco (in-City retail) Customers in Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Joaquin counties (suburban retail)
Historically, the SFPUC has met approximately 96% of the Retail Customers’ collective demands with RWS supplies, supplemented by local groundwater for irrigation and recycled water for wash-down operations at municipal facilities. More recently, it has also provided recycled water for irrigation at two public golf courses owned and operated by San Francisco. The SFPUC has a responsibility to meet the water demands of its Retail Customers through a combination of regional and local supplies.

Consistent with other planning efforts, the AWS Program assumes that 81 million gallons per day (mgd) will be available to Retail Customers in non-drought years (Retail Allocation). In 2012, the SFPUC began to implement a number of new local water supply projects for its Retail Customers. The SFPUC is currently planning and implementing additional conservation, groundwater, and recycled water projects to help meet future Retail Customer demand.

Figure 2-1 shows the location of the SFPUC wholesale service area and its 27 wholesale customers, and Figure 2-2 shows the location of the SFPUC Retail Customers.

Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir, 2019
12 BACKGROUND
Figure 2-1: SFPUC Wholesale Service Area and Customers

HAYWARD
PALO
ALTO
Pacific
Ocean
San Francisco
Bay

CITY AND

COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO
SAN
MATEO
SFO
NOT TO
SCALE
DALY
CITY
HALF
MOON
BAY

SAN MATEO

COUNTY SAN
JOSE

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ALAMEDA
COUNTY
/one.cap/seven.cap
/one.cap
/two.cap
/two.cap/five.cap
/two.cap/five.cap
/two.cap/five.cap
/two.cap/five.cap
/two.cap/five.cap
/two.cap/five.cap
/two.cap/five.cap
/one.cap/eight.cap
/three.cap
/three.cap
/four.cap
/one.cap/nine.cap
/two.cap/zero.cap
/five.cap
/one.cap/six.cap
/six.cap
/six.cap
/seven.cap
/eight.cap
/nine.cap
/two.cap/two.cap
/one.cap/zero.cap
/one.cap/zero.cap
/one.cap/zero.cap
/two.cap/three.cap
/one.cap/two.cap
/one.cap/three.cap
/one.cap/four.cap
/two.cap/six.cap
/one.cap/five.cap
/two.cap/four.cap
/two.cap/one.cap
/one.cap/one.cap/two.cap/seven.cap/one.cap/one.cap
/one.cap/eight.cap

CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
SAN

FRANCISCO
/one.cap/one.cap
San
Andreas
Reservoir
Pilarcitos
Reservoir
Crystal
Springs
Reservoir
Calaveras
Reservoir
San Antonio
Reservoir

Source: FY 2021-22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
This figure is for illustrative purposes only. Figure may not provide accurate and complete boundaries for the agencies identified a The SFPUC provides water on an interruptible basis to fixed service areas in the northern portions of the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.
b California Water Service Company, an investor-owned utility, provides water service to three separate districts:

Bear Gulch (Atherton vicinity), San Carlos/San Mateo, and South San Francisco. c Cordilleras Mutual Water Company is not a member of BAWSCA.

MUNICIPALITIES
1 City of Brisbane
2 City of Burlingame
3 City of Daly City
4 City of East Palo Alto
5 City of Hayward
6 City of Menlo Park
7 City of Millbrae
8 City of Milpitas
9 City of Mountain View
10 City of Palo Alto
11 City of Redwood City
12 City of San Bruno
13 City of San Jose
a
14 City of Santa Clara a
15 City of Sunnyvale
16 Town of Hillsborough

WATER DISTRICTS
17 Alameda County Water District
18 Coastside County Water District
19 Estero Municipal
Improvement District
20 Guadalupe Valley Municipal
Improvement District
21 Mid-Peninsula Water District
22 North Coast County Water District
23 Purissima Hills Water District
24 Westborough Water District

OTHER WATER SUPPLIERS
25 California Water
Service Company
b
26 Stanford University
27 Cordilleras Mutual
Water Company
c
13 BACKGROUND

HAYWARD
PALO
ALTOPacific
Ocean
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
MATEO
SFO
NOT TO
SCALE

DALY CITY
HALF
MOON
BAY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY
San
Andreas
Reservoir
Pilarcitos
Reservoir
Crystal
Springs
Reservoir
SAN
JOSE

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ALAMEDA
COUNTY
Calaveras
Reservoir
San Antonio
Reservoir
3 456 7
8 9

CITY & COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO
18 19
17 10
11 12
13 15
16 19
2 14

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY
1 1

FREMONT

LIVERMORE
Don Pedro
Reservoir

TUOLUMNE
COUNTY

GROVELAND
Pine
Mountain
Lake
20 Figure 2-2: SFPUC Retail Customer Locations

IN-CITY RETAIL SERVICE AREA
1 City and County of San Francisco

SUBURBAN RETAIL SERVICE AREA
2 Residential and Non-residential Customers
in Daly City
3 Cemeteries in Colma
4 Golden Gate National Cemetery
5 San Francisco County Jail #5
6 Sharp Park Golf Course
7 San Francisco International Airport
8 SFPUC Millbrae Headquarters
9 Crystal Springs Golf Course
10 Penninsula Golf and Country Club
11 Residential Customers in Redwood City
12 Filoli Center
13 Menlo Country Club
14 NASA Ames Research Center
15 Cargill Salt
16 Residential and Non-residential Customers
in Sunol
17 GE Hitachi Nuclear
18 Castlewood Country Club
19 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(two sites)
20 Groveland Community Services District

This figure is for illustrative purposes only.

The suburban retail customers shown above represent the majority of water use in the suburban retail service area, but are not comprehensive. This Plan treats Groveland Community Services District as a suburban retail customer. 14 BACKGROUND

2.2 Regional Water System Overview
The RWS is owned by San Francisco and operated by the SFPUC. The RWS collects water from the Tuolumne River watershed and from local reservoirs in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds, delivering high-quality drinking water to residents and businesses in the Bay Area. The RWS draws an average of 85% of its water from the Tuolumne River watershed supply collected in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, which feeds an aqueduct system that delivers water 167 miles by gravity to Bay Area reservoirs to serve the SFPUC’s customers. The RWS draws the remaining 15% of its water supply from local surface waters in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds. The RWS system consists of more than 280 miles of pipelines, 60 miles of tunnels, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations, and two water treatment plants.

Figure 2-3 shows the RWS and some of its main facilities.

2.2.1 Operational Organization of the RWS
The SFPUC manages the RWS through its Water Enterprise operating divisions:
• Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP), which manages water supply and treatment for the Upcountry portion of the RWS, which is the portion of the RWS east of the Alameda East Portal
• Water Supply and Treatment Division (WSTD), which delivers water to the wholesale and suburban retail customers located primarily in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties
• Water Quality Division (WQD), which provides technical water quality, compliance, and regulatory support for both HHWP and WSTD in operation of the RWS
• Natural Resources and Lands Management Division (NRLMD), which oversees the operation and maintenance (O&M) of Bay Area watershed and right-of-way (ROW) lands and is responsible for environmental regulatory compliance for O&M of the RWS, watershed, and ROW lands in the Upcountry and Bay Area portions of the RWS as well as in San Francisco • City Distribution Division (CDD), which manages the portion of the RWS that extends beyond San Mateo County into San Francisco as well as the distinct in-City distribution system that solely serves customers located in San Francisco
15 BACKGROUND
Pilarcitos
Reservoir
San Andreas
Reservoir
Sunset
Reservoir

PACIFIC
OCEAN
SAN

FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

HALF MOON BAY

PALO ALTO

SAN JOSE

FREMONT MODESTO
Don Pedro
Reservoir

TUOLUMNE
RIVER

YOSEMITE

NATIONAL
PARK

HAYWARD
SFO
Harry Tracy
Water
Treatment
Plant
University Mound
Reservoir
Crystal Springs Dam
Stone Dam
Crystal
Springs
Reservoir
Pulgas
Water Temple
Bay Division
Pipelines
No’s 1, 2 & 5
Bay Division Pipelines No’s 3 & 4
Calaveras Dam
& Reservoir
Sunol Valley
Water Treatment
Plant
Bay
Tunnel
San Antonio
Reservoir
San Joaquin
Pipelines
Foothill
Tunnel
Moccasin
Powerhouse and
Reservoir
Priest
Reservoir
Kirkwood Powerhouse &
Early Intake Diversion Dam
O’Shaughnessy Dam
Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir
Lake Eleanor
Reservoir
Lake Lloyd
Reservoir
(Cherry Lake)
Cherry Power Tunnel
Holm
Powerhouse
Canyon
Power
Tunnel
Alameda
East Portal
Coast Range
Tunnel
Tesla Treatment
Facility
SFPUC
Wholesale
Service Area
SFPUC Retail
Service Area
Pulgas Tunnel
Crystal Springs
Bypass Tunnel
RWS Upcountry facilities managed by Hetch Hetchy Water and Power RWS Bay Area facilities managed by Water Supply and Treatment Division San Francisco facilities managed by City Distribution Division This ﬁgure is for illustrative purposes only.

Stone
Dam
Tunnel
Figure 2-3: The RWS and Main Facilities

16 BACKGROUND
17 BACKGROUND
While the SFPUC is responsible for overseeing duties as both a wholesale and retail water supplier, it is undertaking the AWS Program in its capacity as the system operator of the RWS. The AWS Program is focused on the regional water supply and the SFPUC’s role in serving that supply system-wide. Therefore, the in-City distribution system is not discussed in detail as part of the AWS Plan.

2.2.2 Upcountry Portion of the RWS
The Upcountry portion of the RWS, also known as the Hetch Hetchy System, provides on average about 85% of the water that the SFPUC delivers to its customers. This portion of the system, managed by HHWP, begins with Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which collects water from well-protected wilderness areas in Yosemite National Park in the upper portions of the Tuolumne River watershed. The National Park Service in Yosemite National Park manages Hetch Hetchy Reservoir watershed. The SFPUC also utilizes nearby RWS reservoirs, Lake Lloyd (Cherry Lake) and Lake Eleanor, most often to meet downstream Raker Act flow obligations to the Districts, while Hetch Hetchy Reservoir typically stores water delivered to the SFPUC’s customers.

To support RWS operations during dry periods, the SFPUC also maintains a water bank account in Don Pedro Reservoir, per the terms of the 1966 Fourth Agreement between San Francisco and the reservoir’s owners and operators, Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts. The Fourth Agreement governs the operations of Don Pedro Reservoir as it pertains to the water bank. The Fourth Agreement also contains provisions that may require the SFPUC to contribute to instream flows required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Supply from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir undergoes initial corrosion control at Rock River Lime Plant and is then diverted into a series of tunnels and aqueducts that carry the water from the Sierra Nevada to the San Joaquin Pipelines, which cross the San Joaquin Valley and feed into the Coast Range Tunnel, which then connects to the Bay Area portion of the RWS at the Alameda East Portal.

Don Pedro Reservoir, 2019
18 BACKGROUND

2.2.3 Bay Area Portion of the RWS
The Bay Area portion of the RWS, which is managed by the WSTD, includes water collection, treatment, and transmission facilities from the Alameda East Portal through the wholesale service area in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties up to the San Francisco city and county line. Before water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir reaches these facilities, the SFPUC treats it at the Tesla Treatment Facility, located just west of Alameda East Portal. The Tesla Treatment Facility is an ultraviolet water treatment facility built in 2011 with a capacity of 315 mgd.

The SFPUC’s two reservoirs located in Alameda County, San Antonio Reservoir and Calaveras Reservoir, collect water from the San Antonio Creek, Upper Alameda Creek, and Arroyo Hondo watersheds. San Antonio Reservoir also receives water from the Hetch Hetchy System for storage. The Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant, which filters and disinfects water from San Antonio Reservoir and Calaveras Reservoir, has a peak capacity of 160 mgd and is not operated year-round. Treatment processes include coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, fluoridation, corrosion control treatment, and chloramination.

WATER RIGHTS
San Francisco holds pre-1914 appropriative water rights to store and deliver water from the Tuolumne River and from the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds. The SFPUC operates San Antonio Reservoir under a post-1914 appropriative water right. The 1913 Raker Act granted San Francisco rights-of-way for the construction and operation of RWS facilities on federally owned land.

The Raker Act recognized the senior water rights of the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts to divert water from the Tuolumne River. The Raker Act specified that the SFPUC must release water to the Districts under certain conditions and included conditions for the protection of drinking water quality, road and trail construction for public recreational use, and other purposes.

Don Pedro Reservoir is owned and operated by the Districts. The 1966 Fourth Agreement between San Francisco and the Districts allows the SFPUC to access a 570,000 acre-foot water bank in Don Pedro Reservoir, which helps the SFPUC manage water supply during drought years. During multiple sequential dry years, the SFPUC’s water diversions may be limited to previously stored water in RWS reservoirs and the exchange water bank account in Don Pedro Reservoir. Complying with these requirements affects the quantity of water available to the RWS. 19 BACKGROUND
The RWS conveys water from Alameda County to the Peninsula via the five Bay Division Pipelines: three delivering water across the South Bay through the Bay Tunnel near the Dumbarton Bridge and two circling the South Bay through northern Santa Clara County. The five pipelines, which deliver water to customers along the pipeline routes, converge near Crystal Springs Reservoir on the Peninsula and connect to conveyance facilities that deliver water to customers located in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and to the in-City distribution system, which serves customers in San Francisco.

Two of the SFPUC’s three reservoirs located on the Peninsula, Crystal Springs Reservoir and San Andreas Reservoir, collect runoff from the San Mateo Creek watershed. Crystal Springs Reservoir also receives and stores water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The third reservoir, Pilarcitos Reservoir, collects runoff from the Pilarcitos Creek watershed and directly serves one of the Wholesale Customers, the Coastside County Water District (which includes the City of Half Moon Bay), and the Crystal Springs and San Andreas Reservoirs.

The Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant filters and disinfects water supplied from Crystal Springs Reservoir and San Andreas Reservoir before it is delivered to customers on the Peninsula and the customers in San Francisco via the in-City distribution system.

The Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant has a peak capacity of 180 mgd. Treatment processes include ozonation, coagulation, flocculation, filtration, disinfection, fluoridation, corrosion control treatment, and chloramination.

Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant, 2015
20 BACKGROUND

2.2.4 RWS Infrastructure and WSIP
The SFPUC’s reliable water service to both Retail and Wholesale Customers can be attributed to its active maintenance and improvement of the RWS since it was first developed. In the early 2000s, the SFPUC designed an ambitious multi-year capital program, known as WSIP, to ensure that it could continue to reliably meet the projected needs of its customers through 2030.

In 2008, the SFPUC Commission adopted a phased variant of WSIP, which included water supply and facility improvement projects for both the regional and local water systems. As part of its approval of WSIP, the SFPUC Commission adopted the Interim Supply Limitation (ISL) , which limited total retail and wholesale water sales to an average annual of 265 mgd from the SFPUC’s watersheds. It also adopted LOS Goals and Objectives for WSIP, including limiting rationing to a maximum 20% system-wide reduction in water service during extended droughts. Consistent with the SFPUC’s contractual obligations to the Wholesale Customers, estimated demands, and long range planning processes, the LOS Goals and Objectives continue to inform the SFPUC’s approach to future water supply planning and the AWS Program’s efforts.

2.3 Water Supply
For the purposes of the AWS Program and Plan, RWS water supply means water originating from and delivered through the RWS. As discussed in Section 2.2 above, the majority of the RWS water supply (approximately 85%) currently originates in the upper portions of the Tuolumne River watershed in the Sierra Nevada; the remaining 15% of the RWS water supply is drawn from local surface waters in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds.

The proportion of supply drawn from each of these sources varies from year to year depending on hydrology and operational circumstances. The SFPUC operates its local watershed facilities in the Bay Area to conserve local runoff for delivery and to maintain enough stored water to meet demands in the event of an emergency that affects the supply of water from the Upcountry portion of the system.

In any given year, the SFPUC delivers approximately two-thirds of the RWS supply to Wholesale Customers and the remaining one-third to Retail Customers. In fiscal year (FY) 2021-22, the SFPUC delivered approximately 187 mgd of RWS supplies to its entire water service area, with 128.1 mgd (or 68.4%) delivered to the Wholesale Customers and

59.1 mgd (or 31.6%) delivered to Retail Customers. During this period, water demand was impacted by the Governor’s and SFPUC’s calls for voluntary water reductions (i.e., rationing) due to ongoing statewide drought conditions and the continued effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
21 BACKGROUND

2.3.1 Current Water Availability with WSIP Implemented
Providing reliable water service requires an understanding of the availability of water supply. The amount of water available to the SFPUC from the RWS is constrained by hydrology, physical facilities, and regulatory restrictions, such as instream flow requirements on the Tuolumne River, which may limit the supply that is available in dry periods.

A normal-year RWS supply is defined as the supply that will be used to meet the full demands on the RWS. In normal or wet years, the SFPUC watersheds produce enough supply to meet current and projected future demands, and existing obligations. Under these conditions, the total volume of water that can be delivered through the RWS is limited by physical facilities. Additionally, as noted in Section 2.2.4, in 2008, as part of the action to adopt WSIP, the SFPUC made a policy decision to limit water sales from the SFPUC watersheds delivered though the RWS to an average of 265 mgd annually.

During dry years, the local watersheds produce less water, and a smaller share of the Tuolumne River supply is available to the SFPUC. To maximize the reliability of its water supplies under these circumstances, the SFPUC depends on carryover storage, or water supply in reservoirs that is stored and carried over from one water year to another. Carryover storage is critical during drought cycles because it enables the SFPUC to carry over water supply from wet years to dry years.

The SFPUC uses a water supply planning methodology to estimate the water availability and demands that can be met under dry-year conditions. This methodology takes into account both (1) firm yield, or the water supply available for delivery by the RWS in simulated dry-year conditions and (2) deliveries that can be reduced through implementation of a system-wide rationing policy under dry-year conditions. Using this methodology and assuming that WSIP water supply projects are implemented, the SFPUC currently estimates that the total system yield (or water availability) is 257 mgd. These elements are illustrated in Figure 2-4.

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, 2019
22 BACKGROUND
Figure 2-4: Components Used to Estimate Dry-Year Water Availability FIRM YIELD = 227 mgd
RATIONING = 30 mgd
TOTAL SYSTEM YIELD = 257mgd
Both firm yield and rationing are estimated with the SFPUC water supply planning methodology, which includes simulation of RWS operation through a design drought sequence. The simulated design drought sequence consists of the extreme drought circumstances seen in 1987-1992 (the longest drought on record) followed by another two years of extremely dry conditions as experienced in 1976-1977.

Rationing is limiting the amount of water supply available to customers to reduce deliveries during droughts. In the SFPUC’s water supply planning methodology, rationing is expected during extended droughts. The SFPUC estimates that the water demand addressed through rationing is 30 mgd, based on the rationing policy that was adopted under the WSIP Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in 2008. This policy assumes that rationing is approximately 12% as an annual average over the 8½-year design drought sequence. Over the 8½ years of simulated drought, rationing is initially 0% and increases up to a maximum of 20%, with the annual average over the sequence being about 12%. The SFPUC is using this policy as a benchmark for the evaluation of water supply and potential water supply gap presented in this Plan. This enables the SFPUC to compare water availability with WSIP implemented and with the assumed implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. Modifications to the SFPUC’s rationing policy would change the estimated total system yield and the future water supply gap presented in this Plan.

Based on the above-described water supply planning methodology, and as summarized in Table 2-2, the SFPUC estimates that the firm yield of the RWS is 227 mgd and that the rationing policy can address up to 30 mgd of demand.

Table 2-2: Dry-Year Water Availability
Annual Supply (mgd)
RWS Water Supply (Firm Yield)a 227
Water Demand Addressed Through Rationingb 30
Total Supply (Total System Yield)c 257
a Firm yield includes implemented WSIP projects and current instream flow r eleases (not including the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment).
b Rationing is based on the SFPUC rationing policy adopted under the WSIP PEIR in 2008, which assumes that rationing is approximately 12% as an annual average over the 8½-year design drought sequence. c Total system yield is the sum of firm yield plus the water supply benefit from rationing. 23 BACKGROUND
More information on the SFPUC’s planning methodology to estimate the available RWS supply and the demands that can be met under drought conditions can be found in Appendix B.

2.4 SFPUC Obligations and Demands
This section describes the SFPUC’s obligations and demands, which set parameters for AWS Program planning.

2.4.1 The SFPUC’s Legal and Contractual Obligations with the Wholesale Customers
The SFPUC’s agreements with the 26 Wholesale Customers represented by BAWSCA include certain legal and contractual obligations that the SFPUC must consider as part of its planning under the AWS Program, as discussed below.

Water Supply Agreement (WSA)
The Water Supply Agreement (WSA)
is a 25 -year contract between San Francisco
and the Wholesale Customers. 2 The WSA became effective on July 1, 2009, as its predecessor agreement – the 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (1984 Agreement) – expired. The WSA, as amended and restated in January 20213, with subsequent approval by each of the Wholesale Customers, describes the current contractual relationship between the SFPUC and the Wholesale Customers.

Pursuant to the terms of the WSA, each of the Wholesale Customers also has an Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco.
2 As noted above, Cordilleras Mutual Water Company is also a wholesale customer of the SFPUC, but it is not a party to the WSA and is not represented by BAWSCA.
3 All references to the Water Supply Agreement or WSA in this Plan are to the latest version, the 2021 Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement.

INDIVIDUAL WATER SALES CONTRACTS
Each of the Wholesale Customers also has an Individual Water Sales Contract with the SFPUC that describes the service area of the customer, identifies the location and size of service connections between the RWS and the customer’s distribution systems, and in some instances, contains additional specific provisions unique to the particular customer. The Individual Water Sales Contracts may be amended from time to time by the SFPUC and the applicable Wholesale Customers pursuant to the terms of the WSA.
24 BACKGROUND
The WSA carries forward many components of the 1984
Agreement, including the Supply Assurance, which
requires that the SFPUC deliver a maximum of 184 mgd
per year to the Wholesale Customers.
4 The SFPUC’s
agreement to deliver water up to the amount of the
Supply Assurance is perpetual and survives the expiration of the WSA. The amount of water made available to the
Wholesale Customers is, however, subject to reduction
due to water shortage caused by drought, scheduled
RWS maintenance activities, and emergencies.

The Supply Assurance is shared among 24 of the 26 Wholesale Customers (all Wholesale Customers, except the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, which are not permanent customers of the SFPUC, as discussed below).

Individual Supply Guarantees (ISGs)
Twenty-three of the 24 Wholesale Customers that share in the Supply Assurance have an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), which is their dedicated individual share of the 184 mgd Supply Assurance set forth in Attachment C of the WSA. The ISGs are also perpetual and survive the expiration of the WSA. Because San Jose and Santa Clara are temporary interruptible customers of the SFPUC under the terms of the WSA, they do not have ISGs.

The City of Hayward does not have an ISG due
to the terms of its 1962 Individual Water Supply
Contract with the SFPUC, which does not
contain a fixed allocation of water. Hayward’s
water supply allocation is, however, included in
the Supply Assurance as the difference between
184 mgd and the sum of the other 23 Wholesale
Customers’ ISGs. As described in the WSA, if
the total SFPUC deliveries to Hayward and to
the 23 Wholesale Customers with ISGs exceed
184 mgd over three consecutive fiscal years,
then the ISGs of those 23 Wholesale Customers
shall be reduced pro rata so that their total
combined entitlement and the sustained use by
Hayward does not exceed 184 mgd.
4 The 184 mgd Supply Assurance is the maximum annual average metered supply of water dedicated by San Francisco to public use in the wholesale service area (not including San Jose and Santa Clara).

The WSA carries forward
the Supply Assurance,
which requires the
SFPUC to deliver a
maximum of 184 mgd
per year to 24 of the 26
Wholesale Customers.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY

GUARANTEES
ISGs represent each
Wholesale Customer’s
dedicated individual
share of the 184 mgd
Supply Assurance.

Hayward does not have
an ISG due to the terms
of its 1962 individual
water supply contract.
25 BACKGROUND
When combined, the ISGs of the 23 Wholesale Customers total 161.9 mgd. Thus, in the event that Hayward purchases an amount of water exceeding 22.1 mgd (184 mgd Supply Assurance minus 161.9 mgd) for three consecutive fiscal years, the ISGs of each of the 23 Wholesale Customers with ISGs would be reduced in accordance with the WSA to accommodate the demands of Hayward.

Figure 2-5 provides a visual representation of the Wholesale Customers’ relationships with respect to the Supply Assurance and ISGs.

Figure 2-5: Visual Representation of Wholesale Customers Wholesale Customers (All BAWSCA Members)
Permanent Customers
Supply Assurance
(184 mgd)
San Jose &
Santa Clara
Hayward
23 Wholesale Customers
ISGs
(up to 161.9 mgd)
Water Supply Allocation
(diﬀerence between
184 mgd and ISGs)
Note: Cordilleras Mutual Water Company is not a BAWSCA member and is not subject to the Water Supply Agreement
Interruptible Customers (San Jose and Santa Clara)
Prior to and during the terms of both the 1984 Agreement and the WSA, the SFPUC has provided water to San Jose and Santa Clara on a temporary, interruptible basis.

As a result, the two cities are interruptible customers and do not have an allocated share of the Supply Assurance. Because San Jose and Santa Clara are not included in the Supply Assurance, they do not have ISGs. While the SFPUC has never interrupted water supply to San Jose and Santa Clara, the WSA allows the SFPUC to issue a conditional notice of termination of supply if sufficient long-term water supplies from the RWS are not available.

The WSA extends the temporary, interruptible status of San Jose and Santa Clara through 2028, by which time the SFPUC must decide whether or not to make the cities permanent customers of the RWS. The two cities have requested permanent status from the SFPUC with a guaranteed supply of 4.5 mgd each (9 mgd total), 26 BACKGROUND
which the SFPUC will have to decide on by December 31,
2028. In order to support the decision-making process
of making San Jose and Santa Clara permanent or not,
SFPUC staff continue to include the potential additional guaranteed supply of 9 mgd for these two customers
in its planning estimates. SFPUC staff also continue
to encourage San Jose’s and Santa Clara’s active
participation in developing their own local supplies to improve their resilience and ability to contribute back to the RWS in dry years to offset the additional burden on the RWS. One of the AWS Projects described in
the Plan, the South Bay Purified Water Project, is designed explicitly to address this issue and could provide a pathway for the SFPUC to consider permanent status for San Jose and Santa Clara.

2.4.2 Retail Service Area Obligations
The SFPUC has a responsibility to meet the needs of its Retail Customers through a combination of RWS and local supplies. As noted in Section 2.2.4, the SFPUC has limited the deliveries from the RWS watersheds to an average annual of 265 mgd, of which the Retail Customers are allocated 81 mgd and the Wholesale Customers are allocated 184 mgd, as described in the WSA between San Francisco and the Wholesale Customers discussed above. The SFPUC continues to develop demand management and local water supply projects, which are projected to reduce its reliance on the RWS.

While the SFPUC is committed to reducing retail demands on the RWS even further, San Francisco could need its full Retail Allocation of 81 mgd in the years beyond 2045.

2.4.3 Current and Historical Demands
When the WSA became effective in 2009, demand projections indicated that Wholesale Customer demands on the RWS could exceed 184 mgd after 2018.

However, due in part to water conservation initiatives, increased use efficiencies, the impact of droughts, and economic conditions, cumulative Wholesale Customer purchase requests continue to be significantly lower than the existing 184 mgd Supply Assurance. Still, the SFPUC’s obligation to provide the Supply Assurance is perpetual and, as such, it is important that the AWS Program continues to plan for supplies to meet this obligation. Additionally, the AWS Program accounts for the requirement in the WSA to supply San Jose and Santa Clara with up to 9 mgd through 2028.

The SFPUC continues to track demands from both Retail and Wholesale Customers to better understand current and future water supply needs. For Retail Customers, about 97% of the total demand is currently met with RWS supply while the remaining portion is met with locally produced groundwater and recycled water. Approximately 65% of the total Wholesale Customer demand has been historically met by RWS The SFPUC must
decide whether to
make the cities of
San Jose and Santa
Clara permanent
customers by
December 31, 2028.
27 BACKGROUND
supply. Individual Wholesale Customer reliance on the RWS system varies, with some Wholesale Customers relying on RWS supply to meet 100% of their total demand and others relying on RWS supply to meet a portion of their demand, while supplementing with other local and/or imported supplies, such as local groundwater, recycled water, or surface water imported from other sources. Individual Wholesale Customer water use data is compiled each year in the BAWSCA Annual Survey.

More details on the breakdown of Wholesale Customer demands and supplies are included in Appendix A.

Figure 2-6 shows historical water deliveries from FY 2000-01 through FY 2021-22.

Many factors influence demand, including socioeconomic conditions, weather, and drought. As shown, demands begin to dip after FY 2008-09, coinciding with the economic downturn in the region. FY 2015-16 was a drought year with significantly lower demands corresponding to enhanced conservation and rationing measures.

In FY 2021-22, water demand was impacted by mandatory rationing imposed due to ongoing statewide drought conditions and the continued effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is also important to note that different factors can influence Wholesale Customers’ total demand for water supplies from any available sources versus their demand on RWS supply specifically. Even when a particular Wholesale Customer’s total demand for water supplies does not increase, its demand on RWS supplies specifically can increase.

Figure 2-6: Historical Retail and Wholesale Demands on the RWS (2000-2022)

300
250
200
150
100
50 0
2002-032000-012001-02 2003-042004-052005-062006-072007-082008-092009-102010-112011-122012-132013-14 2015-162016-172017-182018-19 Wholesale Historical Retail Historical
2019-202020-21

87.0 256.4
169.4

90.1 174.9
265.0

90.3 171.3
261.6

84.7 180.8
265.5

84.7 167.4
252.1

83.5 164.4
247.9

81.5 172.2
253.7

81.3 174.3
255.6

79.3 163.5
242.8

76.0 148.8
224.8

76.7 142.8
219.5

76.2 145.4
221.6

76.0 145.9
221.9

73.3 148.5
221.8

65.5 112.6
178.1

64.9 116.4
181.3

67.9 128.1
196.0

66.8 125.5
192.3

66.2 132.2
198.4

59.6 134.5
194.1
Demands on the RWS (mgd)
Year

59.1 128.1
187.2
2021-222014-15

68.4 126.5
194.9
Note: Retail numbers include losses and a small portion of suburban retail groundwater . Source for historical retail demands is SFPUC retail sales and delivery data. Sources for historical wholesale demands include BAWSCA purchases data (FY 06-07 to FY 21-22) and SFPUC deliveries data (FY 00-01 to FY 05-06). 28 BACKGROUND
According to the most recent BAWSCA Annual Survey for FY 2021-22, the Wholesale Customers reported RWS purchases of 128.1 mgd, 5% lower than the total of 134.5 mgd purchased in FY 2020-21. Of the total amount of water used by these Wholesale Customers in FY 2021-22, 66.2% was RWS supply from the SFPUC and 33.8% was from other sources acquired by the Wholesale Customers including groundwater, local surface water, recycled water, and other supplies from Valley Water, the State Water Project, and Alameda County Water District’s brackish water desalination.

In general, Wholesale Customer reliance on RWS supplies has increased in recent years as other supplies have become less reliable in the face of drought and regulatory uncertainties. There are also a number of conservation initiatives taking place in the wholesale service area that serve to reduce overall demand. These efforts include administering several regional water conservation programs and initiatives led by BAWSCA, including both Core Programs (implemented regionally throughout the BAWSCA service area) and Subscription Programs (funded by individual member agencies that elect to participate and implemented within their respective service areas). In addition to the BAWSCA conservation programs, many of the Wholesale Customers administer additional water conservation measures independently or through another entity, such as Valley Water. The FY 2021-22 BAWSCA Annual Survey identified an average residential per capita consumption of 60.27 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) across the wholesale service area, with 16 of the Wholesale Customers having a water use of less than 60 gpcd.

Total Retail Customer demand on the RWS has declined over the past decade and has remained consistently low. This is due to continued investment in efficiency improvements, conservation initiatives, and water supply diversification including the incorporation of other local water supply options such as groundwater and recycled water. Total water use within San Francisco continues to be among the lowest in SFPUC Water Wise Evaluation
29 BACKGROUND
California and below historical consumption despite population growth over the same time period. Both total consumption and per capita water use have been on a general decline since the mid-1970s. Many factors have contributed to this reduction in water use, including significant changes to the mix of industrial and commercial businesses and their associated water demand, and the general characteristics of water use by San Franciscans. In particular, the severe droughts of 1976-77 and 1987-92, changes in plumbing codes, and conservation programs (either voluntarily embraced by residents and businesses or mandated by San Francisco) have affected water demands. During the drought in 2012-2016, per capita water use further declined. In its role as the retail water provider for San Francisco, the SFPUC has implemented aggressive conservation and demand management programs for over three decades, resulting in residential water consumption rate of 42 gpcd in San Francisco, a rate roughly half the statewide average.

2.4.4 Projected Future Demands
Identifying future demand is critical to planning for long-term supply reliability of the RWS. This AWS Plan examines projected demands through the planning horizon of 2045. Consistent with other planning efforts, the AWS Plan relies on the 2021- 22 BAWSCA Annual Survey and the 2020 SFPUC Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to identify projected RWS demands. These sources may not fully reflect the most recent housing element updates of individual customers. BAWSCA agencies provide annual updates to the SFPUC identifying the amount of RWS water that each customer expects to request through the planning horizon. The SFPUC UWMP projects Retail Customer demands out through a 20-year planning horizon and is updated every 5 years. Based on these sources, total projected future demands on RWS supply in 2045 are estimated to be 244.1 mgd, including 73.5 mgd from Retail Customers and 170.6 mgd from Wholesale Customers (Table 2-3).

Table 2-3: SFPUC Customer Projected Demands on the RWS in 2045 RWS Projected Demand, 2045 (mgd)
Retail Customers 73.5a
Wholesale Customers 170.6
Total RWS Projected Demand 244.1
Source: SFPUC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and FY 2021-22 BAWSCA Annual Survey a The 2045 RWS projected demand for Retail Customers reflects the implementation of anticipated local supply projects and an updated savings estimate from the expansion of the Non-potable ordinance in 2021 30 BACKGROUND
Figure 2-7 shows demand projections through 2045 for both Wholesale and Retail Customers. Demands on the RWS are anticipated to increase through 2045. For Wholesale Customers, in addition to accounting for planned population growth within individual service areas, this may be in part due to prolonged drought and climate uncertainty which makes other non-RWS supplies that contribute to Wholesale Customers’ supply portfolios less reliable given the uncertainty around availability and the potential for future State of California (State) and federal regulations. The drivers that influence projected demands on the RWS are discussed further in Chapter 3 (Future Water Supply Gap).

Retail Customer demand projections assume local water supplies such as groundwater, recycled water, and onsite potable reuse will offset future RWS demand, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 (AWS Program Role in Addressing the Future Water Supply Gap).

Figure 2-7: Projected Retail and Wholesale Demands on the RWS (2025-2045) 250
200
150
100
50 0
2025

67.2 149.5
216.7
2030

67.5 155.8
223.3
2035

68.6 160.4
229.0
2040

70.5 165.2
235.7
2045

73.5 170.6
244.1
Projected demands on the RWS (mgd)
Year
Wholesale Projected Retail Projected
Source: SFPUC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and FY 2021-22 BAWSCA Annual Survey South Bay Aerial View, 2018
31 BACKGROUND
San Antonio Reservoir, 2008
Future Water Supply Gap
33 Chapter 3: Future Water Supply Gap
The objective of the AWS Program is to improve reliability in meeting retail and wholesale demands on the RWS in dry years through 2045. This chapter builds on the information presented in Chapter 2 and layers on an analysis of how dry-year water supply availability could change with the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. As discussed in this chapter, a shortfall in future water supply is anticipated in dry years, and this shortfall is expected to be large if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented as adopted in 2018. This chapter describes the approach used for estimating the water supply shortfall and describes the drivers that affect the magnitude of the shortfall.

3.1 Approach for Identifying the Future Water Supply Gap As shown in Figure 3-1, the difference between expected water availability from the RWS in a dry year and the obligations or anticipated customer 1 demands for water from the RWS can result in a water supply shortfall, or water supply gap.

Figure 3-1: Approach Used to Calculate the Water Supply Gap Future Water
Supply Gap
Water
Availability
Obligations
2045
Customer Demands
The AWS Program identifies a future water supply gap in dry years, both to meet existing and potential obligations, and to meet customer demands. The future water supply gap is characterized as a range of 92 mgd to meet 2045 customer demands to 122 mgd to meet obligations, including legal and contractual obligations for Wholesale Customers, the Retail Allocation, and potential future obligations for interruptible customers.

While historical and projected data indicate that customers’ actual water demands on, or purchase requests from, the RWS tend to be lower than SFPUC’s obligations, the AWS Program still identifies the water supply shortfall to meet obligations. This is because the Supply Assurance for the Wholesale Customers is perpetual and survives the expiration or termination of the WSA, and, as such, it is important that the AWS Program plan for supplies to meet these obligations.

The anticipated water supply gap is determined based on a number of drivers on both the supply side, which affect future water availability, and on the demand side, 1 Customers include both Retail and Wholesale customers, including the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.

San Antonio Reservoir
which consider obligations and future demands. These drivers, summarized in Figure 3-2, can be uncertain and some are likely to change over time. Some of the drivers are quantitative, and their impact on the future water supply gap can be estimated numerically. Other drivers are qualitative due to future uncertainty but are important to include in the AWS planning considerations and may be refined or quantified in the future. Details of each of the drivers are summarized in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

Figure 3-2: Drivers which Affect the Future Water Supply Gap Future Water
Supply Gap
Obligations or 2045
Customer Demands
Water
Availability

SUPPLY DRIVERS
• Bay-Delta Plan
Amendment
• Potential future
regulations
• Climate uncertainty
• Planning assumptions
for projecting dry-year
supplies

OBLIGATION DRIVERS
• Supply Assurance (184 mgd)
• Retail Allocation (81 mgd)
• Additional supply if San/uni00A0Jose
and Santa Clara are made
permanent customers
(9 mgd)

CUSTOMER DEMAND

DRIVERS
• Future customer demand
projections (244 mgd)
• Issues that aﬀ ect customer
reliance on RWS supplies

3.1.1 Contribution of Rationing to Address the Future Water Supply Gap As described in Section 2.3 (Water Supply), the future water supply gap is based on the total system yield, or what is also referred to as water availability. The total system yield includes both firm yield (water supply available during dry periods) and the portion of demand that can be addressed with rationing. Because rationing is a water resources management tool that can address demands, it is included in the estimate of water availability along with firm yield.

The estimate of how much of the water demand could be addressed through rationing is based on a rationing policy that was adopted under the WSIP PEIR in 2008. The rationing policy assumes that over the 8½-year design drought, rationing is initially 0% and increases up to a maximum of 20%, with the annual average over the sequence being about 12%. This policy is being used as a benchmark for the evaluation of water availability with the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment so that it can be compared to the prior planning estimates of water availability that were developed for WSIP. Based on SFPUC’s rationing policy, rationing could contribute to filling approximately 12% of the water supply gap. The remaining gap would need to be addressed through the development of new regional alternative water supplies, as shown in Figure 3-3.
34 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP
Figure 3-3: Estimated Contributions of New Water Supplies and Rationing Needed to Fill the Future Water Supply Gap
Water Supply Gap to Meet Obligations
122 mgd
New Regional
Alternative Water
Supplies Needed
to Fill Gap
107 mgd
Estimated
Contribution
of
Rationing*
15 mgd
New Regional
Alternative Water
Supplies Needed
to Fill Gap
81 mgd
Estimated
Contribution
of
Rationing*
11 mgd
Water Supply Gap to Meet Demands
92 mgd
* Note that the volume of demands that rationing can address is dependent on water supply. If estimated new water supplies to fill the future water supply gap is less than what is needed, the estimated contribution of rationing would also be proportionately less.

3.2 Drivers Affecting Water Availability
As described in Chapter 2 (Background), the current
water supply delivered through the RWS consists of
surface waters originating primarily from the Tuolumne
River watershed in the Sierra Nevada (comprising
approximately 85% of RWS supply) and water drawn
from local surface waters in the Alameda and Peninsula
watersheds (approximately 15%).

There are a number of drivers that have the potential
to limit water supply from these sources in the future, including instream flow requirements, climate uncertainty, and future regulatory changes. However, the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is the driver that could have the most pronounced impact on water availability through the 2045 planning horizon.

3.2.1 The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment
In December 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta Estuary (referred to as the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) to establish water quality objectives to protect certain beneficial uses within the Bay- Delta ecosystem. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment was developed with the goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) and the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment would require the release of 40% of the unimpaired flow on the three tributaries from February through June in every year type, with the ability to adjust unimpaired flow releases down to 30% or up to 50%, depending on conditions.

Water
Availability

SUPPLY DRIVERS
• Bay-Delta Plan
Amendment
• Potential future
regulations
• Climate uncertainty
• Planning assumptions
for projecting dry-year
supplies
35 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP
The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, if implemented as adopted in 2018, would result in new instream flow requirements that would reduce the SFPUC’s available water supply by an estimated 93 mgd per year. As summarized in Table 3-1 and discussed in Section 2.3 (RWS Water Supply), the estimated water availability (total system yield) is 257 mgd, without implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. This calculation assumes a dry-year baseline water supply of 227 mgd with WSIP implemented and a corresponding equivalent amount of water demands addressed by imposing the SFPUC’s rationing policy (30 mgd) over the 8½-year design drought period. The new instream flow requirements that would result from implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, as adopted, would reduce the projected water availability in dry years expressed as total system yield from 257 mgd to 152 mgd. This reduction in water availability would result in a significant water supply gap in dry years.

Table 3-1: Projected 2045 Water Availability during Dry Years, with and without the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment
Scenario without
Bay-Delta Plan
Amendment
Scenario with
Bay-Delta Plan
Amendment
Baseline Water Supply with WSIP
Implemented 227 227
New Instream Flow Release
Requirements from the Bay-Delta Plan
Amendment
N/A -93
Water Supply
a (Firm Yield) 227 134
Demands Addressed through
Implementation of Rationing Policy
b 30 18
Water Availability (Total System Yield)c 257 152
a Firm yield without Bay-Delta Plan Amendment implementation includes implemented WSIP Projects and current instream flow releases; with implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment the firm yield accounts for additional instream flow releases of 93 mgd. b The water supply benefit realized through rationing represents the average annual volume of water delivery reductions in an extended drought. The volume of delivery reduction is proportional to the available water supply, or firm yield. Because the instream flow requirements called for in the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment would reduce the firm yield, the supply benefit realized through rationing would also be reduced. c Total system yield is the sum of system firm yield plus the water demand addressed through rationing during extended drought.
36 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP
The City and County of San Francisco, and other water users on the Tuolumne River, have filed pending legal and administrative challenges to SWRCB actions associated with the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment implementation. The SWRCB Resolution No. 2018-0059 adopting the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment directed staff to “provide appropriate technical and regulatory information to the California Natural Resources Agency” in completing a “Delta watershed-wide agreement, including potential flow and non-flow measures for the Tuolumne River” by March 1, 2019, and “to incorporate the Delta watershed-wide agreement, including potential amendments to implement agreements related to the Tuolumne River, as an alternative for a future, comprehensive Bay-Delta Plan update…” to be presented to the SWRCB.

On March 1, 2019, the California Natural Resources Agency and the California Fish and Wildlife Service, submitted a proposed project description for voluntary agreements in the Sacramento – San Joaquin Bay-Delta including the Tuolumne River to the

SWRCB (
Proposed voluntary Agreement). The voluntary agreement parties, including the SFPUC, have continued to work together to provide detailed information to the SWRCB so that they may evaluate and consider the Proposed Voluntary Agreement.

The SWRCB has indicated it will consider the Proposed Voluntary Agreement for adoption in 2024. The SWRCB issued a Notice of Preparation of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-equivalent document for the Tuolumne Proposed Voluntary Agreement in April 2023. The impact of the Proposed Voluntary Agreement on projected water availability (as calculated in Table 3-1) will remain uncertain until the SWRCB completes its evaluation which will ultimately determine the impact of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on the SFPUC’s future water supply gap.

While the exact quantity associated with instream flow release requirements under the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is subject to change with the Proposed Voluntary Agreement in the future, the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is anticipated to cause a shortfall in RWS supply during dry years. Regular updates to this AWS Plan will be critical to reflect the latest information on Bay-Delta Plan Amendment requirements.

Tuolumne River, 2010
37 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP

3.2.2 Potential Future Regulations
In addition to the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, other potential future regulations or water right curtailments represent another driver that may impact water availability in the future. The SFPUC’s operation of the RWS is subject to State and federal agency permits designed to protect drinking water quality and the environment. Some permit requirements have been in place for decades and influence the way water supply is managed. New instream flow requirements may result in required changes to releases or bypass flows from SFPUC facilities, which would impact water availability.

Regulatory uncertainties and their resultant impact on water availability make it difficult to definitively plan for the future. AWS planning efforts therefore do not currently assign a numerical shortfall with other potential future regulations, but rather capture them qualitatively by recognizing the risk they pose to the SFPUC’s ability to meet customers’ water demand. Such regulatory requirements may be quantified in the planning efforts associated with future AWS Plan updates, as necessary.

3.2.3 Climate Uncertainty
Changes in precipitation and extended droughts associated with climate change, as well as future regulations responding to a hotter, drier climate, are additional factors that can affect water supply within the SFPUC’s planning horizon. Ongoing climate change assessment efforts need to be updated regularly to reflect improvements in climate science, atmospheric/ocean modeling, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change assessments by the SFPUC will be refined as additional information is released.

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir during
a severe drought, 1991
38 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP
In 2021, the SFPUC partnered with the Water Research Foundation to develop a Long- term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) of the RWS to better understand the potential vulnerability of the RWS to uncertain future conditions. The LTVA modeled a range of potential future climate scenarios to help assess to what extent climate change will be a threat to the RWS in comparison to, or in combination with, other external drivers of change. One finding of the assessment was that climate change exacerbates impacts from other drivers of change such as increased instream flow requirements and increased demands on the system.

Impacts related to climate change are not currently quantified in the AWS planning efforts; however, the AWS approach for long-term water supply planning includes diversifying water supplies to account for future potential impacts on the current water supply. Future updates to the AWS Plan may include numerical quantifications associated with climate change, as appropriate and available.

3.2.4 SFPUC Planning Assumptions for Projecting Dry-Year Wa ter Availability The SFPUC relies on planning assumptions and modeling to project future water availability in dry-year conditions. The SFPUC design drought and rationing policy, which are discussed in Section 2.3 (Water Supply) and detailed in Appendix B, are assumptions that affect the estimates of water availability during dry-year conditions.

Changes to the assumptions around the design drought or rationing would change total system yield estimates. For the purposes of this AWS Plan, these planning assumptions are being held constant as part of the SFPUC planning methodology for projecting future water supplies. This allows a direct comparison to the planning that was done for the WSIP program.

3.3 Drivers Affecting Obligations and Customer Demands As described above, the future water supply
gap is characterized as the difference between
water availability and existing and potential future
obligations and customer demands. The gap is
influenced by drivers that affect water availability
(discussed in Section 3.2) and drivers that affect
obligations and demands. This section discusses
the drivers that affect obligations and customer
demands.

Obligations or 2045
Customer Demands

OBLIGATION DRIVERS
• Supply Assurance (184 mgd)
• Retail Allocation (81 mgd)
• Additional supply if San/uni00A0Jose
and Santa Clara are made
permanent customers
(9 mgd)

CUSTOMER DEMAND

DRIVERS
• Future customer demand
projections (244 mgd)
• Issues that aﬀ ect customer
reliance on RWS supplies
39 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP

3.3.1 Supply Assurance under the Water Supply Agr eement and Retail Allocation
As described in Section 2.4, the SFPUC has a legal and contractual obligation to deliver water up to the amount of the Supply Assurance (184 mgd) to the Wholesale Customers under the terms of the WSA. The Supply Assurance, which is perpetual and survives the expiration of the WSA, is shared among 24 of the 26 Wholesale Customers because it does not include the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, who are provided water on a temporary and interruptible basis. In addition, the SFPUC provides an allocation of up to 81 mgd to Retail Customers, which combined with the Supply Assurance, amounts to a total of 265 mgd. The Supply Assurance and the Retail Allocation are obligation drivers that affects the magnitude of the future water supply gap.

3.3.2 Additional Supply if San Jose and Santa Clara are made Permanent Customers
Two Wholesale Customers, San Jose and Santa Clara, are currently temporary, interruptible customers. While they share the costs and benefits of RWS deliveries as other Wholesale Customers do, they do not have a share of the Supply Assurance, or Individual Supply Guarantees (individual customers’ allocations of the Supply Assurance). The two cities have requested permanent status from the SFPUC with a guaranteed supply of at least 4.5 mgd each (9 mgd total).

The SFPUC must decide whether to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers by December 31, 2028. The SFPUC, San Jose, and Santa Clara are engaged in regular discussions on this topic. One result of this collaboration is the inclusion of a project in this AWS Plan, the South Bay Purified Water Project.

This project is discussed in Chapter 5 (AWS Projects).

Calaveras Reservoir, 2019
40 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP
If the SFPUC makes San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers, it would result in a future, additional supply guarantee of 9 mgd. Although the SFPUC has not yet made a decision on the cities’ future status, this AWS Plan considers what it would take to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent. Therefore, the guaranteed supply increase required to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers is a driver that affects the SFPUC’s potential future obligations.

3.3.3 Projected Customer Demands
Customer demand projections are a driver that affects the SFPUC’s water supply gap.

Wholesale and Retail Customer projections of demands on the RWS are provided largely through urban water management planning efforts. Periodically, those projections may be updated through local and regional demand studies, BAWSCA Annual Surveys, or other policy or regulatory updates that may affect future purchase projections. Regular updates to the AWS Plan will allow inclusion of the latest customer demand projections and any resulting changes to the water supply gap.

Individual wholesale and retail customer demands are influenced by factors such as conservation measures and local water supply projects. Projected demands can be reduced through actions such as local conservation and water loss reduction measures (such as leak detection), while the degree to which customers rely on the RWS to meet total demands can be offset by local water supply projects such as groundwater or recycled water projects. Given the expected magnitude of the impact of the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on water availability (as described in Section 3.2.1), it is apparent that water conservation and demand management measures alone will not fill the future water supply gap.

3.3.4 Customer Reliance on RWS Supplies
Recently, some SFPUC Wholesale Customers that have other non-RWS sources of supply have increased their reliance on RWS supplies. This may be in part due to prolonged drought, climate uncertainty, and the relative reliability of other non-RWS supplies, which may shift dependence on one supply source over another. Therefore, while a customer’s demands may not increase, their demands on the RWS (reliance on the RWS) may. Climate uncertainty can also influence temperature and rainfall patterns that can locally impact the need for water. Purchase projections in the FY 2020-21 BAWSCA Annual Survey revealed, for example, Alameda County Water District’s greater reliance on the RWS over its other supplies, even though the District’s overall demands did not increase. Shifts in customer reliance on supply sources is a driver that affects future customer demands on RWS supplies. 41 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP

3.4 Future Water Supply Gap (2045)
As described above, the SFPUC’s future water supply gap is determined by comparing its existing and potential future obligations and 2045 customer demands against the future water availability. Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, as adopted, would reduce the projected water availability to 152 mgd. Figure 3-4 below shows a significant water supply gap in dry years when considering two scenarios: one based on existing and potential future obligations and a second based on projected customer demands on the RWS.

Figure 3-4: Water Supply Gap for Meeting Obligations
and 2045 Demands in Dry-Year Conditions
Water Availability through the RWS a
152 mgd
(assumes implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) Total Existing and
Potential Obligations
265 mgd
(existing Retail and Wholesale)
+ 9 mgd
(San Jose and Santa Clara)
Total 2045 Demands
on the RWS
244 mgd
(including Retail, Wholesale,
San Jose and Santa Clara)
Water Supply Gap b
-122 mgd c
(to meet obligations)
Water Supply Gap b
-92 mgd d
(to meet 2045 demands)
a Represents the total system yield. The total system yield is the sum of the firm yield of the RWS plus rationing (134 mgd firm yield and 18 mgd of demands addressed by implementing the rationing policy [see Chapter 2 for additional detail]).
b The water supply gap estimates: 1) the total difference between water availability and obligations and 2) the difference between water availability and customer demands on the RWS in 2045. c As rationing is a function of water supply availability, to close the gap with new supplies and rationing, new supplies of 107 mgd would be required. Up to 15 mgd of the water supply gap can then be met by rationing.
d As rationing is a function of water supply availability, to close the gap with new supplies and rationing, new supplies of 81 mgd would be required. Up to 11 mgd of the water supply gap can then be met by rationing.
42 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP
For AWS planning, the following key conclusions can be drawn from the supply- demand comparison:
• As shown in Figure 3-4, in dry years, the SFPUC has identified a future water supply gap of 122 mgd to meet existing legal and contractual obligations (184 mgd), Retail Allocation to serve future retail service area obligations (81 mgd), and potential future obligations (9 mgd). Based on the projected demands of the same customer base on the RWS in 2045, the water supply gap would be 92 mgd.
• This future dry-year water supply gap is primarily driven by the potential implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. However, the requirements of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment are still under review as part of the Proposed Voluntary Agreement discussions and may change as a result of ongoing negotiations between the SFPUC and the State. The results of these negotiations will impact water availability which will in turn impact future water supply gap estimates.
• Based on SFPUC’s rationing policy and consistent as sumptions about rationing in future droughts, about 12% of the gap would be addressed through rationing. An additional 107 mgd of new supplies would need to be developed to meet obligations and 81 mgd of new supplies would need to be developed to meet projected 2045 demands.
• The SFPUC must implement new projects and actions that increase supply (firm yield) by augmenting RWS supplies in dry years. If less than 81 mgd of new supplies are developed, the benefit to water availability from rationing will be proportionately less.
• The drivers that affect both water availability and demands on the RWS must be reviewed regularly so that the projected water supply gap can be refined and updated as needed.
• Since 2000, SFPUC watersheds have experienced more frequent and severe dry years than in the preceding 100 years, punctuated by some wet years.

Although the water supply gap is a dry-year concern, with drought frequency and severity becoming more commonplace, the utility of dry-year supply projects is likely to increase over time.
• To make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers, the SFPUC would need to identify the source(s) of supply that would be used to provide the additional 9 mgd of supply guarantee allocated equally between those two customers. The South Bay Purified Water Project could provide benefits to San Jose and Santa Clara in all years as well as the SFPUC in dry years. 43 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY GAP
WSIP Bay Division Pipeline Rehabilitation, 2011
AWS Program Role
45 Chapter 4: AWS Program Role in
Addressing the Future Water Supply Gap
Long-term water supply planning requires a comprehensive approach. For the SFPUC service area, this means not only looking at new water supplies as discussed in this AWS Plan, but also expanding demand management efforts through conservation, identifying local water supply projects that can utilize local water resources to reduce demands on the RWS, and implementing other actions to strengthen the availability of existing surface water supplies.

As shown in Figure 4-1, some of these actions are implemented locally through BAWSCA and/or by the SFPUC as a retail water provider to San Francisco; other actions address regional water supplies and are the responsibility of the SFPUC as the operator and steward of the RWS and in coordination with BAWSCA in accordance with the WSA.

Figure 4-1: Long-Term Water Supply Planning Coordinated Approach of Local and Regional Actions

Conservation and
Loss Reduction
actions that
reduce demand
on the RWS
such as:

Passive & active
conservation
Leak detection
Local water
supply
projects that
reduce reliance
on the RWS
including:

Onsite reuse
Recycled water
Stormwater
capture/reuse
Groundwater
Puriﬁ ed water

LOCAL ACTIONS
Projects and
other actions
that address
availability of
existing RWS
supplies such as:

Existing
groundwater
projects
Joint projects
with Irrigation
Districts
Regional alternative
water supply
projects that help
address the future
water supply gap
including:

Groundwater
Puriﬁ ed water
Desalination
Recycled water
Storage expansion

REGIONAL ACTIONS
(Focus of the AWS Program)

4.1 Demand Reduction through Water Conserva tion Activities The SFPUC as a retail service provider has long been committed to, and is a leader in, water conservation. Individual Wholesale Customers serve a parallel function of managing local water demands in their respective service areas. BAWSCA represents the interests of the Wholesale Customers and coordinates water conservation assistance regionally. Information on each customer’s demand reduction efforts and per capita use are included in Appendix A.

SFPUC Retail Water Conservation Activities: The SFPUC has been implementing a retail conservation program in San Francisco for over 30 years. Despite steady population and job growth in the retail service area, the SFPUC’s per capita water use rate has declined and remained low, due in large part to SFPUC’s retail conservation efforts. Since 2005, San Francisco’s residential per capita water use declined by 30% despite a 15% increase in population. With an average residential per capita water use of 42 gpcd, residential water use in San Francisco remains among the lowest in the State.

The SFPUC continues to maximize opportunities to do more on demand management.

From participating in cutting-edge research and dialogue on extreme decentralization and 50-liter challenges to inviting independent review of existing programs to identify additional actions for feasible demand reduction action, the SFPUC remains committed to water conservation. By 2025, residential per capita water use is estimated to decrease to 38.4 gpcd, well within industry ranges for what is considered highly efficient.

Wholesale Service Area Conservation Activities: In the wholesale service area, BAWSCA and individual Wholesale Customers offer a wide variety of water conservation programs. These efforts include several regional water conservation programs and initiatives led by BAWSCA, including both Core Programs (implemented regionally throughout the BAWSCA service area) and Subscription Programs (funded by individual Wholesale
Customers that elect to participate and
implement within their respective service
areas). As detailed in BAWSCA’s FY 2021-
22 Annual Water Conservation Report, all
26 Wholesale Customers benefit from the
twelve Core Programs implemented by
BAWSCA, including landscape education
classes, conservation workshops, and public
educational materials. In FY 2021-22, 23 out
of 26 Wholesale Customers participated in
one or more of the fourteen Subscription
Programs offered by BAWSCA, including
rebates, water loss management and large
landscape audits. BAWSCA continues to refine
Sunol Yard water efficient landscaping
46 AWS Program Role
and add to its suite of water conservation programs in an effort to reduce overall demand. The FY 2021-22 BAWSCA Annual Survey found an average residential per capita consumption of 60.27 gpcd across the wholesale service area, with 16 of the Wholesale Customers having a water use of less than 60 gpcd, all of which reflects the region’s commitment to water conservation. In addition to the BAWSCA conservation programs, many of the member agencies administer additional water conservation measures independently or through another entity, such as Valley Water.

4.2 Reducing Demands on the RWS through Local Water Projects It is important to distinguish local water supply projects from the regional water supply projects, or the AWS Projects, that are the focus of this Plan. AWS Projects are intended to augment regional supplies and have widespread water supply benefit to the SFPUC service area. In contrast, local water supply projects have the potential to reduce demands on the RWS by implementing projects that utilize non-RWS supplies within a retail service area. Examples would include a retail water agency using local groundwater resources, promoting residential- or commercial- scale graywater and stormwater capture and reuse programs, or promoting water recycling programs implemented by a local water agency to meet non-potable demands within its retail service area. The SFPUC implements many of these types of programs as the retail service provider for San Francisco, and BAWSCA member agencies, retail water agencies in their own right, are implementing many of these types of programs throughout the wholesale service area, consistent with their agreement to do so under the WSA.

SFPUC Retail Local Water Projects
The SFPUC has been working for years to identify and bring on new local water supply resources in the retail service area through a number of programs including:

Westside Enhanced Recycled Water Project which
can provide up to 2 mgd of recycled water to meet
non-potable demands in Golden Gate Park and other
irrigated landscapes on the west side of San Francisco.

San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project that utilizes
groundwater from the Westside Groundwater Basin in
San Francisco as a drinking water supply. Groundwater is treated and blended with the City’s RWS supplies before it is delivered to in-City retail customers. Currently, less than 1 mgd is being blended into the City’s drinking water supply. Over time, pumping can be gradually increased
in order to blend up to 4 mgd of treated groundwater
with regional water supplies.

Westside Enhanced Recycled
Water pumps, 2022
47 AWS Program Role
Onsite Water Reuse Program which is an innovative program that mandates the collection, treatment, and use of graywater, blackwater, rainwater, stormwater, and foundation drainage in new buildings over 100,000 square-feet to meet non-potable demands such as toilet flushing and irrigation. By 2040, the total potable water offset by the Onsite Water Reuse Program will be approximately 1.5 mgd.

Stormwater Capture and Reuse Program that provides rebates for the purchase of cisterns and rain barrels for residents and business to capture rainwater for irrigation use, thus saving drinking water and reducing the amount of stormwater that enters the City’s combined sewer system. This program also supports capital projects that increase the beneficial reuse of stormwater such as the Vista Grande Drainage Basin Improvement Project.

Innovations Program which promotes exploration of new ways to conserve water, recover resources, and diversify the City’s water supply. Efforts being explored or implemented under the program include atmospheric water generation, the use of new technologies to detect leaks and reduce losses in the City’s water distribution system, and Brewery Process Water Reuse grant opportunities for breweries to collect, treat, and reuse process water generated onsite. In 2021, Anchor Brewing Company, San Francisco’s oldest brewery, completed construction of a brewery process water recycling system that has the capacity to recycle up to 20 million gallons per year.

PureWaterSF is another significant local water project in San Francisco that could reduce retail water demands. The SFPUC is exploring the potential to provide a new, local drinking water supply in San Francisco through the use of purified water. As described in the adjacent project highlight, PureWaterSF could provide up to 5.2 mgd of purified water in San Francisco with approximately 1.2 mgd serving non- potable uses and 4 mgd being blended with RWS supplies for distribution throughout San Francisco to serve potable demands.

Anchor Brewery
Water Reuse Project, 2021
48 AWS Program Role
University
Mound
Reservoir
Pacific Ocean
San Francisco
Bay

SAN FRANCISCO

SERVICE AREA
Merced Manor
Reservoir
Sunset
Reservoir
Oceanside
Treatment
Plant
Advanced
Water Treatment
Facility
Advanced
Water Treatment
Facility
Southeast
Treatment
Plant
Wastewater
Treatment
All locations and sizes
shown are approximate
and represent the
general vicinity for
potential facilities.

LEGEND
Proposed Pipeline
Proposed Project
Facility
Water Treatment
PureWaterSF: San Francisco’s Opportunity to Further Reduce Demand on the RWS PureWaterSF is a project concept that envisions providing a new, sustainable drinking water supply in San Francisco by treating recycled water originating from the Oceanside and Southeast Treatment Plants, which treat combined flows of wastewater and stormwater. Research on this concept began in 2016 with grant funding from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Water Research Foundation. The SFPUC installed a temporary advanced treatment system at the end of an existing water recycling system at its own headquarters in San Francisco. The treatment included ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and disinfection with ultraviolet light and advanced oxidation. The research analyzed thousands of data points through third-party laboratories with specialized equipment to conclude that advanced water treatment produces consistently high- quality water that meets or exceeds regulatory standards, even at the building scale.

The research marked the beginning of the SFPUC’s investigation of purified water as a supply solution in San Francisco and throughout the service area.

In 2021-2022, after the successful completion of the research, the SFPUC conducted a feasibility study that evaluated four potential scenarios for purified water in San Francisco, including costs and infrastructure needs to meet stringent emerging regulatory requirements. As a result of this feasibility study and a related concurrent study that evaluated the potential for non-potable water supply on the east side of San Francisco, the SFPUC plans to continue developing a project concept that would consist of two parallel plants that distribute water throughout the city, one 2 mgd purified water plant on the east side and one 2 mgd purified water plant on the west side. An additional 1.2 mgd may be added to the plant on the east side to address non- potable demands. Technical studies, siting, environmental review, financial analysis, and demonstration and engagement with the public and regulators will all be needed as the project concept is developed. If implemented, this project could result in reducing San Francisco’s demand from the RWS by 5.2 mgd by 2045. Meanwhile, a redesign of the existing reuse system at the SFPUC headquarters building is currently underway and the SFPUC plans to make purified water a permanent demonstrable feature at its building in the near future.

PureWaterSF
Location and
Facilities
49 AWS Program Role
Wholesale Service Area Local Water Projects
In the wholesale service area, individual customers are implementing a variety of local water supply projects of various sizes. Plans for those projects are considered by each Wholesale Customer and are included in their respective UWMPs. 1 Demand
studies, along with the BAWSCA Annual Survey, factor those local projects into consideration when calculating the projected purchases from the RWS. As shown in the FY 2021-22 BAWSCA Annual Survey, by the year 2045, Wholesale Customers will have invested locally such that 35.7% of their water demand will be met by sources other than RWS, as shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2: Wholesale Customer 2045 Demand Projections by Source

San Francisco RWS Supply:
170.6 mgd
2045
Wholesale
Customer
Total Projected
Supplies:
265.4 mgd
Other Sources:

40.5 mgd
Groundwater:

28.0 mgd
Recycled
Water:

17.0 mgd
Surface Water:

6.4 mgd Additional
Conservation:

2.8 mgd
To further the discussion of collaboration on potential planned projects, BAWSCA held a One Water Reliability Series (Roundtable Series) which brought together different water professionals spanning across the BAWSCA service area including its member agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), counties, wastewater agencies, and other leaders and experts in water related fields. The three primary goals of the Roundtable Series were to: (1) understand how existing and planned projects in the region fit within the One Water concept, (2) identify the potential for collaborative opportunities, and (3) offer ideas for how entities could potentially support, help finance, permit, approve, and expand projects or programs that have the potential to offer multiple benefits.
1 Wholesale Customer UWMPs can be found at www.bawsca.org/members/urban_water_management 50 AWS Program Role
As part of the Roundtable Series, BAWSCA obtained Project Information Forms from all Wholesale Customers regarding what types of water supply projects are being planned, in-progress, or are at a conceptual level within each agency. As of February 2023, a total of 51 potential projects have been identified that include a broad range of supply projects including recycled water, groundwater extraction, and stormwater, among others. Approximately 43% of identified potential projects are in -progress, 37% are in the planning stage, and another 20% are in the conceptual stage.

As the regional water provider, the SFPUC has a need to meet its customers’ demands and its legal and contractual obligations to its customers. However, the implementation of local water supply projects can provide multiple benefits through the efficient use of local resources, including building resilience while helping to reduce demands on the RWS. To this end, the SFPUC will continue to look for opportunities to expand local projects in its own retail service area and collaborate with the Wholesale Customers to encourage ongoing implementation of local water projects throughout the wholesale service area.

4.3 Other Projects to Increase the Availability of Existing Surfac e Water Supplies
The surface water supplies delivered through the RWS will continue to be the backbone of the SFPUC’s water supply. Therefore, the SFPUC is identifying other regional actions outside of the AWS Program that can be taken to maintain and increase the availability of supplies delivered through the RWS, especially under dry-year conditions. Examples are the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (RGSR) project and the Alameda Creek Recapture Project, both of which have been initiated as part of WSIP, as well as potential future projects with irrigation districts in the San Joaquin Valley.

Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project. The RGSR project involves the management of surface water and groundwater supplies in the Westside Groundwater Basin that extends through San Mateo and San Francisco counties to increase reliability for the RWS in dry years. Through a regional partnership with California Water Service Company (serving South San Francisco and Colma) and the cities of Daly City and San Bruno, the RGSR will balance groundwater and RWS supply through in-lieu deliveries and resulting groundwater recharge during wet years to increase dry-year water supplies. During normal and wet years, when surface water is plentiful, additional water from the RWS is delivered to the partner agencies, which reduces their need to pump groundwater and thus allows the groundwater basin to naturally recharge. Over time, this reduction in groundwater pumping will result in a water savings account of up to 61,000 acre-feet of water, a volume equivalent to that of the SFPUC’s Crystal Springs Reservoir. This water stored in the groundwater basin can then be sustainably pumped to augment RWS supplies during a drought or other 51 AWS Program Role
emergency. The project is currently being implemented and will include the installation of 7 to 9 wells, which can produce approximately 3.6 mgd of supply annually under dry conditions. To achieve the full 6.2 mgd annual supply originally planned for under WSIP, additional wells, associated treatment systems, and potentially storage would have to be commissioned. Prioritizing completion of this project would ensure that the RWS would be able to deliver the expected supply in future dry years and not increase the shortage further.

Alameda Creek Recapture Project. The Alameda Creek Recapture Project includes new facilities in and around an existing quarry pit in Sunol Valley to recover the loss of water supply associated with instream flow release and bypass requirements related to the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project. During the initial stage of construction, the SFPUC concluded that re-evaluation of the design is necessary before proceeding with construction of the project. It is anticipated that completion of the project can provide the 5 mgd of water supply assumed in the baseline modeling for the AWS Program.

Joint Projects with Irrigation Districts. There are currently a number of projects being investigated that would strengthen the availability of existing surface water supplies from the Tuolumne River watershed under dry-year conditions. Groundwater banking in the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts could be used to provide additional water supply to meet instream flow requirements while reducing the water supply impacts to the SFPUC service area in dry years. Inter-basin collaborations, which could include establishing partnerships between interests on the Tuolumne River and those on the Stanislaus River, have the potential to address streamflow requirements in the basins based on annual hydrology and could create opportunities to beneficially use excess flow to between the two basins. These types of projects help identify collaborative approaches to provide instream flows during dry periods while helping to preserve the availability of RWS supplies. These projects are part of a broader cooperative effort with the Irrigation Districts in parallel with the Voluntary Agreement process. Developments and any resultant effects on the supply gap will be included in future AWS Plan updates.

4.4 AWS Planning Approach
The AWS Program looks beyond existing surface water supplies of the RWS to new and diverse or alternative water supply projects such as groundwater banking, surface water storage expansion with existing or new supply sources, water transfers, purified water, as well as technological innovations and other tools to increase the reliability of regional water supplies.

Implementing, integrating, and delivering alternative water supplies requires detailed planning that considers unique and interrelated issues. Additionally, new water supply projects take years to plan and implement and require significant capital outlay.

To minimize the financial and operational risks of overcommitting capital while 52 AWS Program Role
ensuring that there are sufficient water supplies being developed to help fill the projected water supply gap,
the SFPUC has established an approach to help guide
the AWS planning process. As described in the following sections, the process considers the planning challenges unique to alternative water supply planning, establishes a program goal to guide long term decision making, and
establishes planning principles that guide identification of AWS Projects and AWS Program recommendations.

Furthermore, the SFPUC recognizes that the AWS Program
must be a dynamic process that will require continued
review and update.

4.4.1 Challenges Unique to Alternative Water Supply
Planning
Many of the planning challenges associated with developing new and alternative water supplies are different than
those associated with traditional water supply planning at the SFPUC. While every project presents a unique set of circumstances and challenges, common issues that must
be addressed for alternative water supply projects include operational considerations of integrating new supplies
into existing infrastructure, water quality considerations, distribution of new supplies, institutional considerations around multi-party partnership projects, affordability, and addressing community acceptance of new water supplies.

Operational Considerations of Integrating New Supplies
The current water supply conveyed by the RWS generally flows from east to west by gravity, from the Sierra Nevada to San Francisco. The RWS relies on storage and conveyance infrastructure to distribute supplies throughout the SFPUC’s service area. Tie-in locations for new supplies would need to be based on the proximity and feasibility of connecting the new supply to existing RWS facilities. How and where new supplies are brought into the RWS can affect capacity, timing of deliveries and storage, flow rates, and operating pressures. For example, connecting two systems with different pressures can require new infrastructure, such as pump stations. When new supplies use available capacity of major transmission pipelines, the tradeoff may be that it becomes more difficult to move existing surface water supplies within the system. The type of new water supply being brought into the system may also impact the timing of when supplies are available. For example, purified water projects that provide water every year, including in wet or normal years when surface water supplies are sufficient, may affect decisions about how storage is operated, and which Regional alternative
water supply projects
that help address the
future water supply
gap including:

Groundwater
Puriﬁ ed water
Desalination
Recycled water
Storage expansion
AWS Program
Focus
Developing
alternative water
supplies presents
new planning
challenges that are
different from those
associated with
traditional water
supply planning.
53 AWS Program Role
supplies are prioritized. All of these considerations can impact system operations and necessitate changes in operational approaches.

Water Quality Considerations
Alternative water supply projects include the delivery of water supplies from new sources such as purified water, groundwater, and desalinated water, and also may include surface water supplies from new sources such as the Delta. The result is that water from a number of alternative supply sources may be commingled with the existing surface water supply in the RWS. Like RWS supplies, alternative supply sources will be required to meet or exceed federal and State drinking water standards and will be subject to testing and monitoring on an ongoing basis. However, planning for the combined effect of multiple supply sources requires that water quality impacts be considered. For example, purified water projects require careful evaluation and understanding of emerging regulatory requirements and tradeoffs of storing purified water in surface water reservoirs ( indirect potable reuse) or of introducing purified water directly into transmission or distribution facilities (direct potable reuse).

Utilizing surface water from new sources such as the Delta could increase the risk of introducing invasive species into Bay Area surface water reservoirs or potentially cause changes to existing treatment operations. These different types of issues will require careful evaluation of existing facility operations and potential changes to existing water quality monitoring approaches.

Crystal Springs Reservoir, 2019
54 AWS Program Role
Distribution of Alternative Water Supplies
Currently, the RWS supplies are relatively homogenous. That is, the RWS supplies are primarily surface water supplies distributed to customers throughout the service area.

With the introduction of AWS Projects, specific tie-in locations of new supplies within the existing RWS system will determine the point at which new supplies would be introduced downstream (to the west) into the RWS and the resulting distribution to customers within the service area. This may result in different “supply portfolios” for different customers depending on their location within the SFPUC service area. While it is not possible to evenly distribute each supply source throughout the service area, the SFPUC, as part of its implementation of the AWS Program, will strive to achieve equitable distribution of supplies throughout the retail and wholesale service areas.

In planning, this means that there will need to be a conscious effort to ensure that both the increased reliability benefits that come with a more diverse water supply, and the physical distribution of new supplies, are as wide-ranging as practical across the service area.

Institutional Issues Involving Multi-Party Partnership Projects Implementing alternative water supply projects often involves complex partnerships with other public or private agencies. For example, purified water projects require a wastewater purveyor as a partner, and shared storage projects require agreements between reservoir operators and partners. Different agencies have different interests and priorities, which will shape how project agreements are developed.

Project partnership agreements will require negotiations on cost and water supply allocations that could affect the SFPUC’s share of water supply benefits. While regional partnerships will be increasingly necessary to more efficiently distribute limited regional water supplies, they will require that the SFPUC approach the costs and value of these water supply investments differently from those of past water supply investments. Historically, the SFPUC has invested largely in infrastructure that it has owned and operated. Capital investments and planning have emphasized the cost of building or enhancing assets rather than the ongoing expenditure needed to continue to operate and maintain them. In partnership projects, long-term contracts may emphasize responsibilities and costs of operation & maintenance (O&M costs) for assets that the SFPUC may not own. How the SFPUC values the water supply and reliability benefits associated with AWS Projects will drive how the SFPUC and its partners make investment decisions and how contracts and cost-share arrangements among parties are structured. Willingness, ability to pay, and available financing options for reliability during dry years may be different from traditional asset-based investments.

55 AWS Program Role
Affordability
Building large new capital infrastructure is expensive. In addition to capital costs, alternative water supplies also require development of operational capacity to manage and integrate new supplies. Project phasing is a strategy that is being included in Projects to both spread costs out over time, and to enable the SFPUC to continue to revisit planning projections and the anticipated water supply gap as they evolve before committing to additional project investments. AWS Projects may also be eligible for State and federal grant funds such as Title XVI grant funding from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. As planning continues at the project level, affordability remains a key programmatic challenge that has to be balanced with the need for additional supplies to improve dry year supply reliability. Identifying creative financing solutions and approaches is an important next step in the development of the AWS Program in order to minimize the financial impact of AWS Project implementation to SFPUC customers, including it’s the most vulnerable communities.

Community Acceptance
Having diverse water supply sources improves water supply reliability. Therefore, the more water supply sources in a given part of the service area, the greater the water supply resilience in that area. However, it is not uncommon for customers to perceive that there are differences in water quality among different sources, which may impact what is considered equitable distribution of supplies. Community acceptance of varied water supplies will be important for the successful implementation of the AWS Program. For example, surface water supplies from the RWS have long been viewed as a high-quality source by SFPUC customers. While the SFPUC will maintain its high- quality standards across all supply sources, customers may not perceive alternate sources such as groundwater, transfer water, or purified water with the same regard despite those sources’ meeting or exceeding the same regulatory standards and testing and monitoring requirements. Community engagement through outreach and information sharing can help improve the deliverability of projects and distribution of supplies and will be a critical element of the AWS Program.

WSIP Calaveras Dam Replacement Groundbreaking Ceremony, 2011 56 AWS Program Role

4.4.2 AWS Program Goal
The AWS Program is evaluating new projects that will address the projected future water supply gap for the SFPUC service area. The AWS Program goal was developed to align with the SFPUC’s LOS Goals and Objectives. Based on the water supply gap identified in Chapter 3 (Future Water Supply Gap), there is specifically a need to address the reliability of the RWS supplies in dry years. These elements of the AWS Program are captured in the AWS Program goal. The goal defines what the AWS Program intends to achieve over the planning period.

The goal of the AWS Program is to identify water supply projects that increase the dry-year reliability of RWS supplies and address the long-term water supply gap in alignment with the LOS Goals and Objectives.

4.4.3 AWS Planning Principles
The AWS planning principles are intended to guide the identification of the AWS Projects and recommendations that advance the Program toward addressing its long- term goal, while accounting for known drivers and challenges. The planning principles, shown in Table 4-1, are written in a manner that is intended to be broad, durable, and applicable over the duration of the AWS planning period.

Successful implementation of the AWS Program requires a balance between securing future reliability and maintaining affordability, both of which are critical SFPUC goals. The AWS Program must focus on implementing water supply projects that will address long-term customer demands and obligations without overbuilding or overcommitting capital funding. By considering the different planning principles, AWS recommendations can be phased and prioritized to address the AWS Program goal in a balanced approach that accounts for
the varying drivers and challenges. Often a
project will consider many different planning
principles, other times it will focus more
singularly on one principle. But ultimately,
by considering the principles throughout
the planning process, the AWS Program
recommendations will lead the SFPUC toward
its long-term goal in a balanced manner
without dictating a particular approach.

AWS planning principles minimize
the risk of overcommitting capital
while ensuring that there are
sufficient water supplies being
developed to address the future
water supply gap.
57 AWS Program Role
Table 4-1: AWS Planning Principles
Planning Principle Basis
Continue to assess
opportunities to reduce
water consumption
The SFPUC has a successful history of
implementing aggressive conservation and
demand management programs as the retail water
service provider to San Francisco. These efforts
have resulted in a per capita residential water
consumption that is roughly half the statewide
average. As the system operator of the RWS, the
SFPUC recognizes the importance of conservation
throughout the service area as an approach to
reduce demand on the RWS. Conservation is a
vital step that must be taken in conjunction with
identifying alternative water supplies to ensure
that the AWS Program provides long-term water
resiliency while providing prudent and well-founded
recommendations.

Plan for obligations and
build for demands
Based on historical data and current projections,
customers’ actual water demands on the RWS
tend to be lower than SFPUC’s obligations. Still,
the SFPUC’s agreement to deliver water up to the
amount of the Supply Assurance and the Wholesale
Customers’ ISGs is perpetual. In addition, the
SFPUC has an obligation to provide the Retail
Allocation of up to 81 mgd to Retail Customers
if needed. Therefore, the AWS Program and Plan
address water supplies needed to meet these
obligations while prioritizing investments for
meeting customer demands.

Diversify supplies Diversifying water supply options through the use of groundwater, recycled water, desalinated water,
and purified water is a long-standing objective
of the SFPUC and is reflected in the LOS Goals
and Objectives and other SFPUC policies such as
OneWaterSF. This planning principle reinforces that
diversification of supplies is central to the AWS
Program and of particular importance given the
long-term risks to surface water availability from
factors such as potential future regulations and
climate uncertainty.
58 AWS Program Role
Planning Principle Basis
Maximize use of existing
surface water supplies
through optimizing
system efficiency and
operations
This planning principle recognizes that existing
surface water supplies delivered through the RWS
will continue to be an essential portion of the
SFPUC’s water supply for the foreseeable future.

Continuing efforts to optimize system operations is
a strategy to maintain supply and increase system
resiliency.

Phase projects in a way
that they can be scaled
This allows for informed decision-making that
considers near-term water demands in relation to
long-term goals, while minimizing the financial and
operational risks of overbuilding or overcommitting
financial resources.

Encourage partnerships
that increase the
reliability of water
supplies throughout the
service area
Planning for and implementing alternative water
supplies requires consideration of different
approaches from those used for traditional water
supply planning at the SFPUC. This planning
principle recognizes that these approaches often
rely on multi-party partnerships that are needed for
developing and integrating new supplies into the
SFPUC water supply portfolio.

Ensure that AWS Program
recommendations are
consistent with the LOS
Goals and Objectives and
other existing SFPUC
policies and standards
This planning principle recognizes that existing
policies and standards set the basis for
identifying the water supply gap and developing
recommendations. As policies and standards
change, the AWS Program would be updated
to reflect how any changes impact assumptions
around the water supply gap.

Update the AWS Plan so
that it is responsive to
changing conditions
This planning principle recognizes that the AWS
Program requires a dynamic planning process
that must be adaptive to changing conditions and
challenges. The recommendations included in the
AWS Plan must be reviewed periodically so that
they continue to address the water supply gap as it
is understood based on the most current conditions
and changing drivers, and updated water demands
on the RWS.
59 AWS Program Role

4.4.4 Purpose of the AWS Plan
The purpose of the AWS Plan is to:
• Identify the future water supply shortfall to meet obligations and demands through the 2045 planning period as they are currently understood • Identify AWS Projects that can augment RWS supply
• Support the SFPUC Commission’s decision-making by providing recommendations that will move the AWS Program forward, as well as other policy decisions

4.4.5 Strategies for Supporting Informed Decision-Making For each of the proposed AWS Projects included in the AWS Plan, planning is in the early stages. Large, complex water supply projects require a long lead time to fully develop and implement. There is a need to progress systematically from planning to environmental review, and then to detailed design, permitting, and construction.

During this time, it will be important to continually review and understand the status of different projects in relation to the current drivers, and the most up-to-date long- term water supply shortfall estimates. Doing so allows appropriate assessment of the next steps in developing the projects and helps the SFPUC make informed decisions about how to proceed with each project as more information is available.

Several of the AWS planning principles help decision making around AWS recommen- dations in a stepwise manner. Specifically, these principles include:

Update the AWS Plan so that it can be responsive to changing conditions. This includes setting a schedule for regular updates to the SFPUC Commission on overall program and project progress, as well as making specific updates to both water availability and customer demands that inform the water supply gap described in the Plan and making updates to project and programmatic recommendations. Ensuring these key elements of the Plan are updated on a regular basis will be a critical element to supporting decision-making and identifying key decision points on how to proceed with each project as they move from planning toward implementation.

For example, as discussed in Chapter 3 (Future Water Supply Gap), the driver with the most significant impact on water availability is the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. As currently proposed, the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment would reduce water availability by 93 mgd. However, the requirements of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment are still under review as part of the Proposed Voluntary Agreement 60 AWS Program Role
discussions and may change as a result of ongoing negotiations between the SFPUC and the State. The results of these negotiations will impact water availability which will in turn impact future water supply gap estimates. Regular updates to the AWS Plan will be critical to ensure that the Plan recommendations are responsive to these, and other, changing conditions.

Phase projects in a way they can be scaled. This allows project recommendations to be phased to balance forward action and progress of project development, while minimizing the risk of overcommitting financial resources. Large new water supply projects will take years to fully plan and design before construction can begin. A phased approach allows for the planning and engineering activities associated with projects to progress in phases so that projects progress in a stepwise manner and in conjunction with the continual review and update of the drivers of the water supply gap.

Pilarcitos Reservoir, 2019
61 AWS Program Role
Calaveras Dam Replacement, 2012
AWS Projects
63 Chapter 5: AWS Projects
This chapter describes the projects that have been identified under the AWS Program.

Given the wide range and diverse nature of the projects, this chapter provides an overview of each AWS Project as it is currently understood to support decision making for the next steps of AWS Program development. A detailed discussion of programmatic and project recommendations is presented in Chapter 6 (AWS Recommendations).

As described in Chapter 4 (AWS Program Role in Addressing the Future Water Supply Gap), AWS Projects go beyond the supplies currently delivered through the RWS.

The AWS Projects included in this chapter are intended to augment regional supply with new, alternative water supplies and have widespread benefit throughout the SFPUC service area. While it is understood that supply augmentation is just one part of long-term water supply planning along with conservation and implementation of local projects, this chapter does not include conservation actions or local water supply project options that would be pursued by the SFPUC in its role as the retail service provider for San Francisco, nor those local actions and projects that would be implemented by BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers.

5.1 Characterization of AWS Projects
The SFPUC is pursuing a broad range of projects under the AWS Program. The projects are characterized by their type (supply, storage, conveyance), their supply availability (dry-year, all-year).

5.1.1 Type of Project and Water Supply
The projects included in the AWS Program are characterized as supply projects, storage projects, or conveyance projects. Supply projects are further characterized by the type of supply produced (surface water, purified water, groundwater, or recycled water).

Supply Projects
In the AWS Program, supply projects provide a new source of supply to the SFPUC service area. Currently the SFPUC service area is served with surface water supplies generated in the Tuolumne River watershed and from Bay Area watersheds. Adding new and different supply sources can not only help fill the water supply gap that is anticipated under future dry-year conditions, it can also diversify risks associated with relying on just a small number of water sources. The different water sources utilized by the AWS Projects include:

Surface Water - Surface water supply projects under the AWS Program utilize a surface water supply that is outside of the SFPUC’s existing supplies (Tuolumne watershed and Bay Area watersheds). Surface water supplies may also include brackish water.

Surface water supply projects would rely on a combination of transfers, storage, and conveyance to make the supply available within the SFPUC service area.

Purified Water – Purified water projects generate potable water through the advanced treatment of wastewater. Purified water can be made available to the SFPUC service area through indirect potable reuse (IPR) or direct potable reuse (DPR). IPR projects are those where purified water is blended in surface water reservoirs (referred to as reservoir augmentation) or injected into groundwater basins (groundwater recharge) before it is added to distribution facilities. Regulations for these processes have been in place in California as of 2018 and 2014, respectively. DPR projects are those where purified water is added directly to the distribution system. This may be done through raw water augmentation, which is the planned placement of purified water into a system of pipelines that deliver raw water to a drinking water treatment plant, or treated water augmentation, which is the planned placement of purified water into the water distribution system. Regulations for these types of projects are under development and are anticipated in December 2023, and likely to become effective by mid-2024. While it is very common for the terms IPR and DPR to be used in the water industry, the State regulations are based on the more specific treatment and delivery pathways of reservoir augmentation, groundwater recharge, raw water augmentation, and treated water augmentation.

Groundwater – Groundwater can be utilized in
a variety of ways. It can be used directly as a
drinking water supply, and it can also be managed
for storage and recovery in dry years. This
storage and recovery approach is accomplished
by offsetting groundwater use in normal or wet
years with available surface water supplies or,
in the case of non-potable use of groundwater,
with alternatives supplies such as recycled water.

The groundwater that is offset accumulates, or is
stored, in the basin and then recovered for use as
a potable supply in future dry years when surface
water supplies are limited.

Recycled water – Recycled water is wastewater that is carefully treated to be safe for a variety of non-potable uses. The projects included in the AWS Program are aimed at increasing potable water supplies. Recycled water has a role in increasing potable water supplies when it can be used to offset potable water use, as described above in groundwater storage and recovery projects.

San Francisco
groundwater well, 2021
64 AWS Projects
Storage Projects
With the growing uncertainties associated with precipitation and drought, storage forms a critical element of AWS planning. Due to extreme changes from severe weather patterns and their effect on the timing of water availability, it is important to have sufficient storage for making the water available for use in dry years. Planning for storage also needs to account for 1) water supply to fill and utilize the storage facility and 2) conveyance to ensure delivery of the water to customers. Thus, identifying and developing connectivity between the different water infrastructure elements from the source to the customer helps ensure reliable service delivery. Different types of storage options may include:

Surface water storage – Surface water storage includes expanding or building new reservoirs.

Groundwater storage – Water supplies can also be stored below ground by sustainably managing groundwater aquifers as storage for future dry-year reliability. Storage can be realized by offsetting use of groundwater and thus preserving it by utilizing alternative water supplies (through storage and recovery projects, as described above) and also by percolation or injection of water supply into the aquifer for future recovery.

Conveyance Projects
Conveyance facilities connect existing or new facilities and enable deliveries of water.

Conveyance projects may include making improvements to or increasing capacities of existing transmission facilities or building new tie-ins or connections between existing facilities. In addition to evaluating options for building new infrastructure as needed, the AWS Program actively considers how it may utilize existing facilities that are part of the RWS and those that are owned by other agencies that may allow for efficient and cost-effective connections and deliveries. The AWS Program continues to assess existing RWS facilities for their potential for managing new supplies.

Calaveras Reservoir, 2008
65 AWS Projects

5.1.2 Supply Availability
As discussed in Chapter 3 (Future Water Supply Gap), the AWS Program has identified a significant water supply shortfall in dry years to meet 2045 demands and existing and potential obligations. As such, the focus of the AWS Plan is to identify supplies that can meet this dry-year need. Projects with different supply availability can help fill this need in different ways.

Projects that provide dry-year supply – For these projects, supplies are available only in dry years due to the type of supply available and/or the project operations. For example, storage projects may store excess surface water in reservoirs that is then available during dry years. Groundwater storage and recovery projects operate in a similar way where groundwater is allowed to accumulate in aquifers during wet periods, and then is pumped during dry periods. These types of projects are part of an important strategy in the AWS Program to augment regional supplies and improve the reliability of the RWS in dry years.

Projects that provide supplies in all years – These projects produce water in both dry years and wet/normal years. For example, purified water projects produce drinking water by taking water that has been recycled from wastewater and putting it through advanced treatment and membrane filtration processes so that it is safe to drink and meets the required health and safety standards. Because the supply is not dependent on rainfall or snowmelt, it is available in all year types. Typically, these types of membrane-based treatment projects must be operated continuously because of the sensitivity of the membranes; therefore, they provide a purified water supply regardless of need, which can create complications for storage or conveyance capacity during wet or normal periods when the RWS storage and conveyance facilities are typically at capacity with surface water supplies. So, while these projects are desirable in their ability to produce a drought-proof supply, they do have operational tradeoffs related to storage and conveyance which must be resolved to optimize their overall water supply benefit.

5.2 Overview of AWS Projects
The AWS Program has identified six projects that can help address the future water supply gap. Figure 5-1 shows the general location of the AWS Projects. Of the six AWS Projects, one has three interlinked components associated with the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir: storage, conveyance, and supply. These components are broken out in order to characterize the considerations and attributes of each component and are described separately as projects 5A, 5B, and 5C, respectively.

Table 5-1 provides key attributes for each of the AWS Projects, including SFPUC supply assumed for each project, estimated online date, and capital cost estimates. Each of these attributes are described further in Section 5.2.1 through Section 5.2.3. Section

5.3 provides a Project Description Table for each of the six AWS Projects. 66 AWS Projects
Figure 5-1: Map of AWS Project Locations

Quarry
Lakes San Antonio
Reservoir
Calaveras
Reservoir
Lake
Del Valle
San Francisco
Bay
San Andreas
Reservoir
San Pablo
Reservoir
Crystal
Springs
Reservoir
Pilarcitos
Reservoir
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
Bethany
Reservoir
Briones
Reservoir
Colma
Cemeteries
Palo Alto
San Jose
Hayward
San Leandro
Oakland
Richmond
Martinez
Antioch
Livermore
Pleasanton
Sunol
San Francisco
Half
Moon Bay
San Mateo
Walnut
Creek
Pleasant Hill
Danville
San Ramon
Pi/t_tsburg
Altamont
Brentwood
Tracy
Orinda
Clayton
1 2
3 4
Daly City Recycled
Water Expansion
Project
PureWater Peninsula
Project

Shaded circles serve to indicate project facilities associated with each project; they do not indicate project size or volume of water produced.

Existing Pipeline
Potential/Proposed Pipeline
Potential/Proposed Project Facility
Alternate Potential/Proposed Project Facility
Water Treatment
Water Storage
Potential New Outfall
Wastewater Treatment
Intertie
Turnout
5C
Supply
Alternatives for
Los Vaqueros
Expansion Project
5A
Conveyance
Alternatives for
Los Vaqueros
Expansion Project
5B
6 NOT TO
SCALE
67 AWS Projects
68 69
AWS Projects
AWS Projects
Table 5-1: AWS Project Summary Table
Regional AWS Project How Project Augments RWS Dry-Year Supply Status and
Cost Estimate
Classifications*
SFPUC Supply
Assumed
(mgd)
Estimated
Online Date

RECYCLED WATER / GROUNDWATER

1. Daly City
Recycled
Water
Expansion
Recycled water is produced for irrigation
customers, replacing groundwater pumping.

In-lieu groundwater recharge will result in
stored drinking water for dry years.

Design

Class 3

0.7 2030

PURIFIED WATER (POTABLE REUSE)

2. PureWater
Peninsula
Treated wastewater effluent from the City
of San Mateo and Silicon Valley Clean Water
can be treated to drinking water standards
at a new advanced water treatment plant. A
new conveyance pipeline and pump stations
would deliver purified water to Crystal Springs
Reservoir where it would blend with other RWS
supplies. Water can be available in all years,
including in dry years.

Planning

Class 5
6 2039

3. ACWD-USD
Purified
Water
Treated wastewater effluent from Union Sanitary
District can be treated to drinking water
standards at a new advanced water treatment
plant. A new pipeline would deliver purified
water to Alameda County Water District’s
groundwater basin for recharge. Water can be
extracted and treated again for use in dry years.

Planning

Class 5

5.4 2039

4. South Bay
Purified
Water
Treated wastewater effluent from the Regional
Wastewater Facility in San Jose can be treated
to drinking water standards at a new advanced
water treatment plant. The new supply would be
treated in accordance with new DPR regulations
for distribution. New storage, conveyance, and
pumping are included in the costs. While the
project may produce water in all years for the
region, the RWS is only expected to receive
water in dry years.

Planning

Class 5

3.5 2038
Project Capacity Total Capital Costs
($ mil) Estimated
Capital Cost per
Acre-Foot
($/af)
Considerations for Future Cost Estimating
mgd acre-feet
per year Escalated 2023 $

0.7 784 $120 $99 $4,203
• Recycled water produced is 1.06 mgd and equivalent
modeled storage benefit in groundwater basin is 0.7
mgd, which represents 100% of the cost and benefit
here
•
Total capital costs include treatment, conveyance, and
storage, escalated to the mid-point of construction
• No sharing of benefits among partners or cost-share
determined at this time, though it is anticipated
12 13,440 $1,168 $753 $1,868
• Project includes two phases with half the water
coming from each of two wastewater treatment plants
• No water supply sharing has been determined among
partners, but SFPUC assumes 50% supply for planning
• Total capital costs include treatment, conveyance and pumping, escalated to the mid-point of construction

5.4 6,048 $1,301 $824 $4,541
• Feasibility study evaluated two distinct phases;
however, the characteristics of each phase are very
different and will require additional evaluation. It is unlikely that Phase 2 would be online by 2045
•
Only Phase 1 was assumed for cost and wat er supply
estimating (includes treatment and conveyance);
total capital costs are escalated to mid-point of
construction
•
100% of the water supply attributed to the SFPUC for
planning purposes
10 11,200 $658 $425 $1,264
• Project capacity of 10 mgd includes 6.5 mgd that
would be delivered to San Jose and Santa Clara in all
years
•
The SFPUC’s water supply is assumed to be 3.5 mgd
in dry years only
• Total capital costs include treatment, storage,
conveyance, and pumping for 10-mgd project
• Total capital costs are escalated to the mid-point of construction
* Cost Estimate Classifications are based on generally-accepted standards of project cost estimating, used to classify the degree of project definition and maturity. This system has five classes, Class 5 being the least defined and Class 1 being the most definitive. 70 71
AWS Projects
AWS Projects
Regional AWS Project How Project Augments RWS Dry-Year Supply Status and
Cost Estimate
Classifications*
SFPUC Supply
Assumed
(mgd)
Estimated Online
Date

STORAGE WITH CONVEYANCE (AND SUPPLY, AS NEEDED)
5A. Los Vaqueros
Expansion
+
5B. Conveyance
Alternatives
+
5C. Supply
Alternatives
(Transfers)
This project option reflects the cost of
securing the SFPUC’s portion of the
project (40,000 acre-feet of storage), the
associated cost of conveyance infrastructure
to deliver water to the RWS, and purchase
of transfer water to fill storage, which is
accounted here as part of capital costs.

Design

Storage,
Class 2
Conveyance
and Supply,
Class 5

3.9 2030
5A. Los Vaqueros
Expansion
+
5B. Conveyance
Alternatives
+
5C. Supply
Alternatives
(Desalination)
This project option reflects the cost of
securing the SFPUC’s portion of the project
(40,000 acre-feet of storage) and a new
brackish water treatment or similar water
supply project that would deliver water
to an expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir
through an exchange with Contra Costa
Water District. Storage and conveyance
components of the project would remain the
same as with the transfer supply alternative.

Design

Storage,
Class 2
Conveyance
and Supply,
Class 5

3.9 2040

6. Calaveras
Reservoir
Expansion
(Large)
This project option represents the largest
Calaveras Dam raise studied, which would
raise Calaveras Dam by 890 feet and
provide over 290,000 acre-feet of additional
storage. It is paired with a large conveyance
alternative that requires new infrastructure
(new Calaveras Pipeline and Calaveras
Pump Station) but also relies on increasing
flow through the existing Tesla Treatment
Facility. Water would be stored in wet
years to augment RWS dry-year supplies.

Planning
Class 5

28.6 2039

6. Calaveras
Reservoir
Expansion
(Small)
This project option represents the smallest
Calaveras Dam raise studied, which
would raise Calaveras Dam by 771 feet
and provide over 22,000 acre-feet of
additional storage. It is paired with a small
conveyance alternative that requires limited
infrastructure. Water would be stored in wet
years to augment RWS dry-year supplies.

Planning
Class 5

2.7 2035
Project Capacity Total Capital Costs
($ mil)
Estimated
Capital
Cost per
Acre-Foot
($/af)
Considerations for Future Cost Estimating
mgd acre-feet
per year Escalated 2023 $

3.9 4,416 $286 $225 $1,700
• Costs based on SFPUC purchase of 40,000 acre-feet of storage, not total reservoir expansion for regional benefit
• Water supply estimate based on drawing down from a full reservoir and taking delivery over 71/2 years of the design drought • Evaporative losses of 8% and 10% conveyance losses are assumed • No grant or loan offsets included in capital cost calculations • Capital cost includes estimate for upsizing existing turnout from South Bay Aqueduct to San Antonio Reservoir and purchase of water transfers with no new infrastructure

3.9 4,416 $792 $533 $4,027
•
Several new supply alternatives are under consideration, in the event that long-term transfers are not available. Brackish water desalination is included with storage and conveyance capital costs here for illustrative purposes; no decisions have been made on the long-term source of supply for LVE
•
Capital cost estimates for LVE with transfers as a supply and LVE with brackish water desalination as a supply are not additive, but two alternative cost scenarios for the same project assuming two different supply scenarios

28.6 32,045 $6,011 $3,807 $3,960
•
This project assumes the highest dam raise scenario and a representative conveyance alternative from the project feasibility study • As with the small Calaveras Dam raise alternative , this project assumes that the reservoir is full at the start of a drought sequence and delivered over 71/2 years of a design drought sequence
•
The water supply estimate assumes 8% evaporative losses and an additional 10% conveyance loss
• Total capital costs are escalated to mid-point of construction • No water supply cost is assumed for this project

2.7 2,970 $346 $252 $2,831
• This project assumes the lowest dam raise scenario and smallest conveyance alternative evaluated in the project feasibility study • As with the large Calaveras Dam raise alternativ e, this project assumes that the reservoir is full at the start of a drought sequence and delivered over 71/2 years of a design drought sequence
•
The water supply estimate assumes 8% evaporative losses and an additional 10% conveyance loss
• Total capital costs are escalated to mid-point of construction • No water supply cost is assumed for this project
OR
OR
* Cost Estimate Classifications are based on generally-accepted standards of project cost estimating, used to classify the degree of project definition and maturity. This system has five classes, Class 5 being the least defined and Class 1 being the most definitive.

Table 5-1: AWS Project Summary Table (continued)

5.2.1 RWS Supply Assumed and Project Capacity
The goal of the AWS Program is to increase the dry-year reliability of RWS supplies by addressing the water supply gap. The SFPUC regional water supply assumed for each AWS Project is the volume of water that would be produced in an average dry year of the design drought. For purified water projects that are operated in all years, the SFPUC’s share of the project capacity can be delivered in each year of a drought.

Storage projects, however, typically build up in wet/normal years and then are assumed to be delivered over the course of the design drought. As a drought is not generally declared at least until the second consecutive dry year, the total volume of storage is divided by 7½ to represent average annual availability to the SFPUC. Furthermore, because of the nature of operation of storage projects, combined evaporative and conveyance losses of 18% are assumed in the calculation of supply assumed.

Some AWS Projects may have a larger project capacity that accounts for additional water that would be produced by the project for local use by one or more project partners but not contribute to RWS supplies, or accounts for future phases of the project that are not assumed as part of current AWS planning efforts. For AWS Projects in the early planning stages, the assumed water supply produced by the project is estimated, sometimes with a range, and the assumed supply estimates will be refined as project planning proceeds.

5.2.2 AWS Staffing Considerations
Staffing for the AWS Program supports
programmatic development as well as
AWS Project planning, implementation,
and integration with RWS operations.

Project Staffing - Staffing needs for
the operation of AWS Projects have
been identified at a planning level,
and the timing for bringing on project
staff is closely associated with the
dates that projects are expected to
be online. Depending on the roles and
responsibilities of project partners,
the need to hire staff may vary.

Estimated project staffing needs to support implementation are identified in the Project Descriptions Tables that are included in Section 5.3. Where additional staff may be needed to support projects prior to implementation for planning, such as to support purified water planning in the retail service area, those specific staffing recommendations are included in Chapter 6 (AWS Recommendations). No additional staff requests are anticipated for project planning associated with the AWS Projects described in this chapter.

WSIP project construction, 2015
72 AWS Projects
Programmatic Staffing - Programmatic staffing needs are required to ensure that the SFPUC has appropriate expertise to develop and implement key strategic areas of the AWS Program. These programmatic staffing needs are not specific to any one project but rather address three strategic areas: operations, purified water, and finance. Operations expertise is needed to develop approaches for integrating new supplies into the RWS. Purified water expertise is needed to ensure that the SFPUC has the specialized skills to oversee the development of purified water projects that have emerging technological and regulatory requirements and focused community engagement needs. Finance support will consider issues such as affordability and grant funding, as well as partnership cost sharing opportunities. Programmatic staffing recommendations identified for the current phase of the program are outlined in Chapter 6 (AWS Recommendations).

5.2.3 AWS Cost Considerations
The cost estimates and associated estimate classifications for AWS Projects were presented previously in Table 5-1. The associated costs for each AWS Project, with the exception of Los Vaqueros Expansion Project and the Daly City Recycled Water Expansion Project are preliminary Class 5 Level cost estimates. Class 5 Level cost estimates may vary by -50% to +100% as these are developed during the early planning phases of a project.
1 As each AWS Project is further defined, and cost components are refined, confidence in the cost estimates will increase. Planning and design for the Los Vaqueros Expansion Project is near complete and it is classified as a Class 2 Level cost estimate. The Daly City Recycled Water Expansion Project has 30% design completed, and its costs are refined to the Class 3 Level. For a detailed description of the classifications, see Appendix C.

The costs presented in Table 5-1 represent capital costs only, and do not include O&M costs or any offsets from grants or alternate financing. The total capital costs are presented in real dollar terms, escalated to the mid-point of construction, and adjusted to current 2023 dollars. The unit costs are expressed in current dollar terms, over the total capacity of a project over a 30-year period to match an assumed financing period. As described in Section 5.2.1, the volume of supply assumed for each project to calculate unit costs is generally the full capacity of a project, not only the SFPUC’s assumed supply share, reflecting the fact that operations and final project benefits have not yet been determined for most projects. Additionally, storage projects are assumed to incur 8% evaporative losses, 10% conveyance losses, and then deliveries are averaged over 7 ½ years of an 8½-year design drought, assuming that there is no knowledge of a drought in the first year. This methodology is consistent with the water supply modeling for the RGSR project, which is an underground storage project operating in dry years currently under construction.
1 This Plan uses the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Cost Estimate Classification System Level 1-5 definitions, as described further in Appendix C. 73 AWS Projects
Lastly, note that the costs presented in this table may differ from feasibility study estimates due to contingencies and escalation adjusted to match SFPUC’s prior WSIP projects. The inconsistencies between different methodologies used by different consultants have been corrected for in this AWS Plan. As cost-share and financing are determined for projects, costs will continue to evolve and cost modeling is part of an ongoing process in the planning of the AWS Program. The costs presented in this Plan are preliminary and conservative, and represent a snapshot in the early planning process.

While some planning funds have been included in the current capital plan (described for each AWS Project in Section 5.3), the recommendations and associated costs in this Plan are for additional funds not already included in the capital plan, financial plan, or rates projections. A staff recommendation on whether and to what extent to move forward on these AWS Project and programmatic recommendations will be refined during the regular biennial budget process and brought to the SFPUC Commission for approval as part of that process. Including these recommendations without deprioritizing other projects would likely mean an increase in the capital plan and rates.

Recycled water pipeline installation, 2019
74 AWS Projects
Rate Impacts
The AWS team, in coordination with Finance, evaluated the FY 2033 cumulative rate of impact of implementing the recommendations in the Draft AWS Plan, dated June 28, 2023. The recommendations presented in Chapter 6 (AWS Recommendation) included construction and initial O&M costs for two AWS Projects (Los Vaqueros Expansion and Daly City Recycled Water Expansion), planning through environmental review and 10% design for the remaining four AWS Projects, and staffing of three program staff in strategic areas (operational integration, funding and affordability, and purified water) to support the AWS Program. In aggregate, these recommendations would have resulted in a new funding request of up to $209 million within the 10- year period. Conservatively, this new funding request was modelled as completely cash-funded, representing the full cost of these AWS Project and programmatic recommendations for the next 10 years; they do not include any retail-only project recommendations. Based on this scenario, the AWS recommendations were projected to increase retail rates by 0.9% and wholesale rates by 7.6% above those projected in the baseline 10-year rate projection without the AWS Projects.

Since the Draft AWS Plan was published, the capital planning process for the SFPUC’s 2-year budget cycle development process was underway and project planning continued. Some of the underlying project assumptions and funding needs changed, resulting in a reduction of the new funding request in the FY 2025-2034 CIP. Therefore, the rate projection analysis represents a high-end estimate of the rate impact of the AWS Program as defined to date. It should be noted that this rate assessment is only to provide a planning level understanding of the impact from the recommendations of this AWS Plan and is intended to be illustrative. It is subject to change as more information becomes available. Several factors need to be accounted for such as the addition of any projects beyond the near-term ones recommended in this Plan; O&M costs for all projects; any changes that might occur in project feasibility including partnerships involved; as well as costs of potentially financing the recommended projects with debt, which would cause the rate impact to be different and extend past the 10-year period.
75 AWS Projects

5.3 Project Description Tables
The Project Description Tables that follow in this section provide an overview of the key attributes of each of the AWS Projects as they are understood based on their current status and the planning work completed to date. Each Project Description Table includes:

Overview of the Project – The overview provides a project description, location map, and summary of the anticipated new infrastructure needs for the project.

Water Supply Availability and Distribution – This section of the table describes the amount of water supply benefit to the RWS, the availability of the supply (dry-year or all-year availability), and a general description of how supply would be realized or distributed within the SFPUC service area.

Project Partners and Interests – As discussed in Chapter 4 (AWS Program Role in Addressing the Water Supply Gap), partnerships are an essential component of most AWS Projects and different partners may have different motivations and interests for participating in a project. Each project table provides a diagram of the different project partners and their interests.

Institutional Complexity and Considerations – Many of the AWS Projects must address certain institutional challenges. Multi-party partnership projects typically have complex institutional issues such as ownership, cost share, and governance; but other institutional challenges for alternative supply projects may include regulatory requirements and community acceptance.

Operational Considerations – There are a multitude of operational considerations when adding supplies to the RWS, as described in Chapter 4 (AWS Program Role in Addressing the Future Water Supply Gap). The project summary table provides an overview of some of the larger operational issues that have been identified to date for each of the AWS Projects.

Staffing and Workforce Development – The table summarizes some of the SFPUC staffing needs that could result if the project were to be implemented.

Status of Environmental Review – This section summarizes the status of the environmental review of the project.

Project Alternatives – This section summarizes alternatives that have been considered as part of the project development.

Pros and Cons - A summary of project benefits and considerations.

Cost and Schedule – An overview of the current cost estimates and a summary schedule are provided for each project.

Information to Support SFPUC Commission Actions – The table summarizes project recommendations, key milestones and decisions, and upcoming project activities.
76 AWS Projects
San Francisco
New
Storage
Tank
San Francisco
Bay
Colma
Cemeteries
CAL
WATER
Daly City
WWTP
New Recycled
Water Treatment
Facility

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project produces recycled water for delivery to irrigation customers in the Town of Colma and Daly City. This supply will replace the irrigation customers’ groundwater pumping from the South Westside Basin and result in an additional 0.7 mgd of groundwater available for dry-year supply; therefore, this project also supports the SFPUC’s Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (RGSR) Project.

The project is envisioned to serve 7 cemeteries and other smaller irrigation customers with new recycled water supply. The project is a regional partnership between the SFPUC and two of the SFPUC’s Wholesale Customers –Daly City and the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) – in coordination with the Town of Colma and the irrigation customers who are located largely within Cal Water’s service area. As a private water utility, Cal Water’s participation in the project is subject to approval by the California Public Utilities Commission.

SFPUC customers will benefit from the increased reliability of the South Westside Basin for additional drinking water supply during droughts.

PROJECT LOCATION The project facilities would be located in San Mateo County. Treatment would occur at the Daly City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Water would be conveyed to storage and distributed to customers in the Town of Colma.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• Tertiary recycled water treatment facility
co-located at the Daly City WWTP.
• Recycled water pipeline from the new treatment
building to the new storage tank.
• Storage tank at or near Holy Cross Cemetery.
• Pipeline or connections with the distribution
systems in Daly City and Cal Water service area
(Colma).

All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Proposed Pipeline
Proposed Project Facility
Wastewater Treatment
Storage Tank
San Francisco
Bay
NOT TO
SCALE

1. Daly City Recycled Water Expansion

1. Daly City Recycled Water Expansion - continued

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS

SFPUC DALY CITY (SANITATION DISTRICT) CAL WATER
Increase drought supply reliability Reduce ocean discharges Develop local supplies

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project has been planned as a regional partnership between the SFPUC, Daly City, and Cal Water, in coordination with the Town of Colma and the irrigation customers who are located largely within Cal Water’s service area.

Each project partner, as a user of the South Westside Groundwater Basin, has a vested interest in ensuring its sustainability and reliability in dry years. However, each partner has individual constraints and priorities that will impact partner agreements. Additionally, agreements between project partners and each cemetery will vary in institutional complexity, level of interest, and ability to implement. Planning-level discussions indicate support for the project by partners and customers; however, agreements will depend on agreement on costs and allocation of project benefits.

INSTITUTIONAL COMPLEXITY
SFPUC
only
Multi-Party
Partnership
Institutional complexity is a relative measure that takes into account project service area, project facilities ownership, number of project partners, cost share, and whether SFPUC is construction and design lead.

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
The project would generate recycled water that primarily meets the non-potable demands of users over a 7-month irrigation period each year. This supply would offset existing groundwater pumping by Colma cemeteries from the South Westside
Groundwater Basin. The groundwater would thus remain in storage in the basin for dry-year use, modeled to be 0.7 mgd on average. The new recycled water supply may also be made available for additional customers and replace some potable water used for irrigation (currently estimated to be 0.05 mgd of the total).

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type Recycled Water
SFPUC Regional
Supply Assumed

0.7 mgd
(groundwater
stored)
Project Capacity

0.7 mgd
(recycled water
produced
Earliest Service
Date 2030
Estimated Capital
Cost per Acre-Foot $4,203
Current Status Design

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Recycled water treatment needed for the project
would be through a new treatment process co-
located with Daly City’s existing WWTP, staffed
and operated by Daly City. The project would
be operated during the irrigation season (April
through November) in all (wet, normal, and dry)
years. For planning purposes, it is anticipated that
recycled water would not be produced during
the wet season. This is consistent with Daly City’s
current recycled water treatment operations.

The majority of potential irrigation customers for
this project are located within Cal Water’s service
area, in the Town of Colma. The distribution of
recycled water could be led by Cal Water or the
SFPUC, or through a new administrative structure
for the governance of this project. Operational
agreements will depend on the structure and
allocation of benefits for the project.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
The project will need up to three new staff for
operation and maintenance. Any specific staffing
needs for the SFPUC will be determined once the
partner roles and responsibilities are established,
as outlined under Operational Considerations. No
SFPUC staffing needs are identified at this time.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental impacts and mitigation associated
with the construction and operation of the project
were described in the Initial Study/ Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by Daly City in
2017. Environmental review may be required for
new components not previously covered under
the CEQA document.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A second project configuration that was considered
involved production of purified water that could
be injected directly into the groundwater basin.

However, there is insufficient space for the
additional treatment requirements for purified
water at the Daly City site. Furthermore, siting and
operating injection wells in the groundwater basin
is not feasible at this time. This may be a future
opportunity if space and operational needs can be
addressed.

1. Daly City Recycled Water Expansion - continued

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Proceed with planning and coordination.
• Continue developing agreement terms with
partners and potential customers.
• In anticipation of near-term approval of
agreements, funding of $114.7 million is proposed in
the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete final design and
construction of the project

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• Irrigation customers (cemeteries) must agree to
use the recycled water produced for this project to
proceed.
•
Establish construction, O&M and cost-share
agreements between the SFPUC, Daly City, and
Cal Water before proceeding with project design.
•
Risk of not meeting milestones: If agreements are
not in place, the project cannot move forward and
neither the new recycled water supply nor the 0.7
mgd of groundwater supply stored for dry-year use
will be realized.
+ PROS – CONS
Dry-year supply reliability. By offsetting groundwater
pumping, the project helps increase available dry-year
storage in the Westside Groundwater Basin.

Right water for the right use. The project replaces potable groundwater supplies with reliable non-potable recycled water supply for irrigation in Colma and Daly City.

Reduced wastewater discharges. The project would
provide beneficial reuse for wastewater that would
otherwise likely be discharged to the ocean.

Cost sensitivity of customers. Groundwater
pumping costs are low relative to the cost of
producing recycled water, and the potential
recycled water customers cannot absorb
significant cost increases.

Institutional complexity with partners. The
allocation of benefits and costs among the partner
agencies will require agreement before project
design can proceed.

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Determine cost- and benefit-sharing with Cal Water
and Daly City and work on establishing agreement
with project partners on allocation of benefits and
apportionment of costs.
•
Develop cost proposal for cemeteries and come to
agreement on term sheets and cemeteries by 2024.

1. Daly City Recycled Water Expansion - continued

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE
204020302020
Planning Environmental Review Design Construction
COST
The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be $120 million, or the equivalent of $99 million in 2023 dollars. In anticipation of near-term approval of agreements, funding of $114.7 million is included in the FY 2025- 2034 CIP to complete the project’s design and construction. O&M costs are estimated to be $12 million.

2. PureWater Peninsula

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The PureWater Peninsula Project, formerly known as the San Francisco-Peninsula Regional PureWater Project (SPRP), or as the Crystal Springs Purified Water Project, would generate up to 12 mgd of purified water. This project would convey treated wastewater from Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) and the City of San Mateo to a new advanced water treatment facility (AWTF) to produce purified water that meets State and federal drinking water quality standards.

There are currently two project alternatives. The first would likely be implemented in two phases. In Phase 1, the project would produce up to 8 mgd of purified water, which would be conveyed to the SFPUC’s Crystal Springs Reservoir where it would be blended with regional surface water supplies and then treated again at the SFPUC’s Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (WTP). In Phase 2, up to an additional 4 mgd of purified water would be produced and then added directly to the distribution systems of other project partners in the region, who are SFPUC Wholesale Customers, through treated water augmentation. The second alternative to this two-phase concept is a single-phased project producing up to 12 mgd of purified water that can all be added directly to the RWS through treated water augmentation.

PROJECT LOCATION
The project facilities would be located in San Mateo County. Treatment would occur at facilities adjacent to existing Silicon Valley Clean Water facilities and purified water would be conveyed to Crystal Springs Reservoir and/or directly to Wholesale Customers’ distribution systems on the Peninsula or the RWS transmission system.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• New AWTF (needed for all alternatives).
• Raw water pipeline: SVCW and/or San Mateo
wastewater treatment plants to the new AWTF (all
alternatives).
• Purified water pipeline: AWTF to Pulgas
Dechloramination Facility (Alternative 1, Phase 1).
• Modifications to Pulgas Dechloramination Facility
within the existing building (Alternative 1, Phase 1).
• Pipeline or a connection/ turnout between the
AWTF to the distribution systems in the region
(Alternative 1, Phase 2 and Alternative 2).

San Francisco
Bay
San Andreas
Reservoir
Harry Tracy
WTP
New Advanced
Water Treatment
Facility
San Mateo WWTP
Silicon Valley
Clean Water WWTP
Crystal
Springs
Reservoir
Pilarcitos
Reservoir

CAL WATER

MPS SERVICE
AREA
SAN
CARLOS
Connect to in-City
retail Distribution
Pulgas Dechlor
Facility
All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Potential Pipeline
Potential Project Facility
Water Treatment
Wastewater Treatment
San Francisco
Bay
NOT TO
SCALE

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
In the first alternative, the project is anticipated to provide dry-year water supply of up to 8 mgd in Phase 1 and up to an additional 4 mgd in Phase 2 for a total of 12 mgd (13,440 acre-foot per year (AFY)). A second alternative for this project would provide 12 mgd (13,440 AFY) directly to the RWS transmission system with no phasing. Under both alternatives the project will provide a new drought-resistant water supply.

Under Alternative 1 in the first phase, the project would connect with the RWS through the Crystal Springs Reservoir. Water from the Crystal Springs Reservoir would be distributed for further treatment to 1) Coastside County Water District, and 2) Harry Tracy WTP. From Harry Tracy WTP, treated water would be distributed to San Francisco (75%) and Peninsula (25%) customers. In the second phase of Alternative 1, purified water would be blended with supplies directly in the distribution systems of partner agencies including Redwood City and Cal Water. Alternative 2 for this project envisions the production and distribution of 12 mgd of purified water directly into the RWS transmission system.

2. PureWater Peninsula - continued

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The SFPUC is partnering with multiple agencies on this project, including some of its Wholesale Customers.

Water supply benefits from the project would be subject to sharing among the partners proportionately, which remain to be determined. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the SFPUC RWS would receive approximately 50% of the water supply from the project. The SFPUC would be the Lead Agency for environmental review, and since the project would deliver water to the RWS, the SFPUC would likely take an active ownership and operational role in the project implementation.

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type Purified
Water
SFPUC Supply
Assumed 6 mgd
Project Capacity 12 mgd
Earliest Service
Date 2039
Estimated Capital
Cost per Acre-Foot $1,868
Current Status Planning

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS
SFPUC
Increase dry-year supply
BAWSCA

REDWOOD CITY

MID-PENINSULA WD
Increase dry-year supply

CAL WATER
Develop local supplies
SVCW

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Reduce Bay discharges

2. PureWater Peninsula - continued

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
SFPUC Operations - Water Quality
A critical consideration for storing purified
water in Crystal Springs Reservoir would be
the nutrient load of the new supply. To meet
nutrient levels in the reservoir, the purified water
would potentially need additional treatment,
possibly breakpoint chlorination. Before being
discharged to the reservoir, the water would
undergo dechloramination at the Pulgas facility,
with frequency dependent on storage time.

Water quality would be tested and monitored
in compliance with reservoir augmentation
regulations. After meeting retention time
requirements in the reservoir, the water would
then be conveyed through the Harry Tracy WTP.

SFPUC Operations - Storage & Water Conveyance
Typically, the SFPUC’s operating strategy in
the summer would be to rely primarily upon
water originating from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir
and minimize drawing from local reservoirs.

With the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan
Amendment and the associated shortfall in
the dry-year water supply, it is anticipated that
Crystal Springs Reservoir will provide the storage
capacity required for purified water produced
as an alternative water supply, especially during
the dry periods. Operating the SPRP project in
wet months – at a maximum of 50% capacity –
would generate 4 to 6 mgd of purified water. At
the end of summer, typically, storage levels at the
reservoir would be reviewed to determine what
adjustments need to be made to allow sufficient
capacity to receive local rainy season runoff.

Consistent with current operations, the storage
levels would help determine the flow rate of the
incoming purified water.

In the event that Crystal Springs Reservoir levels
cannot accommodate additional water from the
SPRP project, surface water from the Alameda
watershed would be stored in Calaveras Reservoir,
instead of being delivered to Crystal Springs, or
additional storage would be needed.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
The project operations would shift some of the
operational protocol at Pulgas Dechloramination
Facility and Crystal Springs Reservoir. The project
would require 17 additional staff to operate the
new AWTF and/or coordinate and manage its
operations with the current operations including
at the current facilities. Staff training on purified
water facility operations and maintenance such as
Advanced Water Treatment Operator Certification
would be needed. If the SFPUC takes the lead in
implementing and operating this project, most or
all of the staff additions would be at the SFPUC.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is anticipated to be subject to
environmental requirements associated with
project facilities and operations. The project would
be subject to environmental review including
CEQA; possibly National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance; depending on whether federal
funding would be obtained; and federal and State
regulatory permits.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The two primary project alternatives are described
above and would be analyzed further under
environmental review.
2030

2. PureWater Peninsula - continued

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Proceed with feasibility analysis,
Basis of Design, conceptual design,
environmental review, and outreach.
• Continue planning, environmental review
and 10% design.
• Funding of $5.3 million is proposed in
the FY 2025-2034 CIP.

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• Upon completion of CEQA (expected in 2032), the SFPUC must commit to taking a leadership role in the project for it to move forward. It is required for a water agency to own and operate the project.
• Risk of not meeting key milestones: If the SFPUC does not commit to leading the project once additional planning and environmental review are complete, the project would not likely proceed and the 6 mgd water supply for the SFPUC would not be realized.
+ PROS – CONS
Drought-resistant supply. The project
provides a new drought-resistant
water supply.

Reduce wastewater discharges. The
project reduces wastewater discharge
to the San Francisco Bay.

Water quality challenges. Potential water quality challenges in Crystal Springs Reservoir or in the transmission and distribution system would need to be analyzed further and may result in operational changes.

Operational impacts. During non-dry years, there is insufficient storage in the RWS to accommodate both existing supplies and new purified water supplies without also expanding storage. Reoperation of facilities or displacement of supplies may be necessary.

Community Acceptance. Purified water projects require implementation of a sustained communications and outreach program in order to facilitate information sharing and collaboration within the community. 2020 2040

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Complete feasibility analysis, Basis of
Design Study, and initiate CEQA. Engage
in water quality modeling for Crystal Springs
Reservoir and distribution impacts.

COST
The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be $1.2 billion, or the equivalent of $753 million in 2023 dollars. The annual O&M cost will be determined once there is more information on operating parameters, delivery mechanisms, and water supply sharing among partners. To complete planning, environmental review and 10% design, funding of $5.3 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP. • To proceed beyond CEQA: model SFPUC operational
impacts, complete water quality analysis for blending and for disruption, define beneficiaries and cost-sharing, identify funding opportunities and rate impacts and seek approval from leadership of partners.

Planning Design ConstructionEnvironmental Review

3. ACWD-USD Purified Water Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project could provide a new purified drinking water supply utilizing Union Sanitary District (USD)’s treated wastewater. Purified water produced by advanced water treatment could be transmitted to the Quarry Lakes Groundwater Recharge Area to supplement recharge into the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin.

With the additional water supply produced by the project provided to Alameda County Water District (ACWD), an in-lieu exchange with the SFPUC could result in more water left in the RWS. Additional water supply could also be directly transmitted within ACWD’s service area, or to the SFPUC through a new intertie between ACWD and the SFPUC’s Bay Division Pipelines (BDPLs). Two alternatives, each with two phases, have been evaluated in the preliminary technical feasibility study for the project.

PROJECT LOCATION
The project facilities would be located in ACWD’s service area.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• New AWTF at ACWD-owned site OR in the vicinity of USD. • Pretreatment for denitrification at USD (Alternative B only). • Pipeline to ACWD’s Peralta-Tyson well site (Phase 1 of both alternatives). • Purified water pipeline to ACWD’s WTP #2 OR intertie to SFPUC BDPLs (Phase 2 of both alternatives).

Peralta-Tyson
Wellfield
ACWD WTP #2
ACWD Blending Facilities
ACWD Newark
Desalination Facility
San Francisco
Bay
Quarry
Lakes
USD Alvarado
WWTP
Palo Alto
San Jose
Niles Cone
Groundwater
Basin
Bay Division
Pipelines 1, 2 and 5
ACWD
New Advanced Water
Treatment Facility
Hayward
Sunol
San Francisco
Bay
NOT TO
SCALE
All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Potential Pipeline
Potential Project Facility
Alternate Potential
Project Facility
Water Treatment
Wastewater Treatment

3. ACWD-USD Purified Water Project - continued

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project partners include ACWD, a Wholesale Customer of the SFPUC, and USD, a wastewater utility. Each partner agency has slightly different drivers for participation, which can affect the need and timing for the project.

While the goals of the water utilities are generally aligned, the SFPUC has a need to identify solutions for system- wide dry-year shortfalls in the near-term in order to address potential shortages from the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment and to support the SFPUC Commission’s decision on whether to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers. ACWD decision making may be tied to their water supply planning efforts being conducted by 2025. USD is evaluating improvements to its secondary treatment processes and considering future needs to reduce Bay discharges that are not linked to water supply needs.

Institutional considerations also play a part in the introduction of a new water supply source through purified water.

While a number of purified water projects are planned throughout the region, this is the only one currently being pursued in ACWD’s service area. For project implementation, internal and external outreach and engagement will be important.

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
The project is anticipated to provide up to 5.4 mgd (6,048 AFY) in Phase 1 and an additional 4.9 mgd (5,488 AFY) in a potential Phase 2 for a maximum of 10.3 mgd (11,536 AFY) of purified water across two phases. Because the second phase would require additional infrastructure and outreach, only the Phase 1 is assumed for water supply planning purposes at this time.

Phase 1 of the project can provide a new water supply source through utilization of purified water from USD that would be blended in the groundwater basin and delivered in the ACWD service area.

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type Purified Water
SFPUC Supply
Assumed

5.4 mgd
(Phase 1 only)
Project Capacity 5.4 mgd
Earliest Service
Date 2039
Estimated Capital
Cost per Acre-Foot $4,541
Current Status Planning

INSTITUTIONAL COMPLEXITY

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS

SFPUC ACWD USD
Increase dry year supply Reduce dependence on RWS Reduce Bay discharges SFPUC
only
Multi-Party
Partnership
Institutional complexity is a relative measure that takes into account project service area, project facilities ownership, number of project partners, cost share, and whether SFPUC is construction and design lead.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project would be subject to environmental
requirements associated with project facilities
and operations. This may include CEQA review
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit-related requirements.

Federal requirements may apply if federal funds
are sought to support project development and
construction. No environmental review has been
initiated at this time.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Phase 2 is a DPR project that would treat and
distribute purified water with other surface water
supplies. Because of the additional infrastructure
and outreach needs of the project, Phase 2 of the
project is not assumed for water supply planning
purposes at this time. In Phase 2, purified water
would be blended at the treatment plant and
delivered either in ACWD’s service area or the
SFPUC’s distribution system. The project relies on
membrane-based treatment, which requires some
level of continuous operation. Phase 2 operations
may not be needed in non-drought periods due
to a lack of storage potential. Variable operations
may impact staffing needs, fixed costs, and general
treatment plant efficiency. These operational
considerations, as well as infrastructure and
outreach needs, will need to be evaluated further
before Phase 2 proceeds.

There are also two alternatives under review in the
project feasibility. The primary difference between
the two alternatives is the level of secondary
treatment that is assumed prior to the project start.

If less treatment has been done by USD for the
project feedwater, more treatment will be required
as part of the project. This more conservative
assumption is the baseline case assumed for cost
and facility planning purposes (Alternative B).

3. ACWD-USD Purified Water Project - continued

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Given the location of facilities and distribution,
the project components would likely be operated
by ACWD and USD. Therefore, operation of the
project will require the leadership and staffing of
partner agencies, with financial support from the
SFPUC. No operational impacts to the SFPUC are
anticipated, except if a new intertie is constructed
and direct deliveries to one or more of the BDPLs
is made in the Phase 2 of the project.

Phase 1 will send purified water to Quarry Lakes
to recharge the groundwater basin. Quarry lakes is
an East Bay recreational area. Both phases of the
project would rely on membrane-based treatment,
which requires some level of continuous operation.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
Given the operational needs of the project,
ACWD would likely incur new staffing needs
for the advanced treatment facility and the
operation of the distribution system. Secondary
treatment improvements and operations would
be carried out by USD. While no estimates have
been prepared for the project studies at this
time, based on industry standards, the SFPUC’s
financial modeling includes an estimate of eight
new staff for the project. No staffing needs for the
SFPUC are expected at this time.

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Proceed with planning, alternatives analysis, and
CEQA.
• To proceed beyond CEQA, seek direction from the
SFPUC Commission.
• Funding of $8 million is proposed in the
FY 2025-2034 CIP to continue planning through
environmental review and 10% design .

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• Realizing the water supply benefit relies
on partnerships with ACWD and USD.

The project is still in planning stages
and partnership commitments are being
pursued as part of the project planning
activities.
+ PROS – CONS
Use of existing facilities. The project prioritizes
use of existing wastewater treatment and
groundwater extraction infrastructure.

Diversification of supplies. The project diversifies
water supply, primarily in the ACWD service area.

Dry-year reliability. The project improves long-
term dry year reliability locally in ACWD’s service
area and in the broader SFPUC service area.

Reduced wastewater discharges. The
project reduces wastewater discharge to the
San Francisco Bay.

Infrastructure uncertainty. Wastewater treatment plant
capital improvements are uncertain.

Water quality challenges. Potential water quality change to Quarry Lakes.

Institutional alignment. The needs and timing of
commitment to the project from the partners vary.

Community Acceptance. Purified water projects require
implementation of a sustained communications and
outreach program in order to facilitate information
sharing and collaboration within the community.

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Complete preliminary feasibility study and continue with associated technical studies. Identify potential funding opportunities. Continue to track and coordinate partner commitments to pursuing the project.

COST
The capital cost is estimated to be $1.3 billion, or the equivalent of $824 million in 2023 dollars. To complete planning, environmental review, and 10% design, additional funding of $8 million is proposed in the FY 2025- 2034 CIP.

3. ACWD-USD Purified Water Project - continued

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE
2020 2030 2040
Planning Design ConstructionEnvironmental Review

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS

4. South Bay Purified Water Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In collaboration with the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, the SFPUC is evaluating a joint purified water project.

Under the AWS Plan, this project will provide a dry-year supply of 3.5 mgd to the RWS. Additionally, this project will provide a local benefit to San Jose and Santa Clara by providing 6.5 mgd to the two cities during all water years to serve demands in their retail service areas beyond what the two cities have requested from the SFPUC as a future supply guarantee from the RWS. Only the 3.5 mgd to the RWS is considered as a regional supply under the AWS Plan. This regional benefit would be realized only if San Jose and Santa Clara are made permanent customers of the SFPUC, a decision which is to be made by the SFPUC by 2028. If San Jose and Santa Clara are not made permanent customers of the SFPUC, the regional element of this project will not be part of the AWS Plan and the 3.5 mgd water supply benefit to the RWS will not be realized. San Jose and Santa Clara jointly own a Regional Wastewater Facility in San Jose that would provide the source water for the advanced treatment project as well as the land needed for project facilities. The parties are currently evaluating the feasibility of the project in a study that will include review of the potential capacity, sharing of supply, operations and distribution. The feasibility study analysis was conducted on the basis of draft DPR regulations and may need to be revised based on the latest version of the DPR regulations adopted by SWRCB in December 2023, which are likely to become effective mid-2024.

PROJECT LOCATION
The project facilities would be located in San Jose and Santa Clara.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• AWTF, including feed water pipeline.
• New pipeline or connections from the new facility to
San Jose and Santa Clara distribution systems.
• New pipeline or connections from the new facility
with the RWS.
• Storage and blending tank.
• Potentially new discharge outfall from the new
facility to San Francisco Bay (not yet evaluated).

San Jose–Santa Clara
Regional Wastewater
Facility
San Francisco
Bay
Bay Division
Pipelines 1, 2 and 5
New Advanced
Water Treatment Facility
Potential
New Outfall
Bay Division
Pipelines 3 and 4
Palo Alto
San Jose
Hayward
Fremont
All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Potential Pipeline
Potential Project Facility
Wastewater Treatment
Potential New Outfall
NOT TO
SCALE
San Francisco
Bay

4. South Bay Purified Water Project - continued

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara are currently interruptible customers of the SFPUC and have requested permanent status, as discussed in Chapter 2 (Background). The two cities’ combined projected demand is 15.5 mgd for the planning horizon. They have requested a guaranteed supply from the SFPUC of 9 mgd (total). In order for the SFPUC to consider granting San Jose and Santa Clara permanent status and to minimize impacts to the existing permanent Wholesale Customers, the two cities must secure a reliable supply to meet their additional demands beyond the 9 mgd that they have requested as a guarantee. This project would produce

6.5 mgd of purified water to serve the needs of San Jose and Santa Clara beyond the cities’ purchases from the SFPUC, while augmenting RWS supplies by 3.5 mgd in dry years. Implementation of this project would support the SFPUC’s decision to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers.

Another institutional consideration for this project is the discharge of the reverse osmosis concentrate, or brine, from the new AWTF to San Francisco Bay. At this time, it appears unlikely that the existing outfall and corresponding NPDES permit for the Regional Wastewater Facility can accommodate the brine. Therefore, a new, dedicated outfall may need to be constructed and a separate NPDES permit may need to be acquired.

San Jose and Santa Clara are also considering alternative brine management solutions, however regulatory requirements are unknown at this time.

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
During normal and wet years, the project could operate at 65% capacity, producing 6.5 mgd of purified water to serve San Jose and Santa Clara beyond the two cities’ purchases from the SFPUC and other sources of supply. During dry years, the facility would ramp up to 100% capacity producing 10 mgd of purified water out of which

6.5 mgd would continue to be delivered to San Jose and Santa Clara.

The additional 3.5 mgd of purified water produced would serve as a new dry-year supply for the SFPUC and its other customers through the RWS.

The purified water from the project will thus deliver 1) 6.5 mgd in all years to the northern service areas of San Jose and Santa Clara via their distribution systems and 2) 3.5 mgd in dry years only via BDPLs 3 and 4 to the SFPUC’s customers in the South Bay, the Peninsula and in-City retail service area.

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type Purified
Water
SFPUC Supply
Assumed 3.5 mgd
Project Capacity 10 mgd
Earliest Service
Date 2038
Estimated Capital
Cost per Acre-Foot $1,264
Current Status Planning

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS
SFPUC

CITY OF SAN JOSE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Increase dry year supply Develop local supplies, increase all-year and dry-year supplies

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The new AWTF would be co-located at the existing
Regional Wastewater Facility and is anticipated
to be co-owned and operated by San Jose and
Santa Clara. The operation of the facility will be
coordinated with the operations of the RWS
transmission system.

The project will be subject to the regulations
governing DPR, and the purified water generated
would be in compliance with federal and State
drinking water standards. This project includes
a storage and blending tank upstream of the
connection to the SFPUC’s BDPLs 3 and 4,
which would provide adequate response time for
operators should the purified water or resulting
blend with RWS supply not meet specifications.

The AWS team will continue to work closely
with the Operations and Water Quality teams
within the SFPUC and San Jose and Santa Clara
to identify and address any challenges and make
sure that existing infrastructure can accommodate
the anticipated water volume and quality from
this project as well other potential purified water
projects that will be supplementing RWS supply.

Detailed water quality and distribution studies
will be needed to determine (1) if the anticipated
purified water volumes during wet, normal, and
dry years can be accommodated by existing
infrastructure; (2) to which portions of the service
areas water will be delivered; (3) water quality
measures and mitigations that will be needed;
and (4) if any new infrastructure will be needed to
reach desired areas of delivery.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
While the new AWTF is anticipated to be co-
owned and operated by San Jose and Santa
Clara, SFPUC staff (or a responsible entity on the
SFPUC’s behalf) will need to operate and maintain
the storage tank, pipeline, and connection from
the advanced treatment facility to BDPLs 3 and 4.

While the project will likely require approximately
20 new staff to operate and maintain, SFPUC
staffing would likely be 20% (4) of that total.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is anticipated to be subject to envi -
ronmental requirements associated with project
facilities and operations.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The feasibility of a larger facility, producing up
to 20 mgd of purified water, was studied, but the
primary option is the 10-mgd facility. Aside from
the production capacity, other alternatives that
will be considered are brine discharge methods
and locations, pipeline crossing methods, and
potentially storage tank capacity and locations for
San Jose, Santa Clara, and the SFPUC.

4. South Bay Purified Water Project - continued
20402020

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• The SFPUC is committed to making a
decision about whether to make San Jose
and Santa Clara permanent customers by
December 31, 2028.
• Risk of not meeting key milestone:

If San Jose and Santa Clara are not made
permanent customers of the SFPUC, the
regional water supply element of this
project would not move forward, and the
dry year water supply of 3.5 mgd would
not be realized.
+ PROS – CONS
Drought-resistant supply. The project
provides a new drought-resistant water
supply.

Local supply. The project provides a new
local supply for the cities of San Jose and
Santa Clara.

Supports decision making. Assists SFPUC
with its decision to make San Jose and Santa
Clara permanent customers. If San Jose
and Santa Clara are not made permanent
customers of the SFPUC, the regional element
of the project will not move forward.

Water quality challenges. Potential water quality challenges in the transmission and distribution system would need to be analyzed further and may result in operational changes.

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Complete feasibility studies. Conduct detailed analyses on water quality and supply distribution. Explore expansion of partnerships (e.g., other potential purified water customers in the South Bay).

COST
The capital cost for the project is estimated to be $658 million, equivalent to $425 million in 2023 dollars. This is a new project that is being recommended for inclusion in the CIP for the first time, so there are no appropriated or budgeted funds explicitly for this project in the current CIP. To complete planning, environmental review and 10% design, additional funding of $6.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP. This project represents a partnership with the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, and it is anticipated that they would share the costs, which is reflected in the proposed planning and design funding.

The SFPUC would be a partial owner of the new facilities—particularly the new storage tank, pipeline, and connection from the advanced treatment facility to BDPLs 3 and 4—and would be bearing an estimated 35% of the total capital costs. While the portion of the SFPUC’s contribution to capital and O&M costs has not yet been determined, the SFPUC’s contribution will likely be limited to costs associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining a storage tank, pipeline, and BDPL connection. San Jose and Santa Clara will together bear the majority of costs for the project .

4. South Bay Purified Water Project - continued

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Proceed with feasibility analysis, conceptual design, CEQA, and outreach.
• To proceed beyond CEQA: seek commitment from project partners to contribute resources for developing detailed design (100%), seek direction from the SFPUC Commission by end of 2028 to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers with the condition that this project completes construction and starts operation, and identify SFPUC staff responsible for future O&M of new SFPUC assets. Plan for operating budget accordingly. • Funding of $6.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete SFPUC’s share of planning, environmental review and 10% design.

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE
Planning Design ConstructionEnvironmental Review

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS
2030
5A. Los Vaqueros Expansion (LVE) Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Los Vaqueros Expansion (LVE) Project is a storage project that will enlarge the capacity of the existing reservoir located in Contra Costa County from 160,000 acre-feet to 275,000 acre-feet. While the existing reservoir is owned and operated by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), the proposed expansion will have regional benefits, as other water agencies will be able to share in the additional capacity. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that was formed in 2021 will manage the expansion and provide the governance and administration for the project, and the JPA’s members (which include the SFPUC) will assist in the design, construction, operation, and administration of the project, in coordination with CCWD.

The SFPUC’s potential 40,000 acre-foot share of the project’s additional storage capacity would provide a dry-year water supply benefit to the SFPUC. However, in order to realize the full water supply benefit of the project, the SFPUC must: 1) identify and secure a water supply to store in the reservoir and 2) enable conveyance from storage to SFPUC customers. The critical issues are considered as two separate AWS Projects (5B. Conveyance Alternatives for LVE and 5C. Supply Alternatives for LVE), which would ultimately need to be implemented along with this 5A. LVE Project.

PROJECT LOCATION
The LVE Project is located in eastern Contra Costa County.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• Raise the Los Vaqueros Reservoir to increase storage by 115,000 acre-feet, of which the SFPUC’s share would be 30,000 – 40,000 acre-feet.
• Transfer-Bethany Pipeline to connect project facilities to the California Aqueduct. • Upgrade and expand existing pump stations and conveyance infrastructure (not shown).

All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Proposed Pipeline
Proposed Project Facility
Expanded Reservoir
(approximate)
NOT TO
SCALE
5A. Los Vaqueros Expansion Project - continued

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The SFPUC is one of eight partner agencies in the LVE Project, and one of the six partner agencies that are urban water suppliers, including CCWD, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), ACWD, Zone 7 Water Agency, and Valley Water. The other two partners represent agricultural users (San Luis & Dela Mendota Water Authority) and wildlife refuges (Grassland Water District). The wildlife refuges provide a significant environmental benefit for the project. Depending on the filling and delivery needs of individual partners, there may be times when there is insufficient capacity for all partners to move water in or out of LVE storage at the optimal time. Agreements will need to be negotiated to determine operational priorities. The majority of decisions made by the JPA will be by a simple majority, as provided in the 2021 JPA Agreement signed by the partners as JPA members, including the SFPUC. Some decisions will require a greater majority. The financial closing for the project will be achieved when the partners enter into a long-term Service Agreement with the JPA. This is a requirement for the project to secure grant funds. A JPA member’s decision to sign onto the Service Agreement represents a commitment to financial participation in the project, as it represents one of the last opportunities to exit the project prior to construction. While SFPUC staff are concurrently pursuing outstanding water supply and conveyance agreements to support its participation in LVE, the decision to enter into the Service Agreement will come before those projects are fully resolved. The SFPUC will have to consider the relative risk of participating in a regional storage project outside of the SFPUC service area and without complete information about long-term water supply and conveyance. While some risks may remain, and staff continue to make progress to minimize them, securing a storage opportunity near the southern Delta would provide the SFPUC with strategic access to short- and long-term water transfers.

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
The SFPUC is contemplating a purchase of up to 40,000 acre-feet of storage in the expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir. While costs and conveyance modeling are based on this volume of storage, as of June 2023, LVE storage is oversubscribed and the SFPUC’s final allocation may be less than 40,000 acre-feet.

Los Vaqueros Reservoir experiences evaporative losses of up to 8% on an annual basis. Depending on the supply source (5C. Supply Alternatives for LVE) and conveyance pathway selected for the SFPUC (5B. Conveyance Alternatives for LVE), additional transmission and transfer losses may be incurred. Stored water would be delivered to SFPUC customers in dry years through the proposed Transfer-Bethany Pipeline and then subsequently through one of the conveyance options being examined, which could include partnerships with South Bay Aqueduct contractors, or a direct connection to SFPUC facilities, as discussed under 5B. Conveyance Alternatives for LVE.

For planning purposes, it is assumed that the SFPUC could divert 4,416 AFY into its allocated storage at LVE, in wet years only. The SFPUC would then take delivery of that stored water in critical dry years, which are assumed to be two to three out of every ten years. Water deliveries would be a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet in any single year, limited by modeled conveyance constraints under 5B. Conveyance Alternatives for LVE. Based on supply and operating assumptions, the project could provide an average annual dry year benefit to the SFPUC of approximately 3.9 mgd over the design drought.

INSTITUTIONAL COMPLEXITY

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS
CCWD
EBMUD
Increase
water supply
reliability
ACWD
ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY

VALLEY WATER
Increase water supply
reliability
SFPUC
(with BAWSCA)
Increase Dry-Year
Supply

SAN LUIS & DELTA

MENDOTA WATER

AUTHORITY
Increase water
supply for
irrigation

GRASSLAND
WATER

DISTRICT
Protect wildlife
refuges
DWR (State)
USBR (Federal)
Provide
approvals and
funding

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type Storage
SFPUC Regional
Supply Assumed 3.9 mgd
Project Capacity 3.9 mgd
Earliest Service
Date 2030
Estimated Capital
Cost per Acre-Foot $1,626
Current Status Design
SFPUC
only
Multi-Party
Partnership
Institutional complexity is a relative measure that takes into account project service area, project facilities
ownership, number of project partners, cost share, and
whether SFPUC is construction and design lead.

Increase water supply reliability

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
SFPUC facilities are not directly connected to Los
Vaqueros Reservoir facilities. As a result, filling its share of LVE storage and taking deliveries from
LVE will require partnerships, exchanges, and close
coordination with CCWD and regulating agencies.

Maintaining operational flexibility in the timing of
deliveries will be important to maximizing water
supply benefits.

Many of the operational considerations related to
new supplies from LVE are dependent on which
conveyance option is selected (as discussed in 5B.

Conveyance Alternatives for LVE). If direct deliveries
to SFPUC facilities are made, which is the current
planning assumption, Delta supplies would be
introduced to the RWS. Potential for water quality
challenges and the risk of introducing invasive
species to the RWS will increase with project
deliveries. A study completed in 2021 showed that
while no additional treatment upgrades may be
needed, additional monitoring and management
will be needed. Furthermore, if new Delta supplies
are introduced locally in the RWS, it will likely
require modifications to the operations of the RWS
during droughts.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
The project will be operated and managed by the
JPA with CCWD providing technical, administrative
and other support as needed. As a member of the
JPA, the SFPUC will need to engage in ongoing
close coordination with the JPA and CCWD staff
and maintain representation on the JPA Board. It
is expected these coordination activities would
be handled by existing staff resources and there
would be no need for additional staffing.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CEQA and NEPA reviews were completed for the
LVE Project in 2020.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives for water sources for the 5A. LVE
Project are being examined as part of 5C.

Supply Alternatives for LVE, and alternatives
for conveyance of supplies from LVE storage
are being examined as part of 5B. Conveyance
Alternatives for LVE.
5A. Los Vaqueros Expansion Project - continued
+ PROS – CONS
Dry-Year Supply reliability. The project provides water storage for delivery in dry years.

Leveraging existing partner facilities. The project
enables regional benefits by expanding CCWD’s existing
reservoir.

Supply Implementation. Delivery can wait until the
need is imminent.

Operational stability. The project does not impact
SFPUC’s ability to use existing supplies in wet/normal
years.

Strategic storage potential. The project is located
outside of the SFPUC’s service area and can provide a
strategic location for storage and access to potential
new water supplies.

Incremental water supply benefits. A source of supply
that is available in both wet and dry years can increase the yield of this project.

Project commitments. Planning and environmental
reviews are complete. The project has secured
preliminary commitments for significant grant funding.

Water quality/invasive species. Introduction of
Delta supplies to the RWS would require additional
management and monitoring of water quality and
invasive species.

Operational uncertainty. Filling and delivery will
require reliance on Delta operations, which would be
new for the SFPUC and would have some inherent
uncertainty.

Allocation of grant benefits. Grant funds may be
allocated based on project benefits rather than
proportionate share of project costs, which can
reduce the cost savings to the SFPUC.

Use of project facilities. Capacity of conveyance
facilities may be limited and there may be competition
at times when partner demands are high.

Dependence on multiple partners. SFPUC facilities
are not physically connected to Los Vaqueros
Reservoir. To put water into storage or take deliveries, additional partnerships will be needed.

Dependence on other projects. This project is
dependent on identifying a supply source and
securing conveyance pathways for filling and delivery.

COST
While the total capital cost of the project is estimated to be over $1.2 billion, SFPUC’s share of the cost for up to 40,000 acre-feet of storage is $275 million, or in 2023 dollars, $215 million. However, the project is expected to receive State and federal funding to offset some of the costs and reduce the SFPUC’s share based on proportional benefits. SFPUC’s O&M costs will vary significantly based on use of the conveyance facilities to move water into or out of storage in any given year. Overall, the SFPUC’s share of conveyance facilities is expected to be less than 10% due to anticipated use in dry years only. Because debt financing is expected to be secured by the project and not separately by the SFPUC at this time, the SFPUC’s annual expenditures are likely to be cash-funded capital debt repayments over time. Funding of $42.5 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete design and construction of this project. Additionally, O&M costs within the next 10-year period are expected to total $36 million and will be included in a future operating budget. To fully realize the benefit of this project, funding for 5B. Conveyance Alternatives for LVE and 5C. Supply Alternatives for LVE must be secured in parallel.
5A. Los Vaqueros Expansion Project - continued
5A. Los Vaqueros Expansion Project - continued

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Proceed with planning and coordination on all LVE
related projects.
• Continue developing a water supply strategy
and agreement terms for conveyance. If State
and federal grant funds are secured, annual
expenditures may decrease or be deferred. Grant
and loan receipts will not be confirmed until
after financial commitments to the project by all
partners are secured.
• Funding of $42.5 million is proposed in the
FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete implementation
of the storage project
• Operating costs will be included in a future
operating budget when the project is in service.

Operating costs will vary depending on how and
when the SFPUC fills its storage allocation and
takes deliveries of water.

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• The Service Agreement, which financially
commits the SFPUC to the project, must be
approved for the project to proceed. The
Service Agreement is expected to come
before the SFPUC Commission in 2024.
• A water supply strategy is being developed
as part of 5C. Supply Alternatives for LVE
to support decision-making on the Service
Agreement.
• Risk of not meeting key milestone: If the
Service Agreement is not approved, this
project will not move forward and the
estimated 3.9 mgd water supply benefit
would not materialize.

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Develop financial scenarios and work with SFPUC Capital Planning and Finance to refine annual expenditure estimates. Continue planning for related 5C. Supply Alternatives for LVE and 5B. Conveyance Alternatives for LVE and present outstanding risks to the Commission ahead of decision-making on participating in the Service Agreement for this LVE Project.

Planning Design ConstructionEnvironmental Review

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE
2015 2025 20302020
5B. Conveyance Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The SFPUC is considering its participation in the 5A. LVE Project as a storage project that can enable carryover storage in wet years for delivery in dry years. However, the reservoir is not connected to the SFPUC’s RWS facilities. Therefore, additional pathways are needed both to fill the SFPUC’s share of LVE storage and subsequently to deliver water from project facilities and into SFPUC’s service area. The main pathway being considered for delivery is through the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA).

The SBA is a 49-mile aqueduct, which is part of the State Water Project, owned by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). SBA Contractors maintain contract capacity for use of the SBA: Zone 7 Water Agency, ACWD, and Valley Water. The SFPUC could enter into exchanges with one or more of the SBA Contractors, who are also LVE JPA members and partner agencies. Additionally, the SFPUC’s San Antonio Reservoir and Sunol Valley WTP are very close to the SBA. A connection between the SBA and San Antonio Reservoir that was constructed toward the end of the 1987-1992 drought remains in place. This connection could be upgraded to deliver LVE supplies directly to the SFPUC. For planning purposes, this is assumed to be the primary pathway for project deliveries.

PROJECT LOCATION
Conveyance Alternatives are being explored in connection with the SFPUC’s participation in the 5A. LVE Project in Contra Costa County.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• Expand existing SBA connection with San Antonio Reservoir (planning assumption).

Delivery to
SFPUC Reservoir
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir Expanded
ACWD
Turnout
Valley Water Turnout
Sunol Valley
WTP
San
Francisco
Bay
Bay Division
Pipelines 1, 2 & 5
Bay Division
Pipelines 3 & 4
South Bay Aqueduct
(State Water Project)
Calaveras
Reservoir
San Antonio
Reservoir
Zone 7
Turnout
Livermore
San
Jose
Palo
Alto
Fremont
Proposed
Transfer-Bethany
Pipeline
Hayward All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Proposed Pipeline
Proposed Project Facility
Upgraded Water Treatment
SBA Turnout
Expanded Reservoir
(approximate)
NOT TO
SCALE
5B. Conveyance Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion - continued

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The SFPUC seeks to prioritize the use of existing infrastructure and minimizing costs where possible. Therefore, conveyance through the SBA is preferred over building a new intertie with EBMUD. Exchanges with ACWD and Valley Water, or direct deliveries to San Antonio Reservoir are possible. For exchanges with ACWD or Valley Water, new agreements would be needed and would have institutional complications. Because ACWD is a Wholesale Customer of the SFPUC, for example, the parties may determine that existing agreement terms should be modified to enable ACWD to take deliveries from 5A. LVE Project in lieu of RWS deliveries. An exchange with Valley Water may require modified use of the emergency intertie that connects the SFPUC and Valley Water systems at Milpitas (Milpitas Intertie). Valley Water could also deliver supplies directly to common customers, which would require the modification of individual customer contracts.

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
The potential conveyance alternatives do not serve as a water supply; rather they would facilitate delivery of water from the expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir for the benefit of SFPUC customers. Since the conveyance alternatives discussed here support the separate but related 5A. LVE Project (outlined in the preceding project description section), the water supply benefit is accounted for through 5A. LVE Project, and no additional water supply benefit is accounted for in this conveyance project.

The SBA conveyance pathway can enable exchanges between the SFPUC and one of the SBA Contractors. While there is limited synergy with Zone 7, ACWD is a Wholesale Customer of the SFPUC and there are eight customers located in Valley Water’s service area that are also served by the SFPUC. Any of those agencies could be a potential exchange partner that could take delivery of the SFPUC’s stored LVE water and free up an equivalent supply to the SFPUC in its service area. The SFPUC can also take direct deliveries into San Antonio Reservoir from the SBA. Modeling analysis done by the SBA Contractors confirmed available capacity in the SBA to accommodate deliveries for the SFPUC in future dry years.

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type –
SFPUC Regional
Supply Assumed
See 5A.

LVE
Project
Project Capacity
See 5A.

LVE
Project
Earliest Service
Date 2030
Estimated Capital
Cost per Acre-Foot $38
Current Status Planning

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS
Partners in the project will depend on the conveyance pathway implemented. To modify the connection between the SBA and San Antonio Reservoir, the SFPUC will work with DWR (owner and operator of the SBA) and the SBA Contractors. For a new intertie alternative, the SFPUC would partner with EBMUD. Because this project is contemplated only to deliver 5A. LVE Project supplies on behalf of the SFPUC, it is assumed that the incremental supply accruing from the project will be for the SFPUC only.

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
SFPUC staff have worked closely with the SBA
Contractors to determine that there would be
sufficient capacity available in the SBA to also
deliver stored water from the 5A. LVE Project in dry
years, however, the timing of those deliveries may
vary across the year. Deliveries to the SFPUC would
have a lower priority than deliveries to the SBA
Contractors. Because the SFPUC is flexible in timing
of deliveries into its system, this pathway is feasible.

Direct delivery to RWS at San Antonio Reservoir
In addition to storing local runoff, San Antonio
Reservoir is currently used to store water from the
Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. Water from San Antonio
Reservoir is conveyed through the San Antonio
Pipeline to the Sunol Valley WTP, where it is
filtered and disinfected before delivery to SFPUC
customers. Addition of water from Los Vaqueros
Reservoir will constitute a new source of supply
and would a) potentially introduce new invasive
species to the RWS and b) pose a water quality
challenge. At a minimum, the introduction of a new
supply will require additional water quality testing
and monitoring on an ongoing basis. It would also
require a change to dry-year operations of the RWS.

Exchange with ACWD
ACWD’s ability to take delivery of supplies from the
5A. LVE Project in lieu of supplies from the RWS is
limited by a) demand b) existing treatment capacity
and c) water quality and blending requirements.

It is estimated that the potential for exchange
with ACWD is currently limited to 2 to 4 mgd and
cannot fully replace the need for RWS supplies.

Furthermore, treatment of raw water conveyed
through the SBA will be required.

Exchange with Valley Water
Valley Water’s turnout from the SBA is at the
southern end of the existing pipeline. To enable an
exchange with the SFPUC, Valley Water would have
to take more deliveries from the SBA – which incurs
high conveyance losses in its southern reaches – and
then treat that water at one of its water treatment
plants. Delivery of treated water to the RWS could
be at the Milpitas Intertie or to common customers.

For the latter, distribution system modifications to
individual customers would be required.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
As noted above, the various conveyance alternatives
would affect staffing needs differently. In all cases,
additional coordination would be required. The
greatest direct implications to SFPUC operations
would be in the scenario of direct deliveries to San
Antonio Reservoir. Exchanges would result in new
operational needs for our partners.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Implementation of the conveyance alternatives
is anticipated to be subject to environmental
requirements associated with the proposed
facilities and operations. The infrastructure
improvements and construction of facilities will
vary with the conveyance alternative.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
An alternative of conveying water from LVE through
EBMUD’s system has been explored. While it
appeared feasible based on a preliminary study, it
would be significantly more expensive and require
more infrastructure to be constructed and operated.

EBMUD and the SFPUC have an existing emergency
intertie, located at Hayward, which is not available for drought use; however, the two agencies evaluated
a possible new intertie that could enable deliveries.

This conveyance alternative would require a large
new pipeline. While it would avoid any need for
reoperation of Hayward’s distribution system, the
challenges of the alignment make it significantly
more costly than using SBA for deliveries from the
5A. LVE Project.
5B. Conveyance Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion - continued 203020252020
COST
The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be $6.2 million, or the equivalent of $5.1 million in 2023 dollars.

Funding of $4.3 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to continue the planning process. + PROS – CONS
Use of existing assets. The project prioritizes use of
existing infrastructure.

Multiple feasible pathways for delivery. Although
there is no direct connection between 5A. LVE
Project and SFPUC facilities, there are both direct
and indirect conveyance alternatives that are feasible.

Partners with experience. LVE introduces a new
supply source to the SFPUC, but the potential
exchange partners have historically used the same
supply sources.

Institutional agreements. Terms of the partnership
agreements needed for conveyance may not be
favorable to the SFPUC, such as lower priority for a)
use of the SBA or b) treatment capacity needed for
exchanges.

Water quality challenges. In the case of direct delivery to San Antonio Reservoir, the new water supply into
the RWS could introduce invasive species and present
new water quality challenges that will require additional monitoring and potentially operational modifications.
5B. Conveyance Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion - continued

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• This project would be implemented with 5A. LVE
Project, which requires an approved Service Agreement
to proceed. The Service Agreement is expected to
come before the SFPUC Commission in 2024.
• Details of a water supply source must be identified
before the SFPUC can enter into an agreement with
DWR for use of capacity in the SBA in dry years.
• Risk of not meeting key milestone: If the Service Agreement is not approved, this project will not move forward
and the estimated 3.9 mgd of water supply associated
with the 5A. LVE Project would not materialize.

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Continue work toward securing a short-term water supply agreement with a transfer partner as a precursor for a conveyance agreement with DWR for use of the SBA. • Pursue planning and preliminary design to upgrade the SBA connection to San Antonio Reservoir, and simultaneously continue working with ACWD and Valley Water to pursue exchange opportunities. • Continue work toward determining outstanding risks related to conveyance and present them to the SFPUC Commission prior to decision-making to participate in the Service Agreement.

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Continue pursuing all SBA
pathway alternatives, including
exchanges and the potential
for direct deliveries.

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE
Planning Design ConstructionEnvironmental Review
5C. Supply Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is intended to support the SFPUC’s participation in the 5A. LVE Project. Unlike other LVE project partners, the SFPUC has no direct physical connection to the LVE facilities and no water supply that can readily be stored in the proposed regional storage project. However, because the regional storage opportunity would provide benefits for the SFPUC as described in the companion project, the SFPUC is evaluating water supply alternatives that can help fill the proposed storage capacity of up to 40,000 acre-feet for use in dry years.

There are five potential supplies: 1) transfers of surface water supplies (short- or long-term), 2) new water supplies generated by advanced treatment of wastewater (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Purified Water), 3) treatment of brackish water through Bay Area Brackish Water Desalination, 4) treatment of brackish water through Purified Water at Neroly, or 5) groundwater extraction (East Contra Costa Groundwater Demineralization). Depending on the location and conveyance pathway for the supply, it may be subject to transmission losses and capacity limitations, or subject to an additional exchange with CCWD. Regardless of the alternative, a supply of 4 to 5 mgd is needed in wet and normal years to fill the proposed storage for dry- year availability to the SFPUC.

PROJECT LOCATION

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• Treatment facility (for new supply alternatives, not transfers). • Pipelines (connecting to partners’ existing infrastructure, as needed). 680
4 4
4 Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
Expanded
To SFPUC
(See Conveyance
Alternatives)
Los Vaqueros
Pipeline
Bethany
Reservoir
Mokelumne
Aqueducts
Contra Costa Canal
3 2
4 1
5 Walnut
Creek
Pi/t_tsburg
Brentwood
Altamont
4 Proposed
Transfer–Bethany
Pipeline
All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Proposed Pipeline
Proposed Project Facility
Expanded Reservoir
(approximate)
NOT TO
SCALE

1. Transfers of Surface Water Supplies

2. Central Contra Costa Purified Water

3. Bay Area Brackish Water Desalination

4. Purified Water at Neroly

5. East Contra Costa Basin Groundwater
Demineralization
5C. Supply Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion - continued

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Any water supply to be stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir would require exchanges with CCWD and potential partnership with other agencies. SFPUC staff have begun having exploratory discussions with potential partners but recognize that securing agreements will require additional study and negotiations. As with any new infrastructure project, this process could take over 10 years, in which time the storage would be available to fill. As such, staff are simultaneously pursuing short-term transfers as a way to optimize use of storage and related facilities as they come online. CCWD is assisting the SFPUC in identifying and securing transfer opportunities as well as long-term supply options.

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
Storage at LVE is expected to be available by the end of 2030. Associated conveyance facilities such as the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline may be available sooner. Meanwhile, developing a new water supply capital project can take 10 to 20 years. Therefore, SFPUC staff are simultaneously evaluating short- (within 10 years) and long-term (beyond 10 years) solutions that can optimize a potential investment in the storage project.

Water supply strategy: transfers
Purchasing transfer water upstream of the CCWD’s intakes in the Delta in wet and above normal years could provide a source of water for the SFPUC’s participation in the 5A. LVE Project. The water would flow to Los Vaqueros via Delta tributary streams and be pumped into Los Vaqueros at CCWD’s intakes. With more frequent droughts and limited supply options anticipated in the future, competition for transfer opportunities may also increase over time. Therefore, pursuing transfers may be a short-term water supply strategy while the SFPUC seeks a new water supply source for long-term reliability.

However, since transfers would not require large new capital investments or infrastructure, SFPUC staff are prioritizing opportunities for both short- and long-term transfers that may be feasible.

Timing of the transfers, availability from year to year, and the associated transmission losses that may occur would vary by source. Discussions with potential transfer partners are ongoing.

Water supply strategy: brackish desalination, purified water, or groundwater demineralization Between 3 and 5 mgd of average annual supplies may be available through treatment of wastewater, brackish water or groundwater. Production of these sources are likely to be in all year types. Other LVE project partners are also interested in pursuing these supply options and the SFPUC may pursue them jointly. Each potential water supply option is currently under study. Costs for a regional brackish water desalination supply are indicated as illustrative because it has been studied the most and has more data available than other alternatives currently under study.

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type Transfers and alternative
supplies (TBD)
SFPUC
Regional
Supply
Assumed
See 5A. LVE Project
Project
Capacity See 5A. LVE Project
Earliest
Service Date
Transfers (2030);
new alternative
water supply (2040)
Estimated
Capital Cost
per Acre-Foot
$2,319 (based
on 10 mgd
regional brackish
desalination)
Current Status Planning

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS
Each project alternative has different partners with varying interests. The SFPUC is at an exploratory stage for long-term water supply. However, short-term transfers can provide an interim solution to ensure that the storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir can be fully utilized once it is completed by 2030. CCWD is working with the SFPUC on securing both short- and long- term water supply opportunities.

INSTITUTIONAL COMPLEXITY
SFPUC
only
Multi-Party
Partnership
Institutional complexity is a relative measure that takes into account project service area, project facilities
ownership, number of project partners, cost share, and
whether SFPUC is construction and design lead.

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The water supply options under consideration
are outside of the SFPUC’s service area. No direct
operational impacts are anticipated. However,
there would be operational impacts to our partners,
depending on the alternative(s) pursued.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
The water supply options under consideration
are outside of the SFPUC’s service area. No direct
staffing needs are anticipated for the SFPUC at
this time. The SFPUC does not have experience in
securing short-term transfers that can be stored
in Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Expertise in this area
through a contractor would be valuable support
for SFPUC planning.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review will be completed, as
needed, based on the water supply alternative(s)
pursued.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
There are several water supply alternatives,
as described in the project description. The
strategy to pursue water supply for storage in Los
Vaqueros Reservoir is further broken down into
long-term and short-term opportunities. The long-
term supply options include desalination, purified
water, and groundwater demineralization. As
these are all large capital projects, they would take
10 years or more to implement. Therefore, SFPUC
staff are simultaneously pursuing water transfers
as a way to provide short-term water supply for
the proposed storage. At this time, water transfer
agreements are envisioned with willing sellers
around the Delta. Short term, annual transfers
are authorized through the SWRCB process and
are CEQA exempt while long-term transfers that
guarantee supply availability for 10 years require
more rigorous analysis, including CEQA.
5C. Supply Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion - continued 2020 2030 2040

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE
COST
The total capital cost for a new long-term supply for storage such as brackish water desalination is $511 million for a 10 mgd project (partnership) or $255 million for a 5 mgd project (for the SFPUC). A 10-mgd project at $511 million is estimated to be the equivalent of $313 million in 2023 dollars. Funding of $6.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to continue planning this project. A new water supply capital project is not anticipated until 2040 so only funds for continued planning are anticipated in the 10-year CIP budget. Pursuing transfers in the near-term will require operating budget allocation, which will be negotiated prior to LVE storage construction. + PROS – CONS
Drought-resistant supply. The project provides several
alternatives of drought-resistant water supply.

Reduce wastewater discharges. Some long-term supply
alternatives result in reduced wastewater discharge to
San Francisco Bay.

Limiting infrastructure needs (transfers). Transfers
can be accomplished without the need for additional
infrastructure.

Access to transfer water. Beyond the advantages of
stored water, participation in the project improves the SFPUC’s access to the water transfer market through
the Delta.

New partnerships. Long-term water supply
alternatives rely primarily on working with new
partners, many of whom the SFPUC has not
previously worked with.

Assets outside the SFPUC’s service area. Long-term
water supplies will result in infrastructure being built for the SFPUC’s benefit, outside the SFPUC’s service
area and operated by partner agencies.

Reliance on exchanges. To convey water to Los
Vaqueros Reservoir, the SFPUC would have to rely
on exchanges and be subject to capacity and priority
constraints and regulatory approvals.
5C. Supply Alternatives for Los Vaqueros Expansion - continued

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• Identify short- and long-term water supply strategy and initiate agreements for exchanges and conveyance. (Being developed under 5C. Supply Alternatives for LVE and 5B. Conveyance Alternatives for LVE).
• Risk of not meeting key milestone: If a water supply strategy is not developed to support approving the Service Agreement, it could jeopardize approval of the Service Agreement and 5A. LVE Project would not proceed.

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Continue feasibility analysis of all water supply options. Engage in discussions with potential partners to assess interest in synergies.
• Continue coordinating with recommendations associated with the 5A. LVE Project.

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Continue planning long-term
water supply opportunities
while simultaneously securing
short-term water transfers.

Planning Design ConstructionEnvironmental Review

6. Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This storage project envisions the expansion of the SFPUC’s Calaveras Reservoir to store excess RWS supplies or other source water in wet/normal years. No expansion of water rights from the local watershed is anticipated.

With the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project complete, Calaveras Dam currently impounds a capacity of 96,850 acre-feet or 31 billion gallons of water. By raising the dam height up to 890 feet, from its current height of 220 feet, an additional 290,000 acre-feet of storage could be realized. A smaller alternative would raise the dam to 771 feet, providing an additional 22,000 acre-feet of storage. Calaveras Reservoir is owned and operated by the SFPUC for the benefit of RWS customers. Unlike all other regional projects under review in this program, no external partners are anticipated at this time.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
• Raise Calaveras Dam.
• Calaveras pipeline (construct new or reverse flow).
• San Joaquin pipeline bypass.
• Pump station.
• Upgraded dechlorination facility.
• Modifications to the Coast Range Tunnel
(depending on conveyance alternative).

PROJECT LOCATION
The Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project involves expansion of the existing Calaveras Reservoir located in Sunol Valley, Alameda County.
680
680
580
84 84
84 580
880
880
Tesla
Treatment
Facility
Sunol Valley WTP
Calaveras
Reservoir
San Antonio
Reservoir
Irvington
Tunnel
Calaveras Pipeline
South Bay Aqueduct
(State Water Project)
Lake
Del Valle
Coast Range Tunnel
San Joaquin Pipelines
(from Hetch Hetchy)Hayward
Livermore
Fremont
Pleasanton
All locations and sizes shown are
approximate and represent the
general vicinity for potential facilities.

LEGEND
Existing Pipeline
Potential Pipeline
Potential Project Facility
Water Treatment
Expanded Reservoir
(approximate)
NOT TO
SCALE
San Francisco
Bay

6. Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project - continued

INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The SFPUC has no external partners for this project and the project entirely serves the SFPUC service area with the SFPUC as the design and construction lead. Therefore, compared to other projects, the project has lower institutional complexity.

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY & DISTRIBUTION
Four dam raise options and eight conveyance alternatives have been studied initially. Taking the smallest and largest of each as the planning bookends, the project is anticipated to provide between 2.7 mgd and 28.6 mgd of additional stored water for the SFPUC in a future dry year. The project would redirect water from the RWS downstream into storage for use during dry years.

The sources of surplus water would include overflow or “spills” from the SFPUC’s Moccasin Reservoir to the Modesto and
Turlock Irrigation Districts’ Don Pedro Reservoir that exceed the SFPUC’s maximum storage allocation in Don Pedro Reservoir, and secondarily, spills from the SFPUC’s Kirkwood Powerhouse.

By expanding existing RWS storage, these existing sources of supply can be captured for use in dry years. The water stored in an enlarged Calaveras Reservoir will continue to be distributed to the SFPUC’s customers through the RWS.

PROJECT PARTNERS & INTERESTS
Calaveras Reservoir is an RWS facility. There are no additional partners.

PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Supply Type Storage (with
conveyance)
SFPUC Supply
Assumed 2.7 to 28.6 mgd
Project Capacity 2.7 to 28.6 mgd
Earliest Service
Date
2035 or 2039
depending on size
Estimated Capital
Cost per Acre-Foot $2,831 to $3,960
Current Status Planning

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Calaveras Reservoir collects local runoff from
the Alameda Creek Watershed primarily through
rainfall events. Through this project, the reservoir
will receive water from additional sources within the
RWS and possibly alternative water supplies in the
future. Consistent with current operations, water
from the expanded Calaveras Reservoir will be
conveyed by gravity to the Sunol Valley WTP before
blending with water originating from Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir through the Calaveras Pipeline.

There are several alternatives that continue to be
under consideration in planning. Water from the
Tuolumne River could be conveyed through the
Upcountry system via the Coast Range Tunnel,
through the new San Joaquin Pipeline 4 and
Tesla Treatment Facility in Tracy. A dechlorination
facility or process could potentially be added to
the existing Sunol Dechlorination Facility to treat
the expanded flow, which could then potentially be
conveyed through the Calaveras pump station and
Calaveras Pipeline before entering the Calaveras
Reservoir. Existing facilities have constraints
for which alternatives are also being evaluated
through multiple scenarios. The project would
be operated to capture water supplies under
existing water rights and conveyed and treated
through new infrastructure facilities. Upcountry
system operations may need to be modified to
accommodate deliveries to an expanded Calaveras
Reservoir. This could require realigning some
operational objectives such as routing a portion of
the water originating from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir
to the Alameda System instead of the Don Pedro
Water Bank, for example.

The project would provide operational flexibility,
particularly in dry years, by allowing the SFPUC to
utilize Tuolumne River and other wet/normal year
supply available through the increased storage, as
well as additional water supply such as purified
water from AWS Projects that might be stored in an
expanded Calaveras Reservoir.

STAFFING & WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT
Operation of the expanded reservoir and related
facilities would be by SFPUC staff. It is estimated
that six new staff would need to be added for the
implementation of this project.

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is anticipated to be subject to
environmental requirements associated with project
facilities and operations. The project would require
environmental review and permits for construction
and operation of the project at least including
Section 401 Water Quality Certification and for
protection of special-status species and habitat.

The project is also subject to Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative analysis under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act and resultant
State section 401 determination.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
SFPUC is studying feasible dam raise scenarios;
conveyance alternatives, including infrastructure
and operational considerations, for an expanded
Calaveras Reservoir; and different water supply
alternatives to be integrated to maximize efficient
use of expanded storage at Calaveras.

6. Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project - continued
204020302020
COST
The capital cost range for the dam raise from the minimum to the maximum possible height is estimated to be between $265 million ($182 million in 2023 dollars) and $3.6 billion, or $2.3 billion in 2023 dollars. The associated capital cost for the new conveyance would similarly range from $81 million ($70 million in 2023 dollars) to $2.4 billion ($1.5 billion in 2023 dollars). The total capital cost for the project is therefore between $346 million ($252 million in 2023 dollars) and $6 billion ($3.8 billion in 2023 dollars). Existing funds would be used to support continued planning through the Alternatives Analysis for the Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project. Funding to complete planning, environmental review and design will be considered in a future CIP development process.
+ PROS – CONS
Dry-year reliability and supply utilization. The project significantly increases storage capacity within the RWS, enabling the SFPUC to capture more of its system
supplies in wet and normal years for use in dry years.

Operational flexibility. The SFPUC operates a storage-
based system; additional storage provides greater
flexibility, particularly in dry years.

Local Control. No external partnerships are required to implement this project.

Supply availability. Tuolumne River supply to divert to storage is uncertain.

Cost and new infrastructure needs. Raising the
Calaveras Dam and building associated conveyance
infrastructure would have a substantial ratepayer
impact and be a major infrastructure project that
would likely have significant impacts.

Permitting. Expanding the Calaveras Dam and
constructing the associated conveyance infrastructure
would likely include complex permitting.

CURRENT STATUS & SCHEDULE

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SFPUC COMMISSION ACTIONS

KEY MILESTONES/DECISIONS
• This project is still in planning
stages. Key milestones and
decisions that affect project
success and implementation will
be identified as additional planning
and analysis is completed.

UPCOMING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
• Initiate Request for Proposals for alternatives study and narrow down both dam raise and conveyance scenarios.

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
• Proceed with planning through the Alternatives Analysis. • To proceed beyond CEQA, seek direction
from the SFPUC Commission.
• Support additional funding for planning,
environmental review and design to be included
in a future CIP development process.

6. Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project - continued
Planning Design ConstructionEnvironmental Review
Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, 2022
AWS Recommendations
111
Chapter 6: AWS Recommendations
Dating back to the early 1900s, San Francisco has a history of thoughtful planning that takes a long view toward creating a sustainable water supply while being a good steward of the natural resources entrusted to its care. In addition to the ongoing risks of disruptions and emergencies, future uncertainties that may result from challenges such as new regulatory requirements to climate change are driving the need to consider investing in alternative water supplies and expanding storage.

The potential for a significant future water supply gap, combined with the lengthy development process for large new alternative water supply projects, highlights the need for urgent commitment to proactive planning, investment, and coordination to achieve the following:

1. Avoid widening the water supply gap

2. Fill the water supply gap

3. Reduce the water supply gap
The AWS Program is focused on planning and developing regional alternative water supply and storage expansion projects to fill the water supply gap (the second objective), however, investing resources in all the areas listed is important for the continued long-term sustainability of the RWS. Changes to either water availability or demand will affect the water supply gap and future planning goals.

In the sections below, specific recommendations associated with each of these three key objectives are described. Section 6.2 (Fill the Water Supply Gap) presents recommendations related to AWS Program development, including both project- specific and programmatic recommendations. Finally, there is discussion of the broader decision-making timeline for projects and the AWS Program to provide guidance for future planning activities and timing of future AWS Plan updates.

In the Draft AWS Plan published and circulated for public comment on June 28, 2023, information included in Chapter 6 was up to date as of May 2023. Between May and December, the capital planning process for the SFPUC’s 2-year budget cycle was underway and project planning continued to advance. As a result, some recommendations in this Chapter have shifted. Furthermore, public comments have also resulted in some clarifications and additions to this section. Recommendations included here reflect the most current recommendations of the AWS Plan as of December 2023. Still, until a final budget is adopted by the SFPUC, any funding associated with recommendations contained in the following pages is subject to change.

While the recommendations included here are intended to address the future water supply gap, several have financial implications for the SFPUC and cannot be evaluated without the full context of all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities of the SFPUC. Therefore, for any new funding associated with recommendations contained in this Plan, project management staff will work with Capital Planning and Finance teams to include specific recommendations as project proposals in the FY 2025-2034 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) development process. Each proposal will be evaluated by staff considering broader priorities and may be included in the CIP as a staff recommendation when the CIP is presented to the SFPUC Commission for adoption in February 2024. Including funding for these recommendations could result in deprioritizing other projects or increasing the capital plan and rates.

6.1 Avoid Widening the Water Supply Gap

6.1.1 Water Supply Benefits of Existing WSIP Projects
The water supply gap that is being addressed through the AWS Program is based on the difference between water availability in the RWS and obligations and 2045 customer demand projections. Water availability in the RWS is determined by modeling system deliveries with several baseline assumptions including the implementation of WSIP projects and the impact of rationing in dry years. In addition, assumed implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment would impact both the water supply and rationing components of water availability in the RWS.

If WSIP Regional Projects including 1) the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (RGSR) Project; 2) Irrigation District Dry-Year Water Transfer in the San Joaquin Valley (Dry-Year Transfer); and 3) the Alameda Creek Recapture Project (ACRP) do not achieve the dry-year water supply benefits that they are expected to achieve, water availability may be further reduced, thereby widening the water supply gap that is the focus of the AWS Plan.

In the baseline modeling of water availability for the AWS Program, the RGSR project has been assumed to deliver 6.2 mgd of average annual dry-year supply before 2045 and the ACRP is assumed to provide 5 mgd to offset instream flow requirements related to the WSIP Calaveras Dam Replacement Project within the planning horizon. No water supply has been assumed in the modeling for the Dry-Year Transfer. Meanwhile, because both the RGSR project and ACRP are in construction and could achieve the assumed dry-year benefits by 2045, recommendations for their completion are included below. The SFPUC will continue to demonstrate progress on these projects through the separate WSIP reporting process and their ultimate yield will be verified and coordinated with the modeling of water availability for the AWS Program. 112
AWS Recommendations
Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project
Supply from the RGSR Project is expected to be available for use starting in 2026.

During construction, following the installation of production wells, some water quality challenges were identified that will require treatment. Additionally, a storage buffer prior to distribution may be needed to accommodate the timing and range of water quality and operational needs. Additional funding for further treatment, potential storage, and staffing for operation is needed to deliver the dry-year supply benefits that have been envisioned. Without this investment in infrastructure and resources, the water supply from this project may be reduced to 3.6 mgd.

Funding of $30.7 million for additional treatment is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The funding will continue to be evaluated through the 10-Year CIP development process, taking into consideration all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities before the SFPUC Commission takes action on the 10-Year CIP in February 2024.

RECOMMENDATION 1
Support funding in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to evaluate alternatives for additional treatment, infrastructure, and associated staffing needed to achieve 6.2 mgd of dry-year supply by 2045 from the RGSR project. Staffing needs will be re-evaluated in a future CIP development process.

Alameda Creek Recapture Project
In the Spring of 2023, during the initial stage of construction, the SFPUC concluded that the design of the segment of the proposed project that captures water collected in a quarry downstream of Calaveras Reservoir and conveys it back into Calaveras Reservoir needed substantial re-evaluation. The construction effort has been paused until that design re-evaluation is completed.

Funding of $5 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP. The funding will continue to be evaluated in the 10-year CIP development process, taking into consideration all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities before the SFPUC Commission takes action on the 10-year CIP in February 2024.

RECOMMENDATION 2
Include the Phase 2 re-design of the Alameda Creek Recapture Project as a new project in the FY 2025-2034 CIP.
113
AWS Recommendations

6.1.2 Other Actions Affecting Water Av ailability from the RWS Proposed Voluntary Agreement
As described in Section 3.2.1 of this Plan, the SWRCB has indicated it will consider the Proposed Voluntary Agreement for adoption in 2024. The impact of the Proposed Voluntary Agreement on projected water availability will remain uncertain until the SWRCB completes its evaluation, which will ultimately determine the impact of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on the SFPUC’s future water supply gap. While the exact quantity associated with instream flow release requirements under the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is subject to change with the Proposed Voluntary Agreement in the future, the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is anticipated to cause a shortfall in RWS supply during dry years. Monitoring developments related to the Proposed Voluntary Agreement will be critical to understanding the future water supply gap.

Transfers and Other San Joaquin Valley Projects
The SFPUC has pursued long-term agreements to transfer 2 mgd from Modesto Irrigation District and subsequently from Oakdale Irrigation District in dry years only.

While no dry-year transfer has been secured or implemented, the SFPUC is continuing to explore potential transfer opportunities on the Tuolumne River and other collaborative projects throughout the San Joaquin Valley in conjunction with the Proposed Voluntary Agreement negotiations related to the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. No investment is needed at this time, and staff will continue reporting developments, as appropriate.

As additional planning is required, resource and funding needs will also be identified.

Projects related to negotiations of the Proposed Voluntary Agreement could impact water availability which would in turn impact future water supply gap estimates.

RECOMMENDATION 3
Continue reporting progress on negotiations related to the Proposed Voluntary Agreement and potential transfers and projects in the San Joaquin Valley that could contribute to instream flow releases. Identify resource and funding needs, as and when appropriate. No new funding or additional resources are needed to support this recommendation.

Rationing
Rationing is a component of water availability and is dependent on water supply. As new supplies are added to the RWS, continuing to monitor the effects of rationing can help determine how much additional supply is needed to fill the water supply gap. 114
AWS Recommendations
Potential Future Regulations and Climate Uncertainty
Both regulatory and climate uncertainties and their resultant impact on water supply availability make it difficult to definitively plan for the future. AWS planning efforts therefore do not currently assign a numerical shortfall with other potential future regulations but rather capture them qualitatively by recognizing the risk they pose to the SFPUC’s ability to meet customers’ water demand. Such regulatory requirements may be quantified in the planning efforts associated with future AWS Plan updates, as necessary.

AWS Planning Updates
Recognizing that the AWS Program is a dynamic planning process, it is intended that it will go through periodic review and update. Water availability and demand drivers will be reviewed, and the anticipated supply gap will be updated if significant changes have emerged (Chapter 3 of the AWS Plan). The AWS Project will be reviewed and updated to reflect current activities and planning (Chapter 5 of this Plan). Finally, AWS Program recommendations will be reviewed and updated as needed in response to significant changes to regulations, policies, or other conditions (Chapter 6 of this Plan). The first scheduled update would be in 2026 after the SFPUC’s 2025 UWMP is developed. After that, the AWS Plan could be updated periodically to align with the biennial budget cycle of the SFPUC and anticipated AWS Project milestones.

RECOMMENDATION 4
Provide updates to the AWS Plan, beginning in FY 2026-2027 and periodically thereafter, to align with AWS Project milestones, changes to regulatory requirements, and CIP planning. No new funding or resource allocation for this effort is anticipated. 115
AWS Recommendations

6.1.3 Baseline Demands on the RWS
Maximizing opportunities for conservation and development of local non-potable and potable supplies helps reduce water demands from the RWS and has been a top priority for the SFPUC. When the WSIP was adopted by the SFPUC Commission in 2008, Resolution 08-0200 included direction for the SFPUC to develop 10 mgd locally in San Francisco and for the Wholesale Customers to develop another 10 mgd in the wholesale service area through conservation, recycled water, and groundwater. Both the San Francisco retail and wholesale service areas have achieved the targets outlined in Resolution 08- 0200. As the SFPUC plans for future reliability, reducing demands on the RWS continues to be an important factor in reducing the future water supply gap.

Demand Scenarios
The exercise of projecting future demands requires the use of a number of assumptions, including the type of methodology (e.g., end use-based, land use-based, population- based, etc.) and the inputs (socio-economic factors, population growth, new housing projections, etc.). Assumptions drive demand projections and can greatly influence the final projections. The SFPUC has historically used an econometric model that incorporates weather and socio-economic factors to project urban water demand in the SFPUC service area. As discussed in Section 3.1 and Section 3.3, customer demands are one component impacting the future water supply gap. Altering the assumptions used in the development of customer demand projections could change the water supply gap.

To account for a range of possible futures, the SFPUC is undertaking an assessment of best practices and model inputs in 2024 that will inform the development of one to two additional demand scenarios. Developing new demand scenarios will include comparing prior projections and actual deliveries to inform which inputs or other key factors are most likely to influence demand. Once inputs and other key factors are better understood, the SFPUC will vary model assumptions to produce additional scenarios.

These additional scenarios will be incorporated into future AWS planning to support investment decisions in the AWS Program, which may include presenting demands as a range. The SFPUC will also coordinate with BAWSCA on demand forecast modeling for the wholesale service area so that updated data can be incorporated into future demand estimates ahead of decision-making on future AWS investment recommendations. No new funding or resource allocation for this effort is anticipated at this time.

RECOMMENDATION 5
Based on its assessment in 2024, the SFPUC will develop 1-2 additional demand scenarios for the retail service area including a sensitivity analysis as appropriate to understand the key inputs driving changes in demand. Past projections should be compared to actual deliveries to calibrate the new demand scenario(s). Staff should also collaborate closely with BAWSCA in this effort to track retail and wholesale assumptions.
116
AWS Recommendations
Local Projects - San Francisco Retail Service Area
Over the past several years, within the retail service area, the SFPUC has expanded its conservation efforts, developed and expanded an onsite water reuse program, invested in recycled water and groundwater projects, and pursued innovative technology solutions for water supply. These efforts have contributed to reducing retail demands from the RWS to a projected 73.5 mgd in 2045. While the SFPUC is committed to reducing demands on the RWS, San Francisco could need its full retail allocation of 81 mgd in the years beyond 2045.

Like WSIP Regional Projects, implementation of local water supply projects and estimated conservation savings have an effect on the presumed gap based on current modeling. Rather than water availability, however, they are included on the demand side of the gap equation. If local projects do not result in the yield that was anticipated, demands that would have been met with local supplies may shift to the RWS, resulting in higher demands on the RWS and a larger gap to fill.

In addition to ongoing conservation, the Onsite Water Reuse Program, and local water supply projects including Harding Park Recycled Water Project and Sharp Park Recycled Water Project that are operational, there are two WSIP Local Projects that are currently in construction. These projects are the San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project, which is assumed to provide 4 mgd of local supply before 2045 and the Westside Enhanced Water Recycling Project (Westside Project) that is expected to offset potable water use of 1.8 mgd before 2045. The San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project will require treatment to address organic compounds detected at three locations. In addition to meeting water quality objectives, increased operator staffing will be needed to deliver the water supply assumed for the project.

Funding of $13.5 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to support the San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project. It will continue to be evaluated in the CIP development process taking into consideration all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities before the SFPUC Commission takes action on the 10-Year CIP in February 2024.

RECOMMENDATION 6
Evaluate infrastructure and operational needs and estimate any additional funding necessary to achieve 4 mgd of dry-year supply by 2045 from the San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project, which is a retail project in San Francisco.
117
AWS Recommendations
Local Projects - Wholesale Service Area
Within the wholesale service area, agencies are developing and expanding their recycled water efforts, investing in the development of groundwater resources, and continuing to implement aggressive water conservation measures, resulting in an average residential per capita consumption of approximately 60.3 gpcd in FY 2021- 22, 5% less than the year before. This is 48% less than the estimated peak residential per capita consumption of 114.9 gpcd in FY 1975-76.

Table 6-1 shows Wholesale Customer purchases from the RWS in FY 2008-09, when the SFPUC Commission adopted WSIP by Resolution 08-0200, compared to RWS purchases in FY 2021-22, representing a reduction of 36 mgd or 22% since FY 2008-09.

Table 6-1: Comparison of Wholesale Customer Purchases
from the RWS (FY 2008-09 to present)
FY 2008-09 (mgd) FY 2021-22 (mgd) Total % Reduction
164 128 22%
San Francisco Bay Area, 2020
118
AWS Recommendations

6.2 Fill the Water Supply Gap

6.2.1 AWS Projects
As described in Chapter 5 (AWS Projects), the AWS Program is currently evaluating six projects: two storage expansion projects with associated conveyance alternatives and supply, as needed; one recycled water project that offsets groundwater pumping; and three regional purified water projects. Each of the AWS Projects increase the reliability of regional supplies in dry years when surface water supplies are most vulnerable.

These projects are at different stages of planning and design, and their need for funding and commitment for implementation will be staggered. The near-term recommendations for the AWS Projects and the AWS Program are described below.

Los Vaqueros Expansion Project
The Los Vaqueros Expansion (LVE) Project is a storage project that can provide up to 40,000 acre-feet of additional carryover storage for the SFPUC. Located outside of the SFPUC’s service area, it can provide a strategic location for storage and access to potential new water supplies. Environmental review for the LVE Project is complete, and conditional funding for the project has been approved by the State. Additional federal loans and grants are likely to become available. The project provides both urban water supply benefits as well as environmental benefits. Based on early modeling, dry-year conveyance capacity in the DWR-owned South Bay Aqueduct is expected to be sufficient to accommodate SFPUC deliveries into the RWS at San Antonio Reservoir or by exchange with partner agencies. The greatest risk with this project is not having a water supply source secured for filling allocated storage. To mitigate this risk, AWS staff are pursuing both short- and long-term transfer opportunities, and simultaneously assessing opportunities to develop a new water supply project as part of the Supply Alternatives for LVE Project. A water supply strategy will be presented to the SFPUC Commission in 2024, prior to seeking commitment to participate in the LVE Project.
119
AWS Recommendations
To meet external funding requirements, a decision on whether to participate in this storage project would need to be made by July 2024, ahead of the proposed financial closing which is scheduled for September 2024. Debt for the project will likely be issued by the JPA on behalf of the project and low interest loans are likely to be secured. As such, cash outlay for debt repayment within the 10-year financial plan horizon may be limited. Proposed funding for this project includes:
• Funding of $42.5 million for the storage component is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete design and construction of this component of the project.
• Funding of $4.3 million for the conveyance c omponent is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete design and construction of this component of the project.
• Funding of $6.7 million for the supply component is proposed in the FY 2025- 2034 CIP to continue planning through environmental review and 10% design. • Additionally, O&M costs within the next 10-year period are expected to total $36 million and will be included in a future operating budget.

The proposal will be evaluated in the CIP development process taking into consideration all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities before action is taken by the SFPUC Commission on the 10-Year CIP in February 2024.

Approval of participation in the LVE Project would also necessitate implementation of the companion projects: Supply Alternatives for LVE and Conveyance Alternatives for LVE, both of which are in the early planning stages of development. Because the SFPUC’s system is not hydraulically connected to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, both a supply source and delivery mechanism are critical to realizing the benefits of storage in LVE.

RECOMMENDATION 7
Following the development of a water supply strategy, AWS staff will recommend whether to approve participation in the LVE Project before scheduled financial closing in 2024. Based on feasibility analysis to date and in anticipation of a positive staff recommendation, support the SFPUC’s share of funding for the full implementation of the LVE Project. Participation in the LVE Project will also require continued planning for two companion projects: Conveyance Alternatives for LVE and Supply Alternatives for LVE.
120
AWS Recommendations
Daly City Recycled Water Expansion Project
This project provides recycled water to users who largely pump groundwater from the South Westside Basin to meet their irrigation needs. By replacing their source of supply for irrigation, there can be 0.7 mgd available in the South Westside Basin in a dry year, on an average annual basis. Another important benefit of this project is that it supports the RGSR Project by minimizing the risk that use of the South Westside Basin by irrigation customers could affect availability of supplies and groundwater operations in dry years when water is scarce. Competition for supplies and the need for mitigation of potential impacts in the South Westside Basin in dry years can be reduced or eliminated by providing an alternate supply source for non-potable uses in the South Westside Basin. Environmental review and 30% design for this project are complete. To proceed with design, agreements among the project partners and with the prospective customers are necessary. Discussions are ongoing and terms of agreement are expected to be finalized in the coming year. Once those terms of agreement are finalized, the SFPUC can better determine costs and operational impacts, if any, and pursue cost-sharing and grant funding to reduce the cost of project implementation. The prospective customers are in Cal Water’s service area.

In anticipation of near-term approval of agreements, funding of $114.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete the project’s design and construction.

It will be continue to be evaluated in the 10-Year CIP development process taking into consideration all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities before the SFPUC Commission takes action on the 10-Year CIP in February 2024.

RECOMMENDATION 8
Continue developing terms of agreement with project partners and prospective recycled water customers. Assuming that terms of agreement will be reached, support funding for completion for final design and construction of the Daly City Recycled Water Expansion Project in the FY 2025-2034 CIP.
121
AWS Recommendations
South Bay Purified Water Project
This purified water project is being explored in coordination with the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara as a means of delivering 3.5 mgd in dry years to the SFPUC.

Separately, the project provides 6.5 mgd combined total water supply in all years to San Jose and Santa Clara directly as described in Chapter 5. By delivering dry-year supply to the SFPUC, the project can offset some of the impact of potentially providing permanent status to these interruptible customers. The SFPUC Commission has to make a decision regarding their permanent status designation by December 2028.

To have the option to make that determination, environmental review of potential supplies would need to be completed prior to that decision.

This project would be operated by the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara in all years for their own use and provide water to the RWS only in dry years when there is a projected shortfall to meet the demands of SFPUC customers. While the initial feasibility study for this project is positive, additional studies such as the evaluation of brine discharge options are needed to fully determine its viability. This is a new project in the AWS Program and is not currently budgeted in the CIP. To continue developing this project through environmental review and 10% design with the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, funding of up to $6.7 million is proposed in the FY 2025- 2034 CIP. It will continue to be evaluated in the CIP development process taking into consideration all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities before the SFPUC Commission takes action on the 10-Year CIP in February 2024.

This project supports the evaluation needed to help the SFPUC Commission make a decision regarding the permanent status for the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.

RECOMMENDATION 9
Include the South Bay Purified Water Project as a new project with funding support through 10% design and environmental review in the FY 2025-2034 CIP. This project supports the evaluation needed to help the SFPUC Commission make a decision regarding the permanent status for the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.
122
AWS Recommendations
PureWater Peninsula, ACWD-USD Purified Water, and Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Projects
The two purified water projects, PureWater Peninsula and ACWD-USD Purified Water, as well as the Calaveras Reservoir Expansion project are progressing through initial planning. Alternatives analyses and other technical studies are needed, and the projects will need to undergo environmental review. The two purified water projects are estimated to provide 11.4 mgd to augment RWS supplies in dry years. The potential expansion of Calaveras Reservoir can provide between 22,000 acre-feet and 290,000 acre-feet of additional storage depending on the size of the dam raise. That storage can result in available supplies of up to 2.7 to 28.6 mgd in a dry year, on average over 7½ years of an 8½-year design drought. Additional investigation is needed to make specific project recommendations.

Existing funds can be used to support an Alternatives Analysis for the Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project; no additional funding is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to complete this work. To continue planning through environmental review and 10% design of the PureWater Peninsula and ACWD-USD Purified Water projects, funding of $5.3 million and $8 million is proposed in the FY 2025-2034 CIP, respectively. The proposals will continue to be evaluated in the 10-Year CIP development process taking into consideration all other capital investment and financial sustainability priorities before the SFPUC Commission takes action on the 10-Year CIP in February 2024.

RECOMMENDATION 10
Support funding in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to continue planning through environmental review and 10% design for the PureWater Peninsula and ACWD-USD Purified Water. Support the use of existing funds to continue planning through the Alternatives Analysis for the Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project.
123
AWS Recommendations

6.2.2 AWS Program
AWS Projects are different from projects that the SFPUC has undertaken in the past in many ways. From introducing new supply sources to the RWS to treating recycled water under a new regulatory regime for drinking water and implementing multi-party partnerships where ownership and operational responsibilities may vary, these projects will require new approaches to implementation and operation.

Successful implementation of the AWS Program relies on appropriate levels of staffing and programmatic planning funding. The FY 2025-2034 CIP includes a proposed $37 million to continue supporting ongoing staffing and planning activities for the AWS Program, as well as the following new recommendations. These recommendations are specific to the current phase of AWS Program development, and additional programmatic recommendations will likely be identified in the future as planning progresses.

Operations Planning
Successful implementation of the AWS Program will require careful planning and coordination from an operational standpoint. This includes designing and integrating the new system with existing infrastructure, ensuring adequate and appropriately skilled staffing and resources, establishing maintenance protocols and schedules, and implementing quality control measures. Additionally, operational plans will have to be in place for emergencies and contingencies, particularly during droughts or system failures. AWS operators may be organizationally separate from RWS operations, but close coordination will be required. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of performance and effectiveness will also be necessary to ensure long-term sustainability.

To begin planning the implementation and operation of future AWS Projects, hiring an Operations Planning Manager is an important step. The manager would serve as a liaison between the AWS and RWS systems and plan operational needs such as staffing, maintenance and logistics. Without an Operational Planning Manager in place during the planning phase of the AWS Program, the implementation of AWS Projects could face significant operational challenges, leading to delays, cost overruns, and potential water quality risks.

RECOMMENDATION 11
Prioritize planning for operational integration by working with SFPUC operations staff. Support hiring an Operations Planning Manager to begin preparing for system integration, staffing, maintenance, and planning to support development of the AWS Program in the future. 124
AWS Recommendations
Purified Water Planning
A significant part of the AWS Program relies on implementing purified water projects throughout the SFPUC service area. Purified water projects will require a specialized set of technical, regulatory, and communication skills for successful implementation.

Throughout California, implementing purified water projects is gaining traction and the SFPUC will also likely implement multiple purified water projects over the planning horizon. Hiring a Purified Water Program Manager can ensure that the SFPUC is tracking new regulations to ensure an understanding of compliance needs, establishing consistent coordination and communication with stakeholders, and establishing a technical advisory panel that can provide guidance and expertise in the design and quality control of future project demonstration and implementation.

RECOMMENDATION 12
Support hiring a Purified Water Program Manager who will be responsible for tracking and ensuring compliance with new regulations, coordination with stakeholders, and establishing a technical advisory panel to support the successful demonstration and implementation of purified water projects within the AWS Program.

Financing and Affordability
Based on preliminary estimates, the capital investment associated with the suite of regional AWS Projects could be on the order of $4 billion to $10 billion (escalated to the mid-point of construction) over the planning horizon, varying largely based on the size of the expansion of Calaveras Reservoir and the associated conveyance facilities.

Some of the key challenges ahead will be developing a financing strategy for AWS Projects and ensuring that the resulting rates do not severely impact affordability for SFPUC customers. To maintain access to high-quality water while keeping water rates affordable for all, in addition to prudent planning the SFPUC will also need to investigate creative and alternative methods of financing projects such as securing grants and low interest rate loans to fund projects, and considering public-private partnerships to design, build, and operate projects. Uncertainties in ownership, financing and project operations can significantly impact the cost estimates and timing of anticipated expenditures for large water supply projects. As the AWS Projects are better defined over the course of planning, costs will continue to evolve. 125
AWS Recommendations
Budget associated with recommendations in the AWS Plan can be summarized as follows:
• Budget associated with recommendations designed to avoid widening the supply gap is $49.2 million. This funding will support the implementation of WSIP projects.
• Budget associated with recommendations designed to fill the water supply gap is $225.2 million in capital between FY 2025 and 2034. This amount includes $87.4 million in funds that was approved in the prior CIP (FY 2024-2033). • Recommendations designed to reduce the water supply gap do not have funding needs at this time.

This cost estimate includes:
• Cash-funding capital expenditures for LVE Storage and Conveyance and the Daly City Recycled Water Expansion Projects
• Planning through environmental review and 10% design for three purified water projects and a new water supply to support storage in LVE • Continued planning for Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project (with conveyance) through the Alternatives Analysis phase of planning • Staffing to support continued planning for purified water AWS staff will continue to work in close collaboration with the Finance team to explore project-specific financing options (grant funding, debt issuance, cash funding, and public-private partnerships) and rate impacts based on additional data as it becomes available. The SFPUC is committed to affordability and recognizes the importance of evaluating the financial implications of these projects to ensure that ratepayers are not unduly burdened.

RECOMMENDATION 13
Prioritize continued coordination with Finance to help track and address long-term project financing options and affordability.
126
AWS Recommendations

6.3 Reduce the Water Supply Gap

6.3.1 New Local Supplies
There are opportunities to do more than has already been planned in San Francisco and throughout the region to potentially reduce demands on the RWS. Non-potable demands in San Francisco are limited and dispersed, which makes serving more of them challenging and costly. In recent years, the SFPUC has begun exploring the potential to reuse treated wastewater effluent through advanced purification to meet stringent drinking water standards as a potential sustainable water supply. This project concept is referred to as PureWaterSF. PureWaterSF could increase local supplies in San Francisco and thereby further reduce demands on the RWS in 2045.

PureWaterSF
PureWaterSF envisions producing 4 mgd of purified water and meeting up to 1.2 mgd of non-potable supply across two treatment plants. One treatment plant on the east side of San Francisco could deliver 2 mgd of drinking water in addition to 1.2 mgd to meet the non-potable demands associated with existing dual-plumbed buildings. A parallel plant on the west side of San Francisco could deliver up to 2 mgd of drinking water into the distribution system. To advance this project, planning funds and project management staff would need to be assigned. This is a local project in the retail service area.

RECOMMENDATION 14
Support planning the technical analyses, demonstration, and outreach for PureWaterSF, a local supply project in the retail service area. This work will be supported by the new Purified Water Program Manager and no additional staffing would be needed to support this recommendation at this time.
127
AWS Recommendations
Regional Fund for Local Supplies
While local supply projects do not change the SFPUC’s legal and contractual obligations to the Wholesale Customers or the Retail Allocation to Retail Customers, they can help improve water supply reliability and provide benefits to the entire service area when demands on the RWS are reduced. Any regional investment in local supply projects would necessarily impact individual Wholesale Customers, and therefore BAWSCA will play a significant role in planning.

The SFPUC will collaborate with BAWSCA to explore the feasibility of a regional grant program that can provide investment dollars collected through the Wholesale Revenue Requirement to support the implementation of local supply projects. Local water supply projects have the potential to reduce demand on the RWS but remain within the control of the local jurisdiction.

Examples of other incentive programs, both in California and nationwide, can be reviewed to help inform an outline for a program in the SFPUC’s service area. Elements of a program to consider would include program objective(s), eligibility criteria, application and selection process, incentives, reporting, verification, funding sources and the potential role of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority.

If feasible, the program could expand water-use efficiency programs and technologies that reduce water consumption, promote sustainable water management practices, and ultimately benefit the environment and the communities throughout the service area.

RECOMMENDATION 15
In partnership with BAWSCA, explore the feasibility of a grant program to support local projects that reduce demands on the RWS. No funding or additional resources are needed for this effort at this time.
128
AWS Recommendations

6.4 Summary of Recommendations
This section summarizes the recommendations described above, which are based on current planning and anticipated project milestones by 2024.

Table 6-2: Summary of Recommendations
Recommendations to Avoid Widening the Water Supply Gap
Implementation of recommendations to avoid widening the supply gap would require approximately $49.2 million over the 10-year CIP window.

1. Support funding in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to evaluate alt ernatives for additional treatment, infrastructure, and associated staffing needed to achieve 6.2 mgd of dry- year supply by 2045 from the RGSR project. Staffing needs will be re-evaluated in a future CIP development process.

2. Include the Phase 2 re-design of the Alameda Creek Recapture Project as a new project in the FY 2025-2034 CIP.

3. Continue reporting progress on negotiations related to the Proposed Voluntary Agreement and potential transfers and projects in the San Joaquin Valley that could contribute to instream flow releases. Identify resource and funding needs, as and when appropriate. No new funding or additional resources are needed to support this recommendation.

4. Provide updates to the AWS Plan, beginning in FY 2026-2027 and periodically thereafter, to align with AWS Project milestones, changes to regulatory requirements, and CIP planning. No new funding or resource allocation for this effort is anticipated.

5. Based on its assessment in 2024, the SFPUC will develop 1-2 additional demand scenarios for the retail service area including a sensitivity analysis as appropriate to understand the key inputs driving changes in demand. Past projections should be compared to actual deliveries to calibrate the new demand scenario(s). Staff should also collaborate closely with BAWSCA in this effort to track retail and wholesale assumptions.

6. Evaluate infrastructure and operational needs and estimate any additional funding necessary to achieve 4 mgd of dry-year supply by 2045 from the San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project, which is a retail project in San Francisco. 129
AWS Recommendations
Table 6-2: Summary of Recommendations (continued)
Recommendations to Fill the Water Supply Gap
(AWS Project and Program Recommendations)
Implementation of recommendations to fill the water supply gap would require approximately $137.8 million in new capital funding over the 10-year CIP window.

AWS Project Recommendations

7. Following the development of a water supply strategy, AWS staff will recommend whether to approve participation in the LVE Project before scheduled financial closing in 2024. Based on feasibility analysis to date and in anticipation of a positive staff recommendation, support the SFPUC’s share of funding for the full implementation of the LVE Project. Participation in the LVE Project will also require continued planning for two companion projects: Conveyance Alternatives for LVE and Supply Alternatives for LVE.

8. Continue developing terms of agreement with project partners and prospective recycled water customers. Assuming that terms of agreement will be reached, support funding for completion for final design and construction of the Daly City Recycled Water Expansion Project in the
FY 2025-2034 CIP.

9. Include the South Bay Purified Water Project as a new project with funding support through 10% design and environmental review in the FY 2025-2034 CIP. This project supports the evaluation needed to help the SFPUC Commission make a decision regarding the permanent status for the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.

10. Support funding in the FY 2025-2034 CIP to continue planning through environmental review and 10% design for the PureWater Peninsula and ACWD-USD Purified Water. Support the use of existing funds to continue planning through the Alternatives Analysis for the Calaveras Reservoir Expansion Project.

AWS Programmatic Recommendations

11. Prioritize planning for operational integration b y working with SFPUC operations staff. Support hiring an Operations Planning Manager to begin preparing for system integration, staffing, maintenance, and planning to support development of the AWS Program in the future. There is currently no proposed budget impact related to this recommendation.

12. Support hiring a Purified Water Program Manager who will be responsible for tracking and ensuring compliance with new regulations, coordination with stakeholders, and establishing a technical advisory panel to support the successful demonstration and implementation of purified water projects within the AWS Program.

13. Prioritize continued coordination with Finance to help tr ack and address long-term project financing options and affordability. There is no budget impact associated with this recommendation.
130
AWS Recommendations
Recommendations to Reduce the Water Supply Gap
There are no budget impacts for the FY 2025-2034 CIP associated with implementation of recommendations to reduce the water supply gap.

14. Support planning the technical analyses, demonstration, and outreach for PureWaterSF, a local supply project in the retail service area. This work will be supported by the new Purified Water Program Manager and no additional staffing would be needed to support this recommendation at this time.

15. In partnership with BAWSCA, explore the feasibility of a grant progr am to support local projects that reduce demands on the RWS. No funding or additional resources are needed for this effort at this time.

6.5 Planning Beyond 2024
While the near-term recommendations outlined above are appropriate for the current phase of project planning and development, the planning objectives of the AWS Program may change over time as more information becomes available.

Therefore, it is important to recognize that the near-term recommendations discussed in this Plan are part of a longer decision-making timeline for the AWS Program. Taking a long view also allows SFPUC staff time to plan responsibly by taking an adaptive approach and making recommendations around investments in a phased and measured pace, while continuing to aggressively plan for alternative water supplies. This approach also involves periodically revisiting the water supply gap and its drivers as planning decisions are made. Longer-term decision making will inform future recommendations for the AWS Program.

Historically-occurring patterns are changing – whether it is the frequency of drought occurrences, regulatory curtailments, or a shift in water demands on the RWS. In response, the SFPUC must take a more forward-looking approach to water supply planning. Through the AWS Program, the SFPUC is taking steps toward mitigating and managing the risk of uncertain water availability so it can continue to provide reliable water service to its customers. Projects are being planned in phases so that they can be scaled; implementation will be prioritized based on demands over obligations, and the SFPUC is committed to updating information as new data on supply availability or demands become available. Continuing to build and plan a robust AWS Program can help prepare the SFPUC to meet the water supply challenges that lay ahead.
131
AWS Recommendations

GLOSSARY
1984 Settlement Agreement and Master
Water Sales Contract (1984 Agreement)
refers to the 1984 agreement between the
City and County of San Francisco and certain
Suburban Purchasers (Wholesale Customers)
in San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and
Alameda County that expired on June 30,
2009. The 1984 Agreement memorialized the
parties’ settlement of the civil action entitled
City of Palo Alto, et al. v. City and County of
San Francisco (9th Cir. 1977) 548 F.2d 1374.

Alameda and Peninsula watersheds refers
the two Bay Area watersheds that supply
the RWS: the Alameda Creek watershed,
which is located in Alameda and Santa Clara
counties, and the Peninsula watershed,
which is located in San Mateo County.

Alternative Water Supply Program (AWS
Program) refers to the SFPUC water supply
planning program established in 2019 to
develop and evaluate new long-term alternative
water supply projects that address future
demands in the SFPUC service area.

Alternative Water Supply Projects (AWS
Projects) are projects involving new and
diverse water supply options beyond the
SFPUC’s existing infrastructure, surface water
supplies, and local groundwater sources, such
as projects involving expanded surface water
storage, groundwater banking, transfers,
purified water (potable reuse), and desalination,
as well as technological innovations and
other tools that can increase supply.

BAWSCA Annual Survey is the annual
publication compiled by BAWSCA
containing individual Wholesale Customer
service area information, water use
data, and purchase projections.

Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA) refers to the public agency
established pursuant to Division 31 of the
California Water Code (Water Code §§81300-
81461), which represents the interests of 26
cities, water districts, and private utilities, who
purchase water wholesale from the SFPUC.

Bay-Delta Plan Amendment refers to the 2018
Amendment to the Water Quality Plan for the
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Estuary that establishes water quality
objectives for which the State Water Resources
Control Board may assign a measure of
responsibility to upstream water rights holders to
protect the beneficial uses of the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary
(Bay-Delta Estuary) tributary watersheds.

Calaveras Reservoir refers to the RWS reservoir
located in Alameda County that collects water
from the local Alameda Creek watershed.

Capital costs are one-time costs needed
to plan, design, and construct a capital
project to bring it to operational status.

Carryover storage refers to water stored
in reservoirs that may be carried over from
one water year to the next. In California’s
variable climate, maintaining carryover
storage can help ensure a minimum level of
water supply in case the next year is dry.

Conveyance facilities refers to infrastructure
that connects existing or new infrastructure
to enable deliveries of water.

Crystal Springs Reservoir refers to the
RWS reservoir that is located in San Mateo
County, collects runoff from the San Mateo
Creek watershed, and also receives water
from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The Reservoir
consists of two lakes, Lower Crystal
Springs Reservoir to the north, and Upper
Crystal Springs Reservoir to the south.

Demand management is a water supply
management approach that aims to conserve
water by influencing customer demand through
increased water efficiency and reduced use.
132

GLOSSARY
Design drought refers to the SFPUC’s
basis for planning and modeling of future
drought scenarios, which is based on
historic droughts and hydrology. The design
drought is a hypothetical 8½-year sequence,
which consists of the six-year drought
from 1987-1992, followed by an additional
2½-year drought period from 1976-1977.

Direct potable reuse (DPR) is the planned
introduction of highly treated recycled water
that meets stringent regulatory standards
into a drinking water distribution system. The
two forms of DPR in California are raw water
augmentation, which includes treatment at
a drinking water treatment plant prior to
connecting to the drinking water distribution
system and treated water augmentation, which
delivers the highly treated water directly into
the drinking water distribution system.

Don Pedro Reservoir refers to the reservoir
located in Tuolumne County that is owned
and operated by the Modesto and Turlock
Irrigation Districts, in which the SFPUC
utilizes capacity as a water bank under the
terms of the Fourth Agreement to support
SFPUC operations during dry periods.

Drivers means factors that influence future
water availability and projected demands on
the RWS. The anticipated water supply gap is
determined based on a number of drivers on
both the supply side, which affect future water
availability, and on the demand side, which
consider obligations and future demands.

Extreme decentralization refers to the practice
of integrating building-scale water recycling
within cities with existing centralized water
systems. Extreme decentralization is one
example of how demand reduction efforts can
be implemented to help to reduce demand
and support resilient urban water systems.

Firm yield means the annual average amount
of water that the RWS could deliver to the
SFPUC service area under dry-year conditions
over the design drought sequence.

Fourth Agreement is the 1966 agreement
between the City and County of San Francisco
and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts
that governs the operation of the Don Pedro
Reservoir water bank and other matters.

Gallons per capita per day (gpcd) is a
unit of measure for the average daily
consumption of water per person in gallons.

Groundwater recharge refers to the
replenishment of a groundwater basin or an
aquifer. Groundwater recharge can occur
naturally with time or can be accomplished
by spreading water at the surface of the
groundwater aquifer or by directly injecting
water into the groundwater basin.

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir refers to the RWS
reservoir that is located in the Sierra Nevada’s
Tuolumne River watershed, which provides
approximately 85% of RWS supplies, on average.
in-City refers to the portion of the SFPUC’s
retail service area located within the
City and County of San Francisco.

Indirect potable reuse (IPR) is the planned
blending of highly treated recycled water into a
natural water source (i.e., groundwater basin or
reservoir) prior to using the water for potable
purposes. In California, the accepted forms of
IPR include groundwater augmentation and
reservoir (or surface water) augmentation.

Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) refers to
each Wholesale Customer’s share of the Supply
Assurance set forth in Attachment C of the WSA.

Individual Water Sales Contract refers to
the individual contract between each of the
Wholesale Customers and San Francisco
that details customer-specific matters such
as location of service connections, service
area maps, and other matters specific to that
customer consistent with the terms of the WSA.
133

GLOSSARY
Instream flow requirements represent regulated
minimum flows or releases necessary to maintain
the environmental health of an ecosystem.

Instream flows requirements are often referred
to as environmental flow requirements.

Interim Supply Limitation (ISL) refers to
the 265 million gallons per day annual
average limitation on water deliveries from
RWS watersheds imposed by the SFPUC
in its approval of the WSIP in Resolution
No. 08-0200, dated October 30, 2008.

Interruptible customers refers to the
cities of San Jose and Santa Clara,
which San Francisco provides water to
on a temporary and interruptible basis
pursuant to the terms of the WSA.

Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a legally
created entity that allows two or more public
agencies to jointly exercise common powers.

Legal and contractual obligations refers to
obligations described in certain agreements
between the City and County of San
Francisco and the Wholesale Customers.

Level of Service (LOS) Goals and
Objectives refers to the “Phased WSIP
Goals and Objectives” adopted by the
SFPUC Commission on October 30, 2008,
by Resolution No. 08-0200 as part of the
approval of WSIP and any amendments
subsequently adopted by the Commission.

Local water supply projects refer to water
supply projects and actions that increase the
availability of non-RWS supplies for local use,
including projects implemented by the SFPUC
within the boundaries of San Francisco as well as
projects implemented by Wholesale Customers
to serve their respective retail service areas.

Non-potable demands are customer demands
that can be met with supplies from non-potable
water sources, such as recycled water, that do
not meet drinking water quality requirements.

Obligations refer to commitments of the SFPUC,
including: 1) legal and contractual obligations
to Wholesale Customers; 2) retail service area
obligations to San Francisco and suburban retail
customers that are provided for through a Retail
Allocation; and 3) potential future obligations
for interruptible customers of the SFPUC.

Operation & Maintenance costs (O&M costs)
refer to the annual operations and maintenance
costs of projects, including costs related
to staffing and ongoing maintenance.

Per capita water use is the average
volume of water consumed per person
in a given area on a daily basis.

Permanent customers refers to 24 of the 26
Wholesale Customers (excluding the cities of
San Jose and Santa Clara) that share in the
Supply Assurance under the terms of WSA.

Planning horizon is the length of time
into the future that is accounted for in
a planning document. The AWS Plan
examines projected supplies and demands
through a planning horizon of 2045.

Potable demands are customer demands that
must be met with potable water supplies, which
are treated to drinking water standards.

Pre-1914 appropriative water rights are
legal entitlements authorizing water
to be diverted from a specified source
established prior to the adoption of the
State Water Commission Act in 1914.

Proposed voluntary Agreement refers to
the proposed agreement that the SFPUC,
the State, and the Modesto and Turlock
Irrigation Districts are negotiating for the
Tuolumne River that would implement the
Bay-Delta Plan Amendment for an 8 to 15-
year period, and, along with the ecological
response to changes in the river flow regime
over the term of the agreement, determine
the impact of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment
on the SFPUC’s future water supply.

Purified water is highly treated wastewater
that is used for potable purposes and includes
indirect potable reuse and direct potable reuse.

Raker Act refers to the Raker Act, 38 Stats.
242, the Act of Congress, enacted in 1913,
that authorized the construction of the
Hetch Hetchy System on federal lands.

Rationing refers to limiting the amount
of water supply available to customers to
reduce demand during extended droughts.
134

GLOSSARY
Rationing policy refers to the level of rationing
that the SFPUC developed during planning
of WSIP to reflect water supply conditions
simulated over the duration of the design
drought. Over the 8½-year design drought,
rationing is initially 0% and increases up to
a maximum of 20%, with the annual average
over the sequence being about 12%.

Raw water augmentation is the planned
placement of purified water into a system
of pipelines or aqueducts that deliver raw
water to a drinking water treatment plant
that provides water to a public water system.

Raw water augmentation can also refer to
purified water added to a surface water
body with insufficient residence time to
be considered reservoir augmentation.

Regional water supply projects refer to
water supply projects and actions that can
provide benefits to customers throughout
the SFPUC service area, including both
retail and wholesale customers.

Regional Water System (RWS) means the
water storage, transmission, and treatment
system operated by the SFPUC in Tuolumne,
Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, Santa
Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties,
including projects constructed under
WSIP, but excluding assets providing water
service solely to Retail Customers or solely
to one or more Wholesale Customers.

Reservoir augmentation is the introduction
of purified water into a surface water
reservoir that is used as a source of
domestic drinking water supply.

Retail Allocation refers to the SFPUC’s
retail service area obligations of up to
81 mgd average annual supply to San
Francisco and suburban retail customers.

Retail Customers means any customers that
purchase water from the SFPUC that are
not wholesale customers, whether located
inside or outside of San Francisco.

San Antonio Reservoir refers to the RWS
reservoir located in Alameda County that
collects water from the local Alameda
watershed and receives and stores water
from other portions of the RWS.

San Francisco Peninsula (the Peninsula)
refers to the peninsula in the San
Francisco Bay Area that separates San
Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean.

SFPUC Commission refers to the five-
member decision-making body of the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

Storage and recovery refers to projects
that coordinate the management of surface
water and groundwater supplies to store
groundwater in normal or wet years so it
may be made available for use in dry years
when surface water supplies are limited.

Storage projects are projects that focus
on storing water so it is available for later
use in dry years and can include surface
water storage or groundwater storage.

Supply Assurance means the 184 mgd
maximum annual average metered supply
of water dedicated by San Francisco to
public use in the wholesale service area
(not including San Jose and Santa Clara)
in the 1984 Agreement and the WSA.

Supply projects means projects that
would provide a new source of water
supply to the SFPUC service area, which
may include surface water, purified water,
groundwater, and recycled water projects.

Total system yield represents the total water
supply that the RWS can commit to provide
while remaining consistent with the rationing
policy. In wet or normal years, the total system
yield can be provided to the service area, and
additional water supply may also be available
in the RWS. In dry years, the total system yield
may include a combination of water supply
deliveries and rationing (water availability).

Treated water augmentation is the planned
placement of purified water into the water
distribution system of a public water system’s
potable water pipelines or tanks for distribution.

Tuolumne River watershed is the watershed
for the river system that includes the Tuolumne
River, Cherry Creek, Eleanor Creek, and a
portion of Moccasin Creek and encompasses
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, Lake Lloyd, Lake
Eleanor, and Don Pedro Reservoir.
135

ACRONYMS
Upcountry portion of the RWS
refers to the portion of the RWS east
of the Alameda East Portal.

Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
refers to the plan that an urban water
supplier prepares and updates on a regular
basis, in accordance with California Water
Code §§10610-10656, which supports its
long-term resource planning to ensure that
adequate water supplies are available to
meet existing and future water demands.

Water availability means the amount of
water available to the SFPUC from the
RWS; in dry years, it refers to water supply
as well as rationing that can be assumed
to address a portion of demands over the
design drought (total system yield).

Water bank refers to the accounting system
used by San Francisco and the Modesto
and Turlock Irrigation Districts at Don Pedro
Reservoir, which is owned and operated by
the Districts. San Francisco can provide water
supply credits at times when surplus supply
is available and can later draw against credits
to divert water at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.

Water conservation is a reduction in
water demand resulting from policies and
programs such as rebates, surveys, and
other incentives offered to customers.

Water Supply Agreement (WSA) refers to
the agreement between the City and County
of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers
in Alameda County, San Mateo County, and
Santa Clara County, dated July 1, 2009, as
amended from time to time, which sets forth the
terms and conditions under which the SFPUC
supplies water to the Wholesale Customers.

Water supply gap refers to the water supply
shortfall calculated as the difference between
expected water supply availability from the
RWS in a future dry year and the contractual
obligations and anticipated demands for water
supply from the RWS for all SFPUC customers.

Water System Improvement Program (WSIP)
refers to the voter-approved, multi-year
capital program to upgrade the SFPUC’s
regional and local water systems to protect its
ability to reliably provide water, as approved
by the SFPUC Commission on October
30, 2008, by Resolution No. 08-0200.

WSIP Local Projects refers to projects
included as part of the WSIP Program
that are located in San Francisco and
only benefit San Francisco residents.

WSIP Regional Projects refers to projects
included in the WSIP Program that are located
from the Sierra foothills to San Francisco.

WSIP Regional Projects benefit both in-City
customers and the wholesale agencies
that receive water from the SFPUC.

Wholesale Customers means one or more of
the 26 wholesale customers that purchase
water from the SFPUC pursuant to the
WSA and are represented by BAWSCA.
136

GLOSSARY
A-1
Appendix A: Customer Profiles

APPENDIX A
Information included in customer profiles is based on data available from the FY 2021-22 BAWSCA Annual Survey unless otherwise specified.

VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES:

San Francisco is located at the western end of the RWS and is the largest customer of the system. The east side of San Francisco is characterized by large commercial and mixed-use developments while the west side has larger irrigated spaces and smaller, dispersed residential areas. Given the density and built nature of San Francisco, opportunities for centralized recycled water are limited and best suited for large parks and golf courses. San Francisco has a robust conservation program and has also pioneered a decentralized onsite water reuse program focused on minimizing water demands from new developments and commercial and industrial applications. Additional water supply opportunities are being explored through purified water.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

San Francisco local supplies include groundwater, recycled water and treating alternative water supplies onsite for reuse. The San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project utilizes groundwater from the Westside Groundwater Basin in the City as a potable water supply by blending it with RWS supplies. Currently less than 1 mgd is blended but pumping can be increased to blend up to 4 mgd. The Harding Park Recycled Water Project was completed in 2012 and the Pacifica Recycled Water Project began supplying water for irrigation in 2014. Starting in 2024, the Westside Recycled Water Program will provide 1.6 mgd of recycled water to meet non-potable demands in Golden Gate Park and other areas on the west side of San Francisco, and the project is designed to deliver an annual average of up to 2 mgd by 2045. The PureWaterSF program is exploring the potential to provide a new, local drinking water supply to San Francisco through the use of purified water. San Francisco also has water savings from the onsite water reuse program.

San Francisco Retail
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1,2:

The San Francisco retail service area includes over 177,000 in-City retail customers within the City of San Francisco along with suburban retail customers located outside San Francisco.

The total population of the retail service area is about 900,000 people. About two-thirds of the total demands in the retail service area are residential customers and one-third are commercial and industrial customers. Suburban retail customers account for 7% of the total demand.

RETAIL ALLOCATION1: 81 mgd
SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES1
Sources: (1) 2020 SFPUC UWMP
(2) FY21-22 SFPUC Water Resources Annual Report
(3) FY18-19 SFPUC Water Resources Annual Report
Notes: *Recycled water includes centralized recycled water and onsit e water reuse.

RWS Supply
Recycled WaterLocal Groundwater

98.82%

0.74%

5.46%

3.35%
WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS2,3
42 R-GPCD
21% decrease in residential gallons per capita demand
(R-GPCD) since 2010.

In 2021-2022, water conservation activities were estimated to have a potential 30-year water savings of 237 million gallons.

CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1
SUPPLY UTILIZATION1
current - 29.7%
2045 - 29.9%
San Francisco
Retail
FY 21-22

91.19%
20450.44%
RWS Supply
Recycled Water*Local Groundwater
Supply Utiliazation (mgd)
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Retail
Allocation:
81 mgd
Dots represent approximate locations of suburban retail customers.

The customers shown represent a majority of water use in the suburban retail service area but are not comprehensive.

HAYWARD
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
MATEO

DALY CITY
HALF
MOON
BAY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY
SAN
JOSE

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ALAMEDA
COUNTY
SAN

FRANCISCO

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

FREMONT

LIVERMORE

GROVELAND

SF RETAIL

SERVICE AREA
Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

SFPUC RWS and State Water Project (SWP) supplies are
anticipated to be significantly affected in dry year and multi-dry year conditions according to upcoming regulatory requirements.

Reservoir and fresh groundwater sources vary widely from year to year, depending primarily on hydrologic conditions and availability of local runoff. The Newark Desalination Facility enables ACWD to treat brackish groundwater in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin for potable supply while simultaneously contributing to aquifer reclamation efforts. ACWD also diverts freshwater supplies to recharge groundwater to increase short-term supply resilience during dry years and to mitigate saltwater intrusion.

AWS SYNERGIES:

Purified water, Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion, SBA conveyance CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

To ensure long-term water supply reliability for its customers ACWD is evaluating water supply options through its Climate Adaptation Plan and the Purified Water Feasibility Evaluation in partnership with SFPUC.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
64 R-GPCD
ACWD residential gallons per capita demand
(R-GPCD) has decreased by 20% since 2010 and
has not returned to pre drought consumption levels.

ACWD developed a Water Efficiency Master Plan which is a road map for water use efficiency out to 2050.

ACWD is deploying Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to all its customers to encourage water conservation. Customers with AMI receive leak and high use alerts.

Alameda County Water District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

Alameda County Water District (ACWD) is the SFPUC’s largest wholesale customer and serves approximately 344,855 people within a service area that covers 105 square miles, which includes the cities of Fremont, Newark, Union City, and the southern portions of the City of Hayward. The customer base is mainly comprised of a mix of single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 13.76 mgd
MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENT2: 7.648 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
50 40
30 20
10 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Reductions in SWP supplies will result in an
increased use of RWS supplies.

Sources: (1) 21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Surv ey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) ACWD 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
RWS Supply
Local Watershed Other (SWP & Desal)
Local Groundwater
48%
26%
19%
7%
FY 21-22
30%
41%
11%
18%
2045
RWS Supply
Local Watershed Other (SWP & Desal)
Local Groundwater
ISG:

13.76 mgd

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND
SFO
PALO
ALTO

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
HALF
MOON

BAY SAN
JOSE
DALY
CITY

HAYWARD

FREMONT
current - 7.4%
2045 - 8.1%
ACWDWholesale
Customers

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

The City of Brisbane & GVMID rely exclusively on RWS supplies for it’s water needs. Due to the service area’s geographical location and the absence of underlying productive aquifers, access to alternative water supplies such as groundwater or surface water is limited. New large developments to be located within the service area are in the planning stages and Brisbane is considering alternative water supplies that would improve system reliability and supply the anticipated increase in water demands.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

The City of Brisbane & GVMID continue to participate in various studies investigating the viability of limited alternative water resources in order to supplement future potable water supply.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
41 R-GPCD
There has been a 19% reduction in per residential
gallons per capita per day (R-GPCD) since 2010-2011
due to continued conservation savings.

City of Brisbane & Guadalupe Valley
Municipal Improvement District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of Brisbane operates the Brisbane Water District and the Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District (GVMID).

The City serves 4,851 people over a 3.4-square-mile service area, which in addition to the original primarily residential city core also includes an industrial park with a small adjoining residential neighborhood, and an office development on a closed landfill.

While residential connections account for approximately 32% of total water usage, commercial and industrial customers represent 28% of water use, followed by dedicated irrigation connections with an average of 24% of water use.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 0.98 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

1.2 1.0

0.8 0.6

0.4 0.2
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Reliance on RWS supply will increase to meet
increasing demands and will reach ISG by 2045.

ISG*:

0.98 mgd
Sources: (1) ‘21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Sierra Point Phase 3 Project SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
Notes: * ISG represents the sum of the City of Brisbane ISG (0.46 mgd) and GVMID ISG (0.52 mgd)
current - 0.48%
2045 - 0.57%
Brisbane &
GVMID
RWS Supply
100% 100%
FY 21-22 2045
RWS Supply

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

The City of Burlingame relies on RWS supplies to fulfill its water needs. Burlingame is continuing to evaluate the feasibility of expanding recycled water supplies within its supply portfolio, but this water supply alternative is not currently included in long-term supply planning.

AWS SYNERGIES:

Purified water, Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion, SBA conveyance CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Recycled water use was evaluated as part of the City of Burlingame’s Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan in 2016.

Burlingame is continuing to evaluate the feasibility of implementing this project or partnering with a neighboring jurisdiction to supply recycled water. However, there are no definitive plans to date.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
61 R-GPCD
23% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010. While the city
population has continued to grow, per capita water
usage has not returned to pre-2015 drought levels.

City of Burlingame
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of Burlingame is a municipal utility that serves 32,407 people over an area of 5.5 square miles located within the Burlingame city limits, unincorporated areas in the Burlingame Hills and a few properties in the City of San Mateo and the Town of Hillsborough. The system supplies approximately 57% of its water usage to residential connections, and 22% to commercial and industrial customers.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 5.23 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS3

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS3
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES3
Supply Utilization (mgd)
6 5
4 3
2 1
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
RWS supply is anticipated to increase
by 2045 to match water demands.

Sources: (1) ‘21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of Burlingame 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 2.6%
2045 - 2.7%
Burlingame
RWS Supply
ISG:

5.23 mgd
RWS Supply
100%
2045
97%
FY 21-22

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
Recycled Water
3%
Recycled Water

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

Supply sources for the Cal Water BG water system include the perennial Bear Gulch Creek, which are constrained by drought conditions, diversion limits and minimum instream flow requirements.

Cal Water SSF has 8 groundwater wells tapping into the Westside Basin, which are operated based on hydrologic conditions and can feed up to 20% of the system’s demand. Cal Water SSF is part of the pilot conjunctive use program with SFPUC and has been receiving supplemental RWS deliveries in lieu of pumping groundwater in order to preserve groundwater supplies for use during dry periods and increase the aquifer’s resilience.

AWS SYNERGIES:

Daly City Recycled Water Expansion, PureWater Peninsula Project CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Cal Water has established a Development Offset Program to account for projected delivery shortfalls during dry years and the need for new local water supplies. The Development Offset Program includes a new, non-refundable special facilities fee that will be used to accelerate local water supply projects and expand conservation programs designed to offset the net demand increase of proposed developments.

Cal Water is planning on developing a well in the Bear Gulch District to provide local supply for the system and is investigating water transfers and the potential of a brackish water desalination project, among other supply options.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
83 R-GPCD*
The average residential gallons per capita demand
(R-GPCD) of the three Cal Water service areas has
reduced by 18% since 2010.

California Water Service
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1,3:

California Water Service (Cal Water) is a regulated utility that operates water systems throughout California, three of which are SFPUC wholesale customers – Cal Water Bear Gulch (BG), Cal Water South San Francisco (SSF) and Cal Water Mid-Peninsula (MPS). Cal Water is the largest SFPUC wholesale customer, which supplies 262,095 people and relies on a mix of local surface water and groundwater supplies. Cal Water BG and MPS mainly serve residential customers, while commercial and industrial connections represent up to 53% of Cal Water SSF’s demand.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 35.68 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Local groundwater supplies can support
reduced reliance on RWS.

Sources: (1) ‘21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Cal Water 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
Note: * The average R-GPCD of Cal Water BG, Cal Water SSF , and Cal Water MPS service areas is shown here.
current - 22.5%
2045 - 17.8%
Cal Water
ISG:

35.68 mgd

0.8%

99.2%
FY 21-22
RWS Supply
94%
20454%
2%
Supplemental RWS Deliveries
RWS SupplyLocal Groundwater
Local Watershed
2018-2019
Wet Year
2045
Projection
2020-2021
Dry Year

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO
SAN
CARLOS
DALY
CITY
Local Groundwater Local Watershed

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
MPS
BG
SSF
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

Production yields from local watersheds, which include a surface water diversion on Denniston Creek and surface water infiltration wells on Pilarcitos Creek, are impacted by drought conditions and water rights limitations. Coastside CWD plans to invest in its groundwater facilities in the Half Moon Bay Terrace basin and to explore the feasibility of developing water reuse to improve water supply resilience.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Coastside CWD continues to invest in local water resources, including efforts to perfect secondary water rights on San Vicente Creek and Denniston Creek. Coastside CWD is replacing aging infrastructure and ancillary facilities to reduce water loss and upgrading water treatment facilities to improve treatment efficiency for both local and RWS supplies.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
47 R-GPCD
Coastside CWD has seen a 15% decrease in residential
gallons per capita demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 and
an 11.8% decrease in gross per capita water use since
2015 due to continued conservation savings.

Coastside County Water District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1,3:

Coastside County Water District (Coastside CWD) is a
special district that serves the City of Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated coastal communities of El Granada, Miramar, Moonridge, and Princeton in San Mateo County. Coastside CWD supplies water to 18,839 people located within a 14-square- mile service area. Coastside CWD serves various types of water demands, with an average of 55% of its water usage serving residential customers.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 2.18 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

3.0 2.5

2.0 1.5

1.0 0.5
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
There will be continued reliance on
local watershed supplies.

Sources: (1) ‘21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Coastside CWD 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 0.7%
2045 - 0.8%
Coastside
CWD
Local Watershed
ISG:

2.18 mgd
38%
61% FY 21-22
RWS SupplyLocal Groundwater
73%2045
26%
1%
Local Watershed
RWS SupplyLocal Groundwater
1%

SAN FRANCISCO
SFO

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
DALY
CITY

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
21%
79%2045
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

Daly City’s supply portfolio includes RWS supply, five groundwater wells from the Westside Basin aquifer, and recycled water from the North San Mateo County Sanitation District (NSMCSD) for irrigation purposes. Daly City has been receiving supplemental RWS deliveries in lieu of utilizing their groundwater supplies from the Westside Basin aquifer in accordance with agreements with SFPUC and other local municipal pumpers to increase the aquifer’s drought resilience. Daly City serves recycled water for irrigation purposes to golf courses, city parks, public landscaping and is planning the expansion its recycled water production, which would limit reliance on RWS supply, serve irrigation customers in Colma and provide supplies for groundwater recharge.

AWS SYNERGIES:

Daly City Recycled Water Expansion
CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Daly City operates four groundwater wells and one emergency well that produce approximately 2 million gallons per day (mgd). Daly City has two groundwater capital projects that are projected to increase local supplies by approximately 1.0 mgd.

Daly City agreed to accept an increased amount of surplus RWS supply at a reduced rate and reduce groundwater from the Westside Basin to study the response of the basin recharge.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
Daly City has had a 19% decrease in residential
gallons per capita demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 due
to continued water conservation savings.

City of Daly City
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of Daly City is a municipal utility that serves 107,197 people within Daly City and designated unincorporated areas in San Mateo County. The system’s service area covers approximately

7.4 square miles and primarily includes residential connections, which account for 67% of total water usage.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 4.29 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Expansion of recycled water supplies will limit
reliance on RWS and supplemental deliveries will
help protect local groundwater supplies.

Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Daly City 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 2.8%
2045 - 3.4%
Daly City
RWS SupplyRecycled Water
32%
58% FY 21-22
ISG:

4.29 mgd
RWS Supply
Supplemental RWS Deliveries
Recycled Water
40 R-GPCD
Local Groundwater
10%

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND
SFO
PALO
ALTO
SAN
MATEO
SAN
JOSE

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY

HAYWARD

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

East Palo Alto currently relies almost exclusively on RWS supply.

The city is planning the implementation of new groundwater supply sources from the relatively underutilized and stable San Mateo Plain Subbasin, and is committed to the long- term sustainable management of the basin in collaboration with neighboring overlying cities. East Palo Alto negotiated permanent ISG transfers of 1 mgd and 0.5 mgd from the City of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto, respectively. East Palo Alto has also established an agreement with the City of Mountain View to assume 0.25 mgd of their Minimum Purchase Obligation in exchange for the right of first refusal on any drought transfers by the City of Mountain View.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

East Palo Alto has identified a project to construct a 500 gallons per minute (gpm) groundwater well and associated iron-
manganese treatment system to supplement the city’s existing water supply. This project will create an emergency source of water supply for the city by drawing groundwater from the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin and San Mateo Sub-Basin.

Treatment of the groundwater would be necessary to enable its use for domestic purposes.

Implementation of this project would provide a secondary source of water in the event that the city’s existing water supply is unable to meet demand during drought events or emergency conditions.

The project is fully designed and CEQA is complete. The city is seeking construction funding for the project.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
44 R-GPCD
15% reduction in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 due to continued
conservation savings.

City of East Palo Alto
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of East Palo Alto’s water utility is managed and operated by a private contractor (Veolia North America). East Palo Alto serves 25,935 people over a 2.5-square-mile service area.

Residential and commercial/industrial connections account for approximately 78% and 16% of total water demand, respectively.

Supply portfolio includes RWS supply and one active production well as alternate potable water supply.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 3.46 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

4.0 3.5

3.0 2.5

2.0 1.5

1.0 0.5
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
RWS and groundwater supplies will
address the anticipated increase in
commercial water use by 2045.

ISG:

3.46 mgd
Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) East Palo Alto 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 1.1%
2045 - 1.7%
East Palo Alto
RWS Supply
99%
FY 21-22 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
Local Groundwater
99%
1% 1%
RWS Supply
Local Groundwater

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

EMID has limited local hydrologic resources and has been relying solely on RWS supply to feed water demands. EMID has been committed to improve supply reliability through its water conservation program and is exploring the feasibility of recycled water opportunities within its service area and on a regional level in collaboration with the City of San Mateo.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

EMID relies solely on the RWS and plans to continue conservation efforts to reduce demands.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
66 R-GPCD
17% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 due to post-drought
conservation savings.

EMID has several helpful water conservation and water
saving tips available for the public online.

Estero Municipal
Improvement District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) serves 36,556 people in Foster City and a section of the City of San Mateo.

The service area spans 4 square miles and is bound by the San Francisco Bay, the Seal Slough and the Belmont Slough.

Residential customers account for approximately 57% of water usage, and irrigation demands represent up to 26% of water use.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 5.9 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Reliance on RWS supply will remain below ISG
level and is not planned to increase, mainly
due to anticipated conservation savings.

Sources: (1) ‘21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey, updat ed population provided by EMID (June 2023) (2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) EMID 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
RWS Supply
100%
FY 21-22 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
100%
RWS Supply
current - 3.0%
2045 - 2.9%
EMID
ISG:

5.9 mgd

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

ISG:

3.46 mgd
Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

Hayward relies primarily on RWS supply to meet its water demands and is not limited by a specific ISG level. The Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility has been supplying secondary level wastewater to the Russell City Energy Center, which further treats the water to a tertiary level and utilizes it for cooling and washdown. Phase 1 of Hayward’s Recycled Water Project was initiated in March 2022 and currently delivers an average of 0.2 mgd of tertiary treated recycled water to about 30 irrigation customers, with future potential expansion phases.

Hayward currently has groundwater supplies for short‑term emergency use and is a Groundwater Sustainability Agency in collaboration with East Bay Municipal Utility District for the stewardship of the East Bay Plain Subbasin aquifer.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Hayward anticipates continuing to rely primarily on the RWS to supply its water demands, supplemented by recycled water for some irrigation and industrial use. The city will be preparing a Recycled Water Plan to evaluate potential future customers, demand, and infrastructure needs.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
46 R-GPCD
23% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R‑GPCD) since 2010 due to continued
conservation savings. Hayward’s per capita
usage is among the lowest of all agencies
that purchase water from the RWS.

City of Hayward
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of Hayward owns and operates its water system, which currently serves a population of 160,591 people
within a 62.5‑square‑mile service area, including the City of Hayward and a small unincorporated area in Alameda County.

Residential connections account for approximately 53% water usage. The municipality’s supply portfolio includes RWS supply and recycled water.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: N/A
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
25 20
15 10
5 0
2018‑2019
Wet Year
2020‑2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Need for RWS supply is anticipated to increase
by approximately 8 mgd to meet anticipated
residential and industrial growth.

Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Hayward 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
Note: * Recycled water deliveries in 2018-2019 included deliveries of secondary- treated wastewater to Russell City Energy Center and Skywest Golf Course.

These deliveries are no longer included in Hayward’s recycled water data. current - 11.0%
2045 - 12.8%
Hayward
RWS Supply
100%
FY 21-22 2045

OAKLAND

SAN FRANCISCO

HAYWARD

FREMONT
San Francisco
Bay
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
Recycled Water
99%
1%
RWS Supply
Recycled Water*

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

The service area’s high variability of topography represents a challenge. A 2016 study indicated that Hillsborough has a lack of availability of groundwater supplies adequate for municipal use.

Recycled water/non-potable water reuse opportunities within Hillsborough are limited due to the almost exclusively residential water usage and its wastewater flows being treated at two wastewater treatment plants that are outside of its jurisdiction and that do not produce recycled water.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Hillsborough is 100% reliant on RWS supplies for potable water and does not have viable access to current or future local supplies.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
190
R-GPCD
27% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 due to continued water
conservation savings.

Hillsborough replaced its aging water meters with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) in 2017. Nearly 90% of its water customers use the AMI customer service portal to respond to leak alerts and to monitor their water use – an industry-wide best.

Hillsborough also purchased the first of its kind mobile water flushing and filtration unit called NO-DES. Traditional water flushing activities result in millions of gallons of water being discharged from fire hydrants into storm drains. Hillsborough’s NO-DES unit captures, filters, treats and returns that water back into the water distribution system for use instead of discharging it into storm drains.

Town of Hillsborough
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The Town of Hillsborough operates its water utility and serves 11,397 people living within the Town of Hillsborough and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. The utility’s service area covers 6.25 square miles of highly varied
topography. The utility serves a residential community, with approximately 93% of water usage attributed to single-family homes connections.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 4.09 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

4.5 4.0

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Supply projections follow the stable
predicted population increase based on
the planned addition of housing units. RWS
supply needs will remain below ISG.

Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Hillsborough 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
RWS Supply
100%
FY 21-22 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
San Francisco
Bay
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
100%
RWS Supply
current - 1.8%
2045 - 1.9%
Hillsborough
ISG:

4.09 mgd
Wholesale
Customers

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

Menlo Park receives 100% of its supply from RWS supply and has purchased between 52% and 66% of its ISG between 2016 and 2020. Menlo Park currently has one emergency groundwater well and is planning to double its groundwater emergency supply (up to 3,000 gpm capacity) in the medium term. The West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD) Recycled Water Facility started supplying 20 million gallons to the Sharon Heights Golf and Country Club in 2020 and an expansion of the WBSD’s recycled water capacity is in the planning stages.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Menlo Park is implementing an AMI project that is capable of automatically transmitting hourly meter reads. Doing so will improve meter read accuracy, enhance customer service, enable staff and water users to identify leaks earlier so corrective actions can be taken, and reduce water loss. With AMI, Menlo Park will also implement a new customer user-friendly WaterSmart portal.

Menlo Park is also planning to construct one or two more wells in order to meet the 3,000 gpm capacity goal and is in the process of evaluating other possible well locations. Menlo Park expects water demands to decrease after WBSD expands their recycled water system, as current potable water users convert to recycled water for irrigation use.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
49 R-GPCD
With the addition of recycled water, irrigation water
demand decreased from 12% in 2019 to 9% in 2022
of Menlo Park’s total water usage.
50% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 due to continued
water conservation savings.

Menlo Park Municipal Water
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of Menlo Park owns and operates Menlo Park Municipal Water. Menlo Park supplies water to approximately half of the City to about 21,000 residents over a 4-square-mile service area located within City limits. Residential and commercial/industrial water demands account for an average of 43% and 35% of the City’s water usage, respectively.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 4.46 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

5.0 4.5

4.0 3.5

3.0 2.5

2.0 1.5

1.0 0.5
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Potable water demands are anticipated to
increase by 28% by 2040, led by a boom in multi-
family and commercial water usage. Increased
RWS supply use will remain below the ISG.

ISG:

4.46 mgd
Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Menlo Park 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 1.9%
2045 - 2.3%
Menlo Park
RWS Supply
100%
FY 21-22 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
Recycled Water
92%
8%
RWS Supply
Recycled Water
Wholesale
Customers

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

MPWDWholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

MPWD relies on RWS supplies for 100% of its water needs. The District is anticipating an increase in multi-family residential and commercial developments. Due to its location and relatively small urban service area, access to alternative groundwater or surface water supplies is limited. MPWD has assessed opportunities for recycled water use within its service area, and has encountered financial and constructability constraints.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

In September 2022, MPWD joined as a partner to the PureWater Peninsula Project and continues to move forward in support of this project. In 2021, MPWD conducted a preliminary assessment of groundwater production potential, which found that limited potential for groundwater development may exist in a portion of its service area, particularly as an emergency drought supply. MPWD intends to continue to evaluate the potential use of groundwater and the funding sources available to support such development.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
59 R-GPCD
28% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010.

In response to the current drought, customers
have reduced their gross water use to 85 GPCD,
consistent with 2015.

Mid-Peninsula Water District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1,3:

Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) is a special district that serves 31,159 people within a 5-square-mile service area that covers the City of Belmont, portions of the City of San Carlos, and unincorporated county areas within San Mateo County.

Residential connections account for 71% of water usage.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 3.89 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

4.5 4.0

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Despite the expected growth from the residential and
CII sectors, demands on RWS supplies are projected
to remain below MPWD’s ISG.

Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve, updat ed population provided by MPWD (June 2023)
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Mid-Peninsula Water District 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 1.9%
2045 - 1.7%
RWS Supply
ISG:

3.89 mgd
RWS Supply
100% 100%
FY 21-22 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.
100%
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

The City of Millbrae relies almost exclusively on RWS supply to serve its water demands. A groundwater exploration study was conducted in the mid-1990s, but no potential viable groundwater supplies were identified. The City of Millbrae operates the Waste Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), and
the limited amount of recycled water produced is used for onsite maintenance applications. The City is evaluating the feasibility of expanding its recycled water production and use to include irrigation, construction dust control and commercial applications, depending on resources and funding availability.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

The City of Millbrae is in the early planning phase of a new recycled water program. Millbrae is preparing a feasibility study to be completed in 2023 to evaluate implementation of a city- wide recycled water program. The City would produce and deliver recycled water for the irrigation of existing landscape sites and future development. A recycled water market assessment has been completed and estimated potential recycled water demands of city parks and schools, as well as a privately-owned golf course and planned new development within Millbrae. A total city-wide demand of 62 million gallons was identified. A regional partnership with neighboring communities is also being explored.

City of Millbrae
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The City of Millbrae owns and operates its water system, which serves 22,277 people. The 3.2-square-mile service area is primarily residential, with residential connections and commercial/industrial customers that account for approximately 61% and 8% of Millbrae’s total water usage, respectively.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 3.15 mgd
Supply Utilization (mgd)

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
The anticipated increase in multi-family residential
and commercial connections will result in an
increase in RWS supply purchases.

ISG:

3.15 mgd
WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
26% decrease in residential gallons per capital
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010.
51 R-GPCD
Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of Millbrae 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 1.4%
2045 - 1.9%
MillbraeWholesale
Customers
RWS Supply
100%
FY 21-22 2045
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
RWS Supply
Wholesale
Customers

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
18% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 due to continued water
conservation savings.

In 2022, Milpitas implemented AMI and launched the WaterSmart Customer Portal.
52 R-GPCD
Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

Milpitas receives up to 90% of its supply from RWS and Valley Water, which feed their respective areas of the system. Both of these supply sources are sensitive to hydrologic variability, conveyance limitations, water quality variations and environmental regulations. Milpitas has a diverse supply portfolio, including one existing standby well and two additional wells coming online by 2040 for emergency conditions and dry-year conditions. Milpitas uses non-potable recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling Program (SBWRP) for landscape irrigation and industrial purposes. There are opportunities to expand its recycled water use (cooling towers, irrigation uses, etc.) but they are limited by the SBWRP’s future supply allocations.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Currently, Milpitas gets its potable water supply from RWS and Valley Water, and non-potable supply from SBWRP. The City has emergency interties with San Jose Water and Alameda County Water District (ACWD). Milpitas currently has one groundwater well, Pinewood Well, which has a capacity of 1.7 mgd and is activated only during emergencies. In 2020, the City began redesigning Curtis Well and early construction of McCandless Well, which are both expected to be completed by 2040. The initial estimated capacity from both wells is 0.58 mgd and both will only operate under emergency or dry-year conditions.

City of Milpitas
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of Milpitas is a municipal water utility, which serves 80,839 people, over 13.6 square miles within Santa Clara County.

The utility’s customer base includes approximately 85% of residential connections and 5% of commercial and industrial connections. Supply sources include imported water from the RWS and Valley Water, recycled water and groundwater for emergency and drought conditions.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 9.23 mgd
MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENT2: 5.341 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
The City’s growth is anticipated to occur
within areas served by Valley Water, therefore
increasing the need for Valley Water supply.

Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of Milpitas 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 3.6%
2045 - 4.4%
Milpitas
RWS Supply
Valley Water
Recycled Water
53%
37%
10%
FY 21-22 2045
ISG:

9.23 mgd

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
58%
34%
8%
RWS Supply
Valley Water
Recycled Water

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

Mountain View has a diversified supply portfolio. The RWS is its largest water supply. Mountain View also operates four active groundwater wells from the Santa Clara Basin aquifer and purchases treated water from Valley Water. Mountain View receives recycled water from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in Palo Alto for non-potable uses in the North Bayshore area (such as irrigation and toilet flushing). Mountain View is a signatory to the Partnership Agreement with Palo Alto and Valley Water, which aims to advance water reuse programs in Santa Clara County.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Mountain View recently updated its Recycled Water Feasibility Study and continues to build-out its recycled water distribution system to serve new customers.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
58 R-GPCD
20% decrease in residential gallons per
capita demand (R-GPCD) since 2010
due to continued conservation.

Mountain View partners with Valley Water on conservation programs such as rebates for lawn replacement. The City is also pursuing advanced metering infrastructure.

City of Mountain View
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of Mountain View owns and operates the municipal utility covering a 12-square-mile service area on the peninsula in north Santa Clara County. The utility serves 81,764 people and supplies 57% of its total water usage to residential connections and 27% to irrigation connections, and 15% to commercial, industrial, and institutional connections.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 12.46 mgd
MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENT2: 8.930 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Alternative supplies will partly serve the
anticipated 46% increase in population by 2045.

RWS supply use will remain below ISG.

Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve, updat ed sector demand percentages provided by Mountain View (June 2023)
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of Mountain View 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 5.7%
2045 - 6.4%
Mountain View
RWS Supply
Valley Water Recycled Water
Local Groundwater
85%
10%
4%
1%
FY 21-22 8%
87%
2045
ISG:

12.46 mgd
3%
2%
RWS Supply
Valley Water Recycled Water
Local Groundwater

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

NCCWD relies heavily on the RWS supply but is exploring multiple opportunities to further diversify its supply portfolio. As such, NCCWD is working to develop groundwater supplies from the San Pedro Valley Basin. In 2022, the District was awarded a grant from the Department of Water Resources to pursue its groundwater project. The District’s surface water rights to South Fork San Pedro Creek are currently being conserved, but could represent an alternative supply source in future years. NCCWD also distributes tertiary recycled water from the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant for landscape irrigation purposes and supplies recycled water to two schools, a ballfield, highway medians and Sharp Park Golf Course, a SFPUC retail customer. In addition, the District operates a residential recycled water fill station for customers to utilize at no charge. The expansion of NCCWD’s recycled water use is also being considered.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

The District’s groundwater project is estimated to be able to supply 70 acre-feet annually to supplement potable water received from the RWS. Information from the test well phase of the project is anticipated to further define the potential quantity of water available. Given the District’s location within foggy Pacifica, it is also exploring fog water collection with researchers at University of California Santa Cruz and California State University Monterey Bay. While using fog water for potable purposes may not be feasible, it could be used as a supplemental non-potable supply in the service area. Work is being done to quantify the amount of water that can be collected and define the per unit costs.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
44 R-GPCD
35% decrease in residential gallons per capita demand
(R-GPCD) since 2010 due to conservation efforts.

North Coast County Water District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) is a special district that serves 37,533 people in San Mateo County.

NCCWD’s service area covers 13.6 square miles, including the City of Pacifica and small unincorporated areas within San Mateo County. For FY 2021-2022, residential connections account for 74% of total potable water use, while commercial connections represent only 8% of potable water usage.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 3.84 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
5 4
3 2
1 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
The need for RWS supply is planned to slightly
decrease due to the continued passive conservation
savings and use of recycled water supplies.

Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, November2021 (3) NCCWD 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 1.7%
2045 - 1.3%
NCCWD
98%
FY 21-22
99%
2045
ISG:

3.84 mgd

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
RWS Supply
Recycled Water
1% 1%
RWS Supply
Recycled Water

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

Palo Alto relies on RWS supply for 100% of its potable water supply.

Palo Alto currently has standby groundwater wells available for emergency purposes and as a possible supplemental temporary drought supply. The groundwater basin is managed by Valley Water. Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which supplies recycled water to mostly irrigation customers in Palo Alto and Mountain View. A Partnership Agreement between Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water provides funding for a small salt removal facility at the RWQCP in Palo Alto to improve the quality and enable increased use of non-potable recycled water used in Palo Alto and Mountain View and provides Valley Water an option to receive about half of the treated wastewater from the RWQCP for use in the county south of Mountain View.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Palo Alto currently receives 100% of its potable water from the SFPUC through the RWS. In case of emergency, a system of local groundwater wells and storage can be utilized. The City is currently developing a One Water Plan, which will take a broad, comprehensive look at water supply options over a 20-year planning horizon. The One W ater Plan is currently considering various alternative water supply options including direct and indirect potable reuse, graywater capture and reuse, stormwater capture, desalination, and other non-potable water sources to supplement and preserve the potable water supply. The One Water Plan will produce a recommended supply and conservation portfolio which will be taken to council for consideration of adoption. The One Water Plan is expected to be completed by Fall of 2023.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
84 R-GPCD
Palo Alto has reduced residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) by 16% since 2010 and continues
to realize water conservation savings. Palo Alto partners with Valley Water to offer a variety of water efficiency rebate programs and resources.

City of Palo Alto
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The City of Palo Alto owns and operates its water system and serves approximately 68,000 people located within a 26-square-mile service area, which includes the City of Palo Alto and a few connections in Los Altos Hills and Portola Valley. Approximately 53% of total water (potable water, recycled water and non-revenue water) is used by residential customers, 16% by commercial and industrial customers, and 14% by irrigation-only customers. The remaining 17% of water includes recycled water used primarily for irrigation purposes and industrial process use, city and public agency uses of water as well as other and non-revenue water. Palo Alto completed a permanent ISG transfer of 0.5 mgd to the City of East Palo Alto in 2018.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 16.57 mgd

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY

SUNNYVALE
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Recycled water use and conservation
savings will limit the increase in RWS
supply, which will remain below ISG.

Sources: (1) ’21-‘22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of Palo Alto 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 7.5%
2045 - 6.5%
Palo Alto
RWS SupplyRecycled Water
9%
ISG:

16.57 mgd
RWS SupplyRecycled Water
98%
2045
91%
FY 21-22

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
2%
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

PHWD relies exclusively on RWS supply for its water demands.

Due to its small service area, the District is limited in the viable alternative water supply alternatives. Its small customer base renders the implementation of recycled water opportunities within its service area challenging. Based on the estimated residential water usage, PHWD has implemented a conservation campaign focused on outdoor water use and targeting the customers with highest usage, with a 32% reduction target over 2020-2021.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

PHWD is working with EKI, Inc. to research groundwater
and opportunities of multiple working wells in the District.

PHWD is exploring an ISG purchase with another Wholesale Customer. Additionally, PHWD is in discussions with Valley Water assessing “wheeling water” through Cal Water Los Altos as well as becoming a permanent customer of Valley Water.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
249
R-GPCD
5% decrease in residential gallons per
capita demand (R-GPCD) since 2010.

PHWD’s conservation efforts have resulted
in a 13% usage reduction in FY21-22.

Purissima Hills Water District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) is the smallest
SFPUC wholesale customer, which serves a population of
6,150 located within two-thirds of the Town of Los Altos Hills and an unincorporated area to the south. Its service area spans a relatively rural area of approximately 7.2 square miles spread over a high elevation differential. The customer base is mainly comprised of single-family homes, with residential connections accounting for over 90% of water demand.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 1.62 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Limited water supply alternatives and increasing
water demands will lead to a RWS supply
need that exceeds ISG by 0.53 mgd.

Sources: (1) ’21 -’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Purissima Hills Water District 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 1.3%
2045 - 1.3%
PHWD
RWS Supply
100%
FY 21-22
100%
2045
ISG:

1.62 mgd

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
SFO

SUNNYVALE
RWS Supply

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

Redwood City relies on RWS supply for the majority of its water demands and is exploring alternative water supplies options. The utility is evaluating groundwater supplies from San Mateo Plain Subbasin as a potential future emergency and backup supply source. The water system receives recycled water from Silicon Valley Clean Water and has been expanding its recycled water distribution system. Redwood City is planning to build flexibility into the system to facilitate the reach of additional identified non-potable water customers.

AWS PROJECT SYNERGIES:

PureWater Peninsula Project
CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Redwood City intends to leverage its local supply of recycled water to maximize non-potable uses within its Recycled
Water Service Area and reduce reliance on imported
drinking water from the RWS. To promote this goal city code requires the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing for new development projects. Planning efforts to expand the recycled water system throughout
the downtown area to meet the needs of new and existing water users and growth within the city are ongoing.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
59 R-GPCD
21% decrease in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010.

Redwood City has long been a champion in water
conservation and offers many programs promoting
water use efficiency and education. This includes a
poster contest for grades K-5th since 1995.

City of Redwood City
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The City of Redwood City owns and operates its water system, which covers 35 square miles and serves approximately 90,000 people located within Redwood City, portions of the Town of Woodside, the City of San Carlos and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. The utility’s water system primarily serves residential connections, which account for 61% of water usage.

Commercial and industrial customers account for 14% and dedicated irrigation accounts of 15% of the system’s potable water usage.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 10.93 mgd

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
MATEO
DALY
CITY
SFO
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Expansion of recycled water and conservation
savings will limit Redwood City’s use of RWS
supply, which will remain below ISG.

Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of Redwood City 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 6.2%
2045 - 5.3%
Redwood City
RWS SupplyRecycled Water
8%
ISG:

10.93 mgd
RWS SupplyRecycled Water
86%
2045
92%
FY 21-22 14%

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

San Bruno’s supply portfolio includes RWS supply, supply from North Coast County Water District (NCCWD), and local groundwater supplies. The City of San Bruno owns multiple wells that extract groundwater from the Westside Basin. San Bruno has reduced its groundwater use (from 50% to 10% of total water use after 2016) and has been receiving RWS supplemental deliveries in lieu of utilizing its local groundwater supplies to preserve the aquifer’s drought resilience. San Bruno is assessing future use of local groundwater supplies based on groundwater quality, sea water intrusion risks and agreements with local municipal utilities.

San Bruno has explored the feasibility of implementing recycled water supplies, which will be considered depending on future water supply availability and costs.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

San Bruno’s water supply comes from three different sources – surface water purchased from SFPUC, surface water purchased from NCCWD, and local groundwater produced from City owned wells. San Bruno is already working to maximize use of existing supplies, researching potential new sources, encouraging conservation and investing in infrastructure. The City of San Bruno is investing in the future of water supply, to meet growing projected demands and reliability by increasing its groundwater sources.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
48 R-GPCD
San Bruno has reduced the residential gallons per
capita demand (R-GPCD) by 20% since 2010 due
to continued water conservation savings.

City of San Bruno
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW 1:

The City of San Bruno owns and operates its water system which serves 44,409 people located within a 6.1-square-mile service area covering the city limits and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. The system’s water supplies primarily serve residential and commercial/industrial connections, which represent 70% and approximately 18% of the system’s water usage, respectively.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 3.25 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
6 5
4 3
2 1
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Sustainable use of groundwater supplies
and RWS supply will fulfill the anticipated
increase in water demand.

Sources: (1) ’20-‘21 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of San Bruno 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 0.8%
2045 - 1.9%
San Bruno
RWS Supply
NCCWD Local Groundwater
65%
34%
1%
FY 21-22 68%
32%
2045
ISG:

3.25 mgd

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
JOSE
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
RWS Supply
RWS Supplemental DeliveriesLocal Groundwater
Wholesale
Customers

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

Supply sources include RWS supply, four local groundwater sources (two active production sources and two sources for emergency use purposes) from the Santa Clara Basin and recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling Program (SBWRP) produced at the San
Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. The use of groundwater supplies is limited by the aquifer’s hydrologic conditions and the groundwater basin’s available supply is based on Valley Water’s groundwater recharge efforts. The City of San Jose is exploring expanding production of its existing water supply alternatives to cater to the anticipated industrial water demand growth.

AWS PROJECTS SYNERGIES: South Bay Purified Water
CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

SJMWS relies on multiple sources of supply: surface water from SFPUC, groundwater from the Santa Clara groundwater basin, and recycled water from the SBWRP. Supply sources received by SJMWS are generally considered consistent sources in normal years. SJMWS is planning to construct additional groundwater wells to support increased demands due to development, as well as to provide emergency supply availability to the existing customer base.

Climate change poses challenges in water resources management, although the full extent and associated impacts are uncertain. Statewide and local changes in precipitation and temperature could significantly impact wholesaler-managed supplies and water usage patterns.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
38 R-GPCD
47% decrease in residential gallons per capita demand
(R-GPCD) since 2010. SJMWS is transitioning to an
Advanced Metering Infrastructure and encouraging
customers to convert to low water use landscapes.

City of San Jose - North
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The City of San Jose Municipal Water System (SJMWS) serves two public water systems, including the North San Jose/Alviso water system, which receives RWS supply. The North San Jose/Alviso water system serves 40,514 people within the northern area of City of San Jose. The 5.3-square-mile service area includes a large industrial customer base, in addition to residential and commercial customers.

SJMWS does not currently have an ISG and receives up to 4.5 mgd of interruptible RWS supply, since it is not a permanent wholesale customer (SFPUC decision pending in 2028).

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: N/A
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
The expansion of groundwater and recycled
water supplies will support the increased
water demands caused by new developments
and growing industrial demands.

Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Surve y
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of San Jose 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 3.2%
2045 - 2.6%
Wholesale
Customers
San Jose - North
RWS Supply
Recycled Water Local Groundwater
81%

18.5%FY 21-22
40%
44%
16% 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
RWS Supply
Recycled Water Local Groundwater

0.5%

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

City of Santa Clara
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Local existing groundwater and expanded
recycled water supplies will ramp up to feed
the anticipated increase in commercial water
demands and limit reliance on imported supplies.
current - 2.4%
2045 - 2.6%
17%
17%
40%204549%
17%
FY 21-22 14%
30%
16%
RWS SupplyLocal Groundwater
Recycled WaterValley Water
RWS SupplyLocal Groundwater
Recycled WaterValley Water
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

The City of Santa Clara has a diversified water supply portfolio, which includes imported water from SFPUC and Valley Water, recycled water from the Regional Wastewater Facility under the South Bay Water Recycling Program (SBWRP) and 21 local groundwater wells (19 active) that tap into the Santa Clara subbasin. The local groundwater supplies are managed by Valley Water and their use is constrained to prevent excessive subsidence and promote long- term resilience of the aquifer. Recycled water uses in Santa Clara include irrigation, industrial processes, cooling purposes and toilet flushing. The existing recycled water distribution system facilitates the expansion of the service to new large potential customers.

AWS PROJECTS SYNERGIES:

South Bay Purified Water Feasibility Study
CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Santa Clara takes part in regional water supply planning efforts in coordination with its wholesale and regional partners that include SFPUC, Valley Water and BAWSCA. The City embraces a One Water approach to a water supply planning, providing a roadmap for implementing real world strategies to secure and maintain current water supplies and developing new supplies with key programs focused on well rehabilitation, potable reuse, recycled water and conservation. The City has made substantial efforts towards expanding the use of recycled water for irrigation, industrial uses and dual plumbed facilities. As part of the City’s overall sustainability strategy, the City is working with regional partners on the use of purified water to supplement local water supplies, including a feasibility study with SFPUC, City of San Jose and project with Valley Water.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
56 R-GPCD
27% reduction in residential gallons per capita
demand (R-GPCD) since 2010 due to continued water
conservation savings.

The City is partnering with Valley Water on programs such as rebates for lawn replacements, using the WaterSmart customer portal, hiring permanent Utility Conservation/Efficiency Coordinator position to promote water conservation.

CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The City of Santa Clara owns and operates its water utility, which serves 130,746 people over a 19.3-square-mile urban and suburban service area. The City of Santa Clara has a large commercial and industrial customer base, which accounts for 47% of its total water use. Santa Clara does not currently have an ISG since it is not a permanent wholesale customer (SFPUC decision pending in 2028) and receives up to 4.5 mgd of interruptible RWS supply.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: N/A
Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) City of Santa Clara 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey

SAN FRANCISCO

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
SAN
JOSE

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
Santa ClaraWholesale
Customers
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

Stanford relies on RWS supply to fulfill its potable drinking water demands and is utilizing multiple water supply alternatives to feed most of its irrigation needs. Stanford diverts surface water from San Francisquito Creek and Los Trancos Creek and stores water in Felt Lake. Five groundwater wells feed into the non- potable water system and supplement local surface water supplies during dry conditions. Since 2019, two stormwater capture and use facilities have been installed, which capture and filter storm runoff which is then pumped into the non-potable irrigation system and Felt Lake for storage. Four of the groundwater supply wells could be used in the domestic system in the event of an emergency. Regular use of groundwater in the domestic system, through blending with SFPUC supplied water, is being studied.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Stanford is currently using half of its RWS allocation and potable demand projections show adequate supply until 2059 without additional sources or additional water conservation. Stanford will continue to minmize water demand with conservation programs. Stanford has established a graywater policy and will continue to explore conversion of some irrigated areas to recycled water. Additionally, Stanford will begin expanding stormwater capture and use facilities to increase the capture volume of water used in the non-potable irrigation system.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4*
45 GPCD*
Despite campus growth, Stanford has reduced
potable water demand by 50% since 2001 through
water conservation, source shifting, and significantly
improved efficiency for campus heating and cooling which minimizes the use of cooling towers.

Stanford University
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The Water Resources and Civil Infrastructure Group within the Sustainability and Energy Management Department manages the Stanford University water systems. The domestic water system covers approximately 3.1 square miles and serves approximately 30,000 people on the Stanford campus and nearby unincorporated areas. Stanford University’s unique customer base is reflected in its water usage; dedicated irrigation and single family connections represent approximately 9% and 24% of total domestic water usage, respectively. Local supply sources include local surface water, groundwater and stormwater capture for non-potable water uses and are conveyed in a separate non-potable water system (primarily irrigation of the golf course, sports fields, and campus landscaping).

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 3.03 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

4.0 3.5

3.0 2.5

2.0 1.5

1.0 0.5
0 2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
RWS reliance will remain below ISG and local
supplies will expand and continue to fulfill
growing non-potable irrigation demands.

ISG:

3.03 mgd
Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Stanford University Water Resources Website
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
Note: *Due to abnormal campus populations during COVID-19, gross per capita water demand is calculated using potable water use.
current - 1.1%
2045 - 1.5%
Stanford
University
RWS Supply
42%FY 21-22 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
Other
58% 66%34%
RWS Supply
Other

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
Wholesale
Customers
* Figure may not provide accurate
and complete boundaries for
the agencies identified.

VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES 3:

The City of Sunnyvale has a diversified water supply portfolio.

The imported surface water from the RWS and Valley Water is subject to future restrictions due to climate change impacts, drought conditions and potential regulatory changes.

Sunnyvale’s groundwater wells are not used in priority but provide an alternative water source during drought conditions or in the event of imported supply interruption. The production of recycled water at the Sunnyvale’s Water Pollution Control Plant supplies irrigation and landscaping needs at parks, golf courses, and specific industrial customers, and will be expanded to increase the Sunnyvale’s supply resilience.

CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Sunnyvale has a project underway to prepare a Recycled Water Master Plan to evaluate opportunities to expand recycled water use. In addition, Sunnyvale has $3.5 million budgeted in 2027-29 for the construction of a new well at the Central Water Plant.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS3,4
60 R-GPCD
27% decrease in residential per capita (R-GPCD)
water use since 2010.

City of Sunnyvale
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

The City of Sunnyvale, located at the north end of Santa Clara County, owns and operates its water utility which serves 156,317 people within a 24-square-mile service area. The water system supplies a majority of residential connections. The utility’s supply sources include imported surface water from the RWS, Valley Water, local groundwater sources and recycled water.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE: 12.58 mgd
MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENT 2: 8.93 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utiliazation (mgd)
25 20
15 10
5 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
An increase in imported water from Valley Water will
cover most of the planned increase in water demands
ISG:

12.58 mgd
Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey , updated population provided by Sunnyvale (June 2023)
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Sunnyvale 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
current - 7.2%
2045 - 7.1%
Sunnyvale
RWS Supply
Valley Water Recycled Water
Local Groundwater
43%
54%
1%
2%
44%
50%

0.5%

5.5%FY 21-22 2045
RWS Supply
Valley Water Recycled Water
Local Groundwater

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD

FREMONT
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY
SAN
JOSE
SFO
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

Wholesale
Customers
VULNERABILITIES & OPPORTUNITIES3:

Westborough has limited opportunities for alternative water supply within its service area and relies on RWS supply for 100% of its water use. However, Westborough purchased between 56% and 68% of its ISG between 2016 and 2020. Since Westborough’s service area is almost fully built-out, the system is therefore not anticipating significant growth in the residential or commercial sectors in the long-term and is not currently in urgent need of additional supplies based on their long-term planning CURRENT & FUTURE LOCAL SUPPLIES:

Westborough is 100% reliant on RWS Supply, as it has limited opportunities for alternative water.

WATER CONSERVATION INSIGHTS1,4
41 R-GPCD
5% decrease in residential gallons per capita demand
(R-GPCD) since 2010 due to a post-drought rebound
in water usage.

Due to the drought and a continuous call for conservation including implementation of Stage 2 of the 2020 WSCP calling for a voluntary 15% reduction, for the FY 20-21, the gross GPCD went down to 57 R-GPCD.

Westborough Water District
CUSTOMER OVERVIEW1:

Westborough Water District supplies 13,486 people within the Westborough area, which represents approximately 20% of the City of South San Francisco. Residential use accounts for approximately 83% of total water usage. Westborough relies on RWS supply as its only supply source.

INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GUARANTEE2: 1.32 mgd
CURRENT & FUTURE SUPPLY PORTFOLIOS1

SHARE OF RWS DELIVERIES TO
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS1
SUPPLY MIX IN MULTIPLE YEAR TYPES1
Supply Utilization (mgd)

1.4 1.2

1.0 0.8

0.6 0.4

0.2 0
2018-2019
Wet Year
2020-2021
Dry Year
2045
Projection
Anticipated passive conservation savings
will lead to a decrease in the RWS supply
needs, which will remain below ISG.

Sources: (1) ’21-’22 BAWSCA Annual Survey
(2) Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement, 2021
(3) Westborough Water District 2020 UWMP
(4) ’10-’11 BAWSCA Annual Survey
RWS Supply
100%
FY 21-22 2045

SAN FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

HAYWARD
PALO
ALTO
San Francisco
Bay
HALF
MOON
BAY

SFOPACIFICA
SAN
MATEO

REDWOOD
CITY
DALY
CITY
100%
RWS Supply
current - 0.48%
2045 - 0.41%
Westborough
Water District Wholesale
Customers
ISG:

1.32 mgd

CUSTOMER

SERVICE AREA
* Figure may not provide accurate and complete
boundaries for the agencies identified.

A-29
Appendix B: Water Availability Modeling

APPENDIX B

Page 1 of 4 ends

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc CommissionMarch 12, 2024

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
March 12, 2024