City of Manteca
January 2023
Reclaimed Water Facilities
Master Plan
Prepared by:
ATTACHMENT 2
2175 N. California Blvd
Suite 315
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.627.4100
ATTACHMENT 2
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master
Plan
Final Report
Prepared by:
January 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
January 2023 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ES-1 ES-1 Purpose and Objectives...................................................................................ES-1 ES-2 Water Supply Considerations..........................................................................ES-2 ES-3 Wastewater Quality and Quantity....................................................................ES-2 ES-4 Market Assessment for Recycled Water.........................................................ES-3 ES-5 Comparison of Project Alternatives................................................................ES-4 ES-6 Recommended Project Plan and Implementation ..........................................ES-5 Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Need for Recycled Water in Manteca ....................................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose of Master Plan .........................................................................................1-2
1.3 Study Area Characteristics ....................................................................................1-3
1.3.1 Location and Study Area .......................................................................................1-3
1.4 Authorization .........................................................................................................1-5
1.5 Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................1-5 Chapter 2 Water Supply and Water Rights .........................................................................2-1
2.1 Treated Water Supply............................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Groundwater Supply..............................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Surface Water Supply............................................................................................2-3
2.2 Nonpotable Water Supply......................................................................................2-3
2.3 Water Rights Considerations .................................................................................2-4 Chapter 3 Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities.........................................................3-1
3.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities............................................................................3-1
3.2 Wastewater Quantity .............................................................................................3-2
3.3 Wastewater Quality ...............................................................................................3-4
3.3.1 Salts and Nutrients ................................................................................................3-4
3.4 Existing Recycled Water Facilities .........................................................................3-9
3.5 Plans for Treatment Process Modification..............................................................3-9 Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market Assessment..................................................................4-1
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 The three categories of demands are explored below, followed by a discussion of potential user interest, reliability needs and barriers to recycled water use. Key Assumptions .4-1
4.1.2 Background Data...................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Local Demand Identification ..................................................................................4-2
4.2.1 Urban Irrigation Demands......................................................................................4-3
4.2.2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment...................................................................4-5
4.2.3 Peaking Factors.....................................................................................................4-7
4.2.4 Recycled Water Demand Projections for Urban Irrigation ......................................4-7
4.2.5 Industrial, Commercial, and Other Recycled Water Users ...................................4-10
4.3 Regional Project Identification .............................................................................4-10
4.4 Groundwater Recharge Assessment ...................................................................4-14
4.4.1 Need for Groundwater Recharge.........................................................................4-14
4.4.2 Shallow Aquifer ...................................................................................................4-14
4.4.3 Deep Aquifer .......................................................................................................4-15
4.4.4 Recharge Methods ..............................................................................................4-15
4.4.5 Recharge Method Analysis..................................................................................4-16
4.4.6 Groundwater Recharge Feasibility.......................................................................4-16
4.5 Customer Outreach .............................................................................................4-17 ATTACHMENT 2
January 2023 ii
4.5.1 Local Outreach ....................................................................................................4-17
4.5.2 Regional Outreach...............................................................................................4-18
4.5.3 City Council and Public Meetings ........................................................................4-18 Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................5-1
5.1 Design Criteria.......................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Local Alternatives ..................................................................................................5-2
5.2.1 Alternative 1 – Core Demands...............................................................................5-3
5.2.2 Alternative 2 – All Demands ..................................................................................5-4
5.2.3 Alternative 3 – Core & North Demands..................................................................5-6
5.2.4 Alternative 4 – Core & North Demands..................................................................5-6
5.2.5 Alternative 5 – Core & South Demands .................................................................5-7
5.2.6 Local Alternative Summary....................................................................................5-9
5.3 Regional Alternatives...........................................................................................5-10
5.3.1 Alternative 6 – Partner with South San Joaquin Irrigation District ........................5-10
5.3.2 Alternative 7 – Deliver Water to Agricultural Users to the Northeast of the City ...5-12
5.3.3 Alternative 8 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Indirect Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal .......................................................................................................5-14
5.3.4 Alternative 9 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Indirect Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal .......................................................................................................5-16
5.3.5 Alternative 10 – Transfer of Water Rights to Mountain House Irrigation District ...5-17
5.3.6 Summary of Regional Alternatives.......................................................................5-18
5.4 Alternative Evaluation..........................................................................................5-19
5.4.1 Estimated Cost ....................................................................................................5-19
5.4.2 Non-Monetary Criteria .........................................................................................5-22
5.4.3 Alternative Evaluation..........................................................................................5-23 Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities Project Plan ...............................................................6-1
6.1 Recommended Project (Alternative 2 with Additional Use at Treatment Plant) ......6-1
6.1.1 Target Users..........................................................................................................6-1
6.1.2 Primary Facilities ...................................................................................................6-3
6.1.3 Cost Estimate........................................................................................................6-4
6.1.4 Implementation Considerations .............................................................................6-5
6.2 Implementation Plan..............................................................................................6-6
6.2.1 Phasing Schedule and Cost Breakdown................................................................6-8
6.3 Regional Expansion.............................................................................................6-12 Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program........................................7-1
7.1 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Schedule ......................................................7-1
7.2 Financial Planning .................................................................................................7-1
7.3 Revenue Program .................................................................................................7-2
7.3.1 Offset City Costs....................................................................................................7-2
7.3.2 Recycled Water Rates...........................................................................................7-4
7.4 Potential Funding Opportunities.............................................................................7-5
7.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................7-5
7.4.2 DAC Benefits.........................................................................................................7-5
7.4.3 Funding Opportunities ...........................................................................................7-5 List of Tables
Table ES-1: Comparison of Project Alternatives...................................................................ES-5 Table ES-2: Recommended Capital Improvement Plant ......................................................ES-7 Table 2-1: Treated Water Demands in City of Manteca.......................................................... 2-1 ATTACHMENT 2
January 2023 iii
Table 2-2: Summary of GSP groundwater offset projects........................................................ 2-2 Table 2-3: Nonpotable Water Demands in Manteca............................................................... 2-4 Table 3-1: Current Disposal and Reuse ................................................................................. 3-2 Table 3-2: Availability of Tertiary-Treated Recycled Water..................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3: Water Quality Comparison .................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-4: Suitability of Recycled Water for Irrigation Use...................................................... 3-7 Table 4-1: Urban Irrigation Demand Summary........................................................................ 4-3 Table 4-2: Evapotranspiration Data and Demand Factors....................................................... 4-6 Table 4-3: Application of Demand Estimate Methods.............................................................. 4-6 Table 4-4: Peaking Factors ..................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-5: Summary of Potential Recycled Water Demands................................................... 4-7 Table 4-6: Top 25 Potential Landscape Irrigation Customers .................................................. 4-9 Table 4-7: WQCF Demand for Recycled Water.................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-8: Estimated and Projected Water Demands in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin............................................................................................................................. 4-11 Table 4-9: Summary of City Council and Public Meetings ..................................................... 4-18 Table 5-1: Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Alternative 1 Demands Served............................................................................... 5-4 Table 5-3: Alternative 2 Demands Served............................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-4: Alternative 3 Demands Served............................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-5: Alternative 4 Demands Served............................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-6: Alternative 5 Demands Served............................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-7: Summary of Local Alternatives............................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-8: Estimated Percolation Area Required for Recycled Water Recharge ................... 5-13 Table 5-9: Summary of Regional Alternatives ....................................................................... 5-18 Table 5-10: Summary of Local Alternatives Infrastructure ..................................................... 5-19 Table 5-11: Summary of Regional Alternatives Infrastructure................................................ 5-19 Table 5-12: Local Project Alternative Cost Estimates............................................................ 5-20 Table 5-13: Regional Project Alternative Cost Estimates ...................................................... 5-21 Table 5-14: Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................. 5-22 Table 5-15: Alternative Evaluation – Criteria Grading, Weighting and Scoringa..................... 5-23 Table 6-1: Recommended Project Target Users ..................................................................... 6-1 Table 6-2: Recommended Project Facilities ............................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-3: Recommended Project Estimated Costs ........................................................... 6-4 Table 6-4: Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Agencies for Permitting or Review for Recycled Water Use ................................................................................................................................. 6-6 Table 6-5: Major Facilities within each Phase of Recommended Project................................. 6-7 Table 6-6: Recommended Project Estimated Costs by Phase........................................... 6-9 Table 7-1: Capital Improvement Program................................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-2: Annual City Costs Offset by Recycled Water Use .................................................. 7-2 Table 7-3: Recycled Water Rate Estimate............................................................................... 7-4 Table 7-4: Potential Funding Opportunities for Recycled Water Projects................................. 7-9 List of Figures
Figure ES-1: Comparison of Salt Content to Water Quality Requirements ...........................ES-3 Figure ES-2: Recommended Project (Alternative 2) Facilities ..............................................ES-6 Figure 1-1: Study Area Boundaries ........................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 3-1: Existing Wastewater Treatment Flow Schematic................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Monthly Average Flow Rates at WQCF................................................................ 3-3 ATTACHMENT 2
January 2023 iv
Figure 3-3: Salt Content of WQCF Tertiary-Treated Wastewater............................................ 3-6 Figure 3-4: Comparison of Salt Content to Water Quality Requirements................................ 3-7 Figure 3-5: Water Quality Comparison with Other Recycled Water Projects .......................... 3-9 Figure 4-1: Urban Irrigation Demands ..................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-2: All Potential Local Demands ................................................................................. 4-8 Figure 4-3: Groundwater Elevations in San Joaquin County ................................................ 4-13 Figure 4-4: Groundwater Elevation in the Shallow Aquifer underlying Manteca.................... 4-15 Figure 4-5: Groundwater Recharge Mounding ...................................................................... 4-16 Figure 5-1: Representative Storage Calculation...................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2: Alternative 1 - Core Demands............................................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3: Alternative 2 - All Demands................................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-4: Alternative 4 – North and Core Demands.............................................................. 5-7 Figure 5-5: Alternative 5 – North and Core Demands.............................................................. 5-8 Figure 5-6: Alternative 6 – Transfer to South San Joaquin Irrigation District.......................... 5-11 Figure 5-7: Alternative 7 – Transfer to Agriculture to the Northeast of Manteca..................... 5-12 Figure 5-8: Alternative 7 – Transfer to Northeast of Manteca for Groundwater Recharge ..... 5-14 Figure 5-9: Alternative 8 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Indirect Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal............................................................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-10: Alternative 9 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Direct Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal............................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-11: Alternative 10 – Transfer of Water Rights to Mountain House Irrigation District. 5-17 Figure 5-12: Alternative Scores versus Costs ...................................................................... 5-24 Figure 6-1: Recommended Project.......................................................................................... 6-1 Figure 6-2: Implementation Schedule.................................................................................... 6-11 Appendices
Appendix A - Allowable Uses of Recycled Water in California Appendix B - Estimated Local Recycled Water Demands
Appendix C - Demand and Peaking Factor Methodology
Appendix D - Not Used
Appendix E - Unit Costs and Detailed Cost Estimates
ATTACHMENT 2
January 2023 v
List of Abbreviations
AF Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet
AFY Acre-feet per year
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
City City of Manteca
CVP Central Valley Project
DMC Delta-Mendota Canal
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
HP Horsepower
kWh Kilowatt-hours
LF Linear Feet
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level (for drinking water)
MG Million Gallons
mgd Million Gallons Per Day
MUSD Manteca Unified School District
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operations & Maintenance
psi Pounds Per Square Inch
RWFMP Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
SAR Sodium adsorption ratio
SOI Sphere of Influence
SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
Title 22 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
WQCF Water Quality Control Facility
ATTACHMENT 2
January 2023 vi
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Executive Summary
January 2023 ES-1
Executive Summary
ES-1 Purpose and Objectives
This 2023 report provides updated information for the City of Manteca’s preferred alternative, Alternative 2, which includes proposed infrastructure and cost estimates for improvements intended to serve the North, Core, and South recycled water demands. Since 2017, Manteca has installed a portion of recycled water proposed by Alternative 2, and as such, the proposed infrastructure quantities, and cost estimates for Alternative 2 have been updated, which are reflected in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. Additionally, this 2023 report provides updated demand information from the addition of 2 future parks in the Villa Ticino west development (Chapter 4), information on potential funding sources for the proposed improvements (Chapter 7), as well as new information about the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority’s (GWA) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) which was adopted in 2019 (Chapter 2). Information provided for all other alternatives remains unchanged from the 2017 Draft Report.
The purpose of this Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan (RWFMP), prepared for the City of Manteca (City), is to evaluate the role that recycled water can play in creating a drought-proof water supply for the City and the surrounding region. The City’s Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF) is already capable of producing disinfected, tertiary-treated water, meeting the highest standard for recycled water recognized by Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. A portion of the treated wastewater is currently used for agricultural irrigation, and a very small amount is used to fill water trucks for construction and dust control, but most of the treated wastewater is discharged directly into the San Joaquin River where it provides no water supply benefit to the City. The City has been growing rapidly, and increased recycled water use offers several potential direct benefits:
• Recycled water could reduce groundwater pumping from the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, a basin listed by DWR as being in critical overdraft conditions. The GSP for the Eastern San Joaquin subbasin requires member agencies to move towards sustainable groundwater use, and using recycled water in lieu of groundwater would reduce overdraft conditions and assist in achieving and maintaining long-term groundwater basin sustainability. • Recycled water could improve supply reliability because, unlike surface water, it is not subject to variability during wet and dry years. This reliability could directly benefit the City, or the City could enter into an agreement to sell the water to another end user seeking greater supply reliability.
• Recycled water use would reduce wastewater discharges to the San Joaquin River, providing the City greater flexibility in meeting the requirements of its NPDES permit.
To explore expanded recycled water use further, this RWFMP was prepared to meet the following objectives:
• Evaluate existing and projected future water demands in the City that could be met using recycled water (Chapter 4);
• Identify infrastructure that would be needed to expand recycled water usage throughout the City to meet those demands, including distribution system pipelines and storage needed to accommodate peak recycled water demands (Chapter 5);
• Identify infrastructure that would be needed to implement a regional recycled water project serving customers outside of the City (Chapter 5);
• Provide recommendations to the City to plan for expansion of the existing recycled water system (Chapter 6); and
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Executive Summary
January 2023 ES-2
• Develop a capital improvement program for the recommended project (Chapter 7).
ES-2 Water Supply Considerations
Preparation of this RWFMP was motivated primarily by the water resources needs and growing water demands of the City and the wider region, not wastewater disposal. Recent data from 2020 indicates that the City has used about 15,280 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water for the potable water system, about half from groundwater and half from surface water. The surface water is provided by South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID), and is generally higher in quality than the City’s groundwater. Nonpotable wells located in the City are also used for irrigation of City parks, schools, and agricultural irrigation, with combined extraction of about 6,000 AFY. This RWFMP was undertaken with the idea that many of the water demands currently using groundwater for irrigation such as parks, schools, commercial and residential landscaping, and construction water, could switch to recycled water served by new recycled water infrastructure thereby reducing groundwater pumping and promoting basin sustainability. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority recently adopted three groundwater offset projects that are consistent with the GWA’s GSP, and that will benefit from new recycled water infrastructure.
The City’s treated wastewater is currently discharged into the San Joaquin River, where it eventually reaches other downstream users, including the large water exporters that draw from the Bay-Delta. Under state law (California Water Code §1211), the City has to consider whether implementing a recycled water project would adversely impact these downstream users as less water would be flowing in the river if the City stops discharging. The process that allows for this change in discharge is called a Wastewater Change Petition, and preparing this documentation would be one of the first steps in implementing a recycled water project.
As an alternative to using recycled water to offset groundwater pumping, the City could transfer or sell the recycled water to a downstream water user that currently has insufficient or junior water rights, like the community of Mountain House. These transfers are allowable under California Water Code §1485, which applies specifically to the San Joaquin River.
ES-3 Wastewater Quality and Quantity
Since 2007, the City has been providing tertiary treatment to all wastewater destined to be discharged to the San Joaquin River or recycled for nonpotable reuse. This means that the wastewater is filtered and UVdisinfected after passing through the biological treatment system. Based on current flows at the WQCF, approximately 5.7 million gallons per day (mgd) or 6,400 AFY of disinfected tertiary-treated water is available for immediate re-use. The amount of recycled water available will continue to grow as the City grows. The largest amount considered available in this RWFMP was 9.87 mgd (11,000 AFY), the average dry weather flow capacity of the WQCF as presently permitted.
The City already meets stringent water quality requirements for discharges to the San Joaquin River, as contained in its wastewater discharge permit, and has a proven track record of meeting applicable water quality objectives for constituents like metals (e.g., copper, lead, nickel) and organic chemicals. For the recycled water, the primary constituent of concern is salt, which can accumulate both in the root zone of plants and, more regionally, within the groundwater basin.
The City’s tertiary-treated wastewater is approximately 40-60% higher in salt than typical groundwater supplies in the City. Importantly, though, salt concentrations in the recycled water are low enough to be used on almost any kind of landscape or agricultural crop as long as proper irrigation techniques are used.
For example, the most commonly cited threshold conductance value for irrigating almonds is 1,000 S/cm, slightly higher than the drinking water criteria of 900 S/cm. By comparison, the average value of the ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Executive Summary
January 2023 ES-3
City’s tertiary-treated water over the past several years is 768 S/cm, while the average value for local groundwater is about 500 S/cm. This comparison is shown below in Figure ES-1.
Figure ES-1: Comparison of Salt Content to Water Quality Requirements ES-4 Market Assessment for Recycled Water
A recycled water market assessment was conducted in 2017 to identify potential customers for the disinfected tertiary-treated wastewater currently produced by the City. The market assessment focused on three broad categories:
• Local demands. Within the City’s General Plan area, there are about 660 acres of existing parks, school playing fields, golf courses, and other irrigated green space that could use recycled water for irrigation instead of groundwater or potable water. Planned development is expected to create an addition 254 acres of irrigated green space. The total demand of these sites is over 3,700 AFY.
In addition, the WQCF itself uses about 300 AFY of groundwater or potable water as process water, and this could be switched to recycled water.
• Regional partners. The City could distribute recycled water to regional partners located within the groundwater basin or within the larger area of San Joaquin County. Several diverse options were considered for regional partners; in all cases, the City would act as the recycled water wholesaler.
The following regional projects were explored:
o South San Joaquin Irrigation District. SSJID is the geographically the closest potential regional partner for a recycled water project, and pumps a significant amount of water from wells located in the City. SSJID’s agricultural customers could be served a blend of recycled water and surface water.
o Central Valley Project contractors. Recycled water could be conveyed by pipeline directly to the Delta-Mendota Canal or indirectly by an existing canal, where it could be conveyed to a federal water contractor through a Warren Act transfer. Del Puerto Water District is currently participating in a similar project with the cities of Modesto and Turlock.
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Surface Water Groundwater Recycled Water
Specific Conductance,
S/cm
Drinking Water Standard = 900 uS/cm
Threshold for very sensitive crops = 700 uS/cm
Threshold for sensitive crops (almonds) = 1,000 uS/cm
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Executive Summary
January 2023 ES-4
o Transfer to downstream user. Manteca could transfer water rights for the recycled water currently discharged into the San Joaquin River to another downstream water user, such as community of Mountain House.
• Groundwater recharge. Recycled water could be used to intentionally recharge the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. However, because of the relatively shallow depth to groundwater in the Manteca area, this use is not considered feasible in the central Manteca area. A pipeline would have to be constructed to an area of the basin with a greater groundwater deficit, likely at significant expense. This water use was not carried forward to the level of project alternative development, but could be studied further in the context of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, which will require implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan in the region.
ES-5 Comparison of Project Alternatives
Based on the results of the market assessment conducted in 2017, four local alternatives and four regional alternatives were developed and compared with one another. For each alternative, a conceptual set of facilities – primarily pipelines, pump stations, and storage tanks – was developed as appropriate. These facilities were used as the basis for estimating the capital cost of each alternative. As previously stated, this 2023 update focuses on Alternative 2 and associated updates to Chapters 5, 6 and 7. Operating costs were also estimated based on routine maintenance, electricity use at pumps, and chemical use for booster chlorination. Costs associated with end-user retrofits for local customers (but not wholesale customers) were also included in the estimates. Combining the total capital and operational cost with the volume of recycled water delivered under each alternative provides a unit cost ($/acre-foot of recycled water) that can be used to compare the alternatives. The alternatives were also compared to one another based on the following five non-monetary criteria:
• Ease of implementation with respect to planning, permitting, and working with partners. • Ease of construction
• Benefits to the City’s water supply
• Benefits to regional groundwater sustainability
• Environmental impacts
Project performance for all five qualitative criteria was combined into a single score on a scale of 0 – 100% using a weighted scoring process. The project alternatives are compared to one another in Table ES-1, below.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Executive Summary
January 2023 ES-5
Table ES-1: Comparison of Project Alternatives
Alternativea
Qualitative
Score
Water
Served
(AF)
Peak
Month
Demand
(mgd)
Capital
Costb
($M)
O&M
Costc
($M/Yr)
Unit Cost of
Recycled
Water d
($/AF)
1. Local – Core Demands 95% 95% 910 $7.8 $0.2 $650
2. Local – All Demandsg 88% 88% 2,686 $44.8
f $0.6 $1,063f
4. Local – North and Core
Demands 90% 90% 1,889 $16.4 $0.3 $790
5. Local – South and Core
Demands 90% 90% 2,062 $26.3 $0.5 $860
6. SSJID 67%
Up to
5,190 9.4 $45.3 $0.4 $540
8. Indirect Delivery to DeltaMendota Canal 38%Up to
10,530 9.4 $27.7 $0.4 $440e
9. Direct Delivery to DeltaMendota Canal 40%Up to
10,530 9.4 $55.8 $1.2 $420
10. Transfer to Mountain
House 95%
Up to
10,530 9.4 $0 $0 $0
Notes:
a. Details were not prepared for Alternatives 3 and 7, per City direction. b. Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for January 2015 at 9,972. Includes 25% contingency for implementation and 30% construction contingency in 2015 dollars.
c. Assumes no escalation of O&M costs.
d. Assumes project lifespan of 30 years, 3% interest rate. e. Includes estimated wheeling charge of $200/AF.
f. Costs for Alternative 2 are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for November 2022 at 13,175 which represents a 32% increase from the January 2015 CCI at 9,972. Includes 25% contingency for implementation and 30% construction contingency in 2022 dollars.
g. Villa Ticino West development parks (Park 1 and Park 2) were added in 2023.
All of the projects listed above are sized to accommodate use of recycled water as process water at the WQCF at a rate equivalent to 5% of WQCF flows.
ES-6 Recommended Project Plan and Implementation
Based on unit cost as compared to the qualitative benefits of each alternative, the recommended project is to move forward with Alternative 2, which maximizes local reuse by serving the following demands:
• Process water at the WQCF (300 AFY)
• Existing landscape irrigation demands located primarily along the Airport Way and Woodward Avenue corridors (1,990 AFY).
• Future landscape irrigation demands associated with planned development located in the northwestern and southern parts of the City (640 AFY).
Total recycled water deliveries under the recommended alternative are approximately 2,900 AFY, which is equivalent to approximately 40% of current flows at the WQCF.
The recommended facilities are shown below in Figure ES-2.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Executive Summary
January 2023 ES-6
Figure ES-2: Recommended Project (Alternative 2) Facilities ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Executive Summary
January 2023 ES-7
The peak month demand served by this recommended project is approximately 4.8 mgd (or 6,100 AFY), which means that only a small amount of treated water would remain for other uses or discharged to the San Joaquin River under summer, dry weather conditions. Nonetheless, the City should continue to explore opportunities with regional partners, such as irrigation districts or the community of Mountain House, recognizing that a single, regional project could be more cost-effective than constructing distribution pipelines throughout the city.
The total cost of facilities to serve the customers shown in Figure ES-2 is approximately $44.8 million (in 2022 dollars). A recommended capital improvement plan and total cost is presented in Table ES-2 which includes a 3% annual cost increases resulting in an estimated capital cost of $50.8 million. The City could apply for grant funding and/or low-interest loans to offset costs to the City and ratepayers.
Table ES-2: Recommended Capital Improvement Plan
Project
Component
Proposed
FY 22/23
Proposed
FY 23/24
Proposed
FY 24/25
Proposed
FY 25 - 30
Phased with
Development Total
Planning (Title 22
Eng. Report, EIR,
Water Rights
Filing)
$200,000 $200,000 $400,000
Treatment
(Sodium
Hypochlorite)
$535,920 $535,920
Pump Station $1,083,000 $2,006,000 $1,419,000 $4,508,000 Pipelines $1,500,000 $1,545,000 $4,555,000 $15,811,000 $9,271,000 $33,132,000 Onsite Customer
Retrofits $114,000 $1,447,000 $1,561,000
WQCF Retrofits $644,160 $644,160
Storage $2,905,000 $3,990,000 $3,082,000 $9,977,000
Total $2,880,080 $2,828,000 $9,580,000 $21,248,000 $13,772,000 $50,758,080 Note: 1. Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for November 2022 at 13,175. which represents an approximate 32% increase from the January 2015 CCI at 9,972.
2. Villa Ticino West Parks 1 and 2 added in 2023.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 1 Introduction January 2023 1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
The City of Manteca (City) is currently producing disinfected, tertiary-treated wastewater at its Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF), located on the western edge of the city, and using this treated wastewater to irrigate fodder crops and/or dispose of it to the San Joaquin River. Only a small portion of the tertiarytreated wastewater – less than 1% -- is recycled through the City’s truck fill program, where it is used for construction and dust control. The City is interested in putting this resource to a higher and better use to offset potable demands and to help expand the City’s supply portfolio to meet growing demands. This Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan (RWFMP), originally prepared in 2017 and updated in 2023 as noted below, has been prepared to evaluate the role that recycled water can play in creating a drought-proof water supply for the City and the wider region.
This RWFP includes the sections listed below.
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities (revised in 2023) • Chapter 3: Wastewater Supply Characteristics and Facilities • Chapter 4: Recycled Water Market Assessment (revised in 2023) • Chapter 5: Project Alternatives Analysis (revised in 2023) • Chapter 6: Recommended Facilities Plan (revised in 2023) • Chapter 7: Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program (revised in 2023) Specific sections of the report are included in order to comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix B of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Recycling Funding Program Guidelines1. This introductory chapter provides background on the RWFMP, and presents the RWFMP objectives, approach, and organization.
1.1 Need for Recycled Water in Manteca
The City of Manteca (City) has been growing rapidly over the past few decades. Between 2001 and 2015, the City’s population grew by approximately 42 percent2, and the City anticipates another boom in both commercial and residential development in the coming years. Recycled water can play an important role in creating a drought-proof water supply to diversify the City’s water supply portfolio and help meet future demands.
The City of Manteca currently reclaims about a quarter of its treated municipal wastewater for summertime irrigation of agricultural fields. Implementation of a tertiary-treated recycled water project could benefit the City by offsetting the use of potable surface water and groundwater, improving the reliability of its supply, increasing the use of a sustainable water resource, and diversifying the City’s options for wastewater disposal. These benefits are described further below:
Offset Groundwater Pumping
The City currently uses a mixture of surface water from South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s South County Water Supply Project and groundwater from City-owned and operated wells within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has declared the Eastern San 1 Water Recycling Funding Program Guidelines. State Water Resources Control Board, June 2015. Available online at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/docs/wrfp_guidelines.pdf 2 City of Manteca, CA, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, and for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015. Available online at http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Finance/Documents.aspx?b=cafr ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 1 Introduction January 2023 1-2
Joaquin Groundwater Basin to be in critical overdraft condition, both in the past3and more recently4.
Although there has been some gradual stabilization and recovery of groundwater levels in portions of the groundwater basin, the basin remains threatened by over drafting and saline water intrusion5. Expanding the use of recycled water to serve non-potable demands and/or to recharge the groundwater basin would address some of the overdraft issues by reducing extractions and/or increase recharge. The regional Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) adopted in 2019, and discussed in Chapter 2, provides guidance to member agencies on developing projects to offset groundwater pumping.
Improve Supply Reliability
The City’s population is projected to approximately double by 2040, and the City requires a reliable water supply. Recycled water supply serving non-potable demands is considered to be very consistent, even in dry years, and resistant to supply fluctuations in comparison to groundwater or surface water. The use of recycled water will reduce dependency on potable water supplies for non-potable uses and, in turn, preserve potable supplies for its highest beneficial uses (e.g., drinking water). During the current drought, City water customers have been successful at reducing demands by more than ten percent; a recycled water project could reduce these demands even further.
Utilize Tertiary-Treated Wastewater
All treated wastewater (except the amount of secondary-treated wastewater that is currently applied to agricultural fields) is treated at the Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF) to meet standards for disinfected tertiary recycled water, as described in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 (hereafter referred to as Title 22). However, only a small amount of recycled water is currently distributed to recycled water users through the City’s truck fill program. The 9.87-mgd wastewater treatment plant has the capacity to meet additional recycled water demands, and the City could benefit by finding a market for the surplus tertiary-treated water.
Diversify Wastewater Disposal Options
Increased water recycling would reduce the amount of tertiary-treated wastewater discharged into the San Joaquin River, particularly during the dry season when irrigation demands are highest and the river contains the highest levels of electrical conductivity. This would allow the City some flexibility in meeting the conditions of its wastewater discharge permit by increasing the amount of available dilution in the San Joaquin River. A very large recycled water project could even eliminate the need for summer discharge altogether.
1.2 Purpose of Master Plan
The objectives of this Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan are to:
• Evaluate existing and projected future water demands in the City that could be met using recycled water;
• Identify infrastructure that would be needed to expand recycled water usage throughout the City to meet these demands, including distribution system pipelines and storage needed to accommodate peak recycled water demands;
3 California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118, Update 2003. California Department of Water Resources, October 2003. 4 Final List of Critically Overdrafted Basins. California Department of Water Resources, August 6, 2015. Available online at http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/cod.cfm
5 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update. June 2014. Prepared by GEI Consultants for the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 1 Introduction January 2023 1-3
• Identify infrastructure and partners that would be needed to implement a potential regional recycled water project serving customers outside of the City; • Provide recommendations to the City to plan for expansion of the existing recycled water system; and
• Develop a capital improvement program for the recommended improvements.
1.3 Study Area Characteristics
1.3.1 Location and Study Area
The City is situated within the northern San Joaquin Valley in San Joaquin County, just east of the San Joaquin River and north of the Stanislaus River. The majority of the City’s geographical area is bounded by Interstate 5 to the west, Highway 99 to the east and Highway 120 to the south. Presently, the City limits encompass an area of about 17 square miles (10,905 acres). The City is expected to continue growing, and the 10-year planning horizon includes additional 5 square miles (2,951 acres)6.
Incorporated in 1918, the City has an estimated 2015 population of approximately 74,0007. The population is expected to grow to 97,400 within the ten-year planning horizon (2025) and to 117,000 within the twentyyear planning horizon (2035)8 .
The climate in Manteca (and in San Joaquin County, in general) is characterized by long, dry summers with an average growing season of 292 days. Cold and rainy conditions occur in November and last through April with almost 90 percent of the annual precipitation falling in these months. The average annual rainfall is about sixteen inches per year. Temperatures can exceed 110 degrees in the summer and may also fall to the low 20’s in extreme cold weather events.
The long, dry summers create a demand for supplemental irrigation water during the growing season, and this demand far exceeds the amount provided by rainfall. Water is in high demand for landscape irrigation within the city, and for agricultural irrigation in the surrounding areas.
The study area, shown below in Figure 1-1, includes the entire City of Manteca, and extends beyond the City boundaries to include unincorporated portions of San Joaquin County. The study area includes all of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, which underlies the City and provides a significant portion of the City’s water supply. Reclaimed water from the City’s WQCF could be used to offset groundwater pumping in this basin, extending the City’s water supply and protecting the basin’s sustainability. The area where use of the City’s potable water supply would be offset is more limited, extending only to the City’s water service area (i.e., within current or future City limits, estimated using the City’s General Plan Boundary shown in Figure 1-1).
The study area also extends past the boundaries of the East San Joaquin Groundwater Basin to include other unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County on the western side of the San Joaquin River (overlying the Tracy Groundwater Basin), where there may be a potential demand for recycled water. Because the East San Joaquin Groundwater Basin is listed as being in critical overdraft and as groundwater exports are generally prohibited by a San Joaquin County groundwater export ordinance, only projects located inside San Joaquin County were considered.
6 Manteca Municipal Services Review. July 16, 2015. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group for City of Manteca Community Development Department. Available online at http://www.co.sanjoaquin.ca.us/lafco/Manteca%20MSR/2015%20Manteca%20MSR.pdf 7 City of Manteca, CA, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015. Available online at http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Finance/Documents.aspx?b=cafr 8 Manteca Municipal Services Review. July 16, 2015. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group for City of Manteca Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 1 Introduction January 2023 1-4
Figure 1-1: Study Area Boundaries
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 1 Introduction January 2023 1-5
1.4 Authorization
Woodard & Curran (formerly RMC Water and Environment) was authorized to prepare this Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan by the Manteca City Council on October 7, 2014.
1.5 Acknowledgements
The development of the RWFMP would not have been possible without the involvement and assistance of City staff. In particular, the following current and former City staff members and departments provided significant input and important insights throughout the development of the RWFMP:
• Mark Houghton, Director of Public Works
• Elba Mijango, Assistant Engineer, Public Works
• Fernando Ulloa, Sr. Engineer, Public Works
• Bret Swain, Sr. Engineer, Public Works
• Water Quality Control Facility Division staff, Public Works Department • Operations and Maintenance staff, Parks and Recreation Department Development of the RWFMP also benefitted from input provided by staff members from Manteca Unified School District and Del Puerto Water District. Approximately fifty members of the general public also attended workshops in March, June, and September 2015 and provided valuable comments.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 2 Water Supply and
Water Rights
January 2023 2-1
Chapter 2 Water Supply and Water Rights
This chapter describes the City’s existing sources of potable and nonpotable water, and briefly describes the water rights considerations for implementing a recycled water project.
2.1 Treated Water Supply
The City provides treated water service to approximately 22,000 service connections located within City limits. The treated water comes from a blend of two water sources: groundwater and surface water. Total treated water demand in 2015 was approximately 11,000 AFY, primarily serving residential customers, as indicated below in Table 2-1. In 2014 and 2015, in response to drought and mandatory conservation measures, treated water demands fell significantly -- approximately 20% compared to previous years.
Table 2-1: Treated Water Demands in City of Manteca
Category Estimated 2015 Demand(1), AFY
Residential (Single-Family and Multi-Family) 8,432
Industrial 235
Commercial 1,043
Landscape 603
Institutional/Governmental 66
Other, including Losses 855
Total 11,230
Notes: (1) Source: Table 4-1, Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Manteca, September 2016, prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants.
Treated water deliveries are the source of flows to the wastewater treatment plant, as described in Chapter 3.
Each of the supply sources – groundwater and surface water – is described below in greater detail.
2.1.1 Groundwater Supply
The City currently operates 15 potable groundwater wells within the city limits, with well depths ranging from 155 to 400 feet9. The system has a peak pumping capacity of 20,010 gallons per minute (36 mgd) 9 .
Until 2004, groundwater was the sole source of the City’s treated water supply. However, it now makes up approximately half of the City’s supply due to the addition of surface water to the supply portfolio (see Section 2.1.2, below).
Groundwater Management Measures
As previously discussed, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin has been listed by DWR as being in critical overdraft. Even before the current drought, the annual overdraft was estimated at 70,000 to 80,000 AFY10. The safe yield for the groundwater basin is estimated to be about 72,000 AFY10.
The City has set its own standard for groundwater sustainable yield as one acre-foot per acre (13,900 AFY for the 10-year planning horizon)9and has sought to meet that goal by increasing surface water deliveries 9 Manteca Municipal Services Review. July 16, 2015. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group for City of Manteca Community Development Department. Available online at http://www.co.sanjoaquin.ca.us/lafco/Manteca%20MSR/2015%20Manteca%20MSR.pdf 10 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Water Management Plan Update, June 2014. Prepared by GEI for Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority. See Section 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 2 Water Supply and
Water Rights
January 2023 2-2
and recycled water use. The City’s sustainable yield can be expected to gradually increase as the City expands in acreage. Aside from increasing extractions from the underlying basin, the City does not have access to any other groundwater sources. With use of about 7,000 AFY, the City is one of the largest users of the groundwater basin.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted by the California legislature in 2014 in response to the continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources. In response to the enactment of the SGMA, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (GWA) was formed via a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between 16 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, including the City of Manteca. In 2019, the Authority finalized a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) which outlines a path to groundwater sustainability by 2040, as mandated by the SGMA.
The GSP includes an evaluation of historical estimates and projected groundwater pumping conditions that establish a projected groundwater extraction rate of 800,000 AFY which, if continued, will result in the continued decline of groundwater levels within the Subbasin. In order achieve sustainability, the GSP concludes that groundwater extraction in the subbasin will need to be reduced by approximately 78,000 AFY. To achieve this reduction, the GSP identifies three categories of projects and management actions for implementation: (1) groundwater replacement/recharge, (2) supplemental groundwater supplies, and (3) water conservation. In October 2022, the GWA adopted a Resolution finding that three projects submitted by the City of Manteca are consistent with the GSP. The approved projects from Exhibit A of the adopted Resolution are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Summary of GSP groundwater offset projects.
Project Project Type Consistency with GSP Quantifiable Benefits Metering
Infrastructure
Conservation,
Other
Would provide for additional water
savings, and potentially savings in
resident water bills
The City of Manteca has
over 23,000 existing
residential and commercial
customers.
Recycled Water
Transfer to
Manteca Golf
Course
In-lieu
recharge,
Recycling,
Other
This project would make use of
recycled water up to 1023 AF instead
of groundwater, which is currently
being utilized for irrigation
The project would offset
groundwater pumping use
by up to 1023 AF by
utilizing recycled water as a
water source for irrigation.
Stormwater
Collection,
Treatment, and
Infiltration
Direct
recharge,
Stormwater
The project will study the feasibility of
capturing, treating, and storing storm
water for use to replenish the
underlying basin. Water can then be
extracted during dry months for use.
Quantification will be done
as part of the study after
identification of suitable
sites.
Groundwater Quality
The quality of the groundwater delivered to customers meets or exceeds all State and Federal standards.
However, there have been instances were arsenic concentrations have exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and nitrate concentrations have approached the MCL. While concentrations of those constituents present in the groundwater may approach the MCL, the water delivered to the customer meets ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 2 Water Supply and
Water Rights
January 2023 2-3
all drinking water standards due to blending with the treated surface water, which also meets all drinking water standards. Groundwater quality is summarized in the next chapter, in Table 3-3.
Plans for New Facilities
The City has traditionally destroyed old wells when they show signs of age and water quality problems, and replaced those with new wells to maintain the supply. The City’s current five-year Capital Improvement Program11 calls for two wells to be replaced in this manner: new wells will be drilled, and the old ones will be properly decommissioned according to the San Joaquin County Well Standards (San Joaquin County Ordinance Code Section 9-1115.6). It also includes planning for test wells in areas where new development is occurring in the City.
2.1.2 Surface Water Supply
The City augments its groundwater water supply with surface water purchased from the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s (SSJID’s) South County Water Supply Project (from Woodward Reservoir). The surface water is treated by SSJID at the Nick C. DeGroot Water Treatment Plant in Oakdale, then conveyed to four turnouts located in the City for blending with groundwater and distribution to customers. The City has a long-term contract with SSJID, with an existing allotment of 11,500 AFY. Actual deliveries in 2015 were 5,600 AFY.
Surface Water Quality
The quality of the surface water delivered to customers meets or exceeds all State and Federal drinking water standards. Surface water quality is summarized in the next chapter, in Table 3-3.
Plans for New Facilities
The City’s contract with SSJID allows the allotment of surface water to increase from 11,500 AFY to 18,500 AFY in the future. Expansion of the water treatment plant would require funding and new agreements between SSJID and the cities served, which include Manteca, Escalon, Tracy, and Lathrop.
2.2 Nonpotable Water Supply
In addition to the treated water supplies described above, several sources of nonpotable water are used to serve landscape and agricultural irrigation demands in and around the City, including the following:
• The City maintains 31 shallow, nonpotable wells expressly for the purpose of irrigating parks.
The wells are metered, and total production from these wells in 2015 was about 1,610 AF. • Manteca Unified School District has installed irrigation wells at many of its facilities; the water is typically used to irrigate playfields located in the rear of each school, although some schools outside of City limits also use the water as a drinking water supply. Well production data were not available for the schools, so the estimated usage below in based on the irrigated area. • SSJID also operates a number of wells in the area, including twelve wells located in the current City limits and eight more wells located within the City’s General Plan area. Typically, most but not all of these wells are active within a given year.
Nonpotable demands are summarized below in Table 2-3. Numerous private wells for residential and agricultural also exist in the area, but production information is not available and therefore these uses are not included in the table below.
11 City of Manteca Capital Improvement Program, FY2016-2020.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 2 Water Supply and
Water Rights
January 2023 2-4
Table 2-3: Nonpotable Water Demands in Manteca
Category
Estimated Usage, Million
Gallons / Year
Estimated Usage,
AFY
City parks served by nonpotable wells(1) 300 920
Manteca Unified School District (2) 190 590
SSJID Wells (3) 1,390 4,270
Total Nonpotable Demand 1,880 5,780
Notes:
(1) Based on 2014 Well Metering, June – December, provided to Woodard & Curran by City staff. (2) Estimated based on irrigated area of 15 Manteca Unified School District schools that are located in the City of Manteca and served by wells. Assumes 4 acre-feet/acre of water applied. (3) Based on Yearly Pump Report for 2013 provided by SSJID to City staff. Sum of 11 active wells located inside the City’s General Plan area (Wells 12, 61, 70, 72, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 88, and 100).
In general, the water quality of the shallow aquifer is sufficient for irrigation purposes. However, during discussions with the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, City staff indicated that during the current drought, trees in some areas have developed more obvious signs of salt stress and leaf burn than trees in other areas, which may reflect variability in the water quality of the shallow aquifer across the City. Water quality monitoring data for the shallow wells is not available to confirm this.
2.3 Water Rights Considerations
State law (California Water Code §1210) confers rights to the treated wastewater to the City -- not SSJID, even though SSJID provides about half of the City’s potable water supply. If the City wishes to make use of the treated wastewater, under California Water Code §1211, the City must first obtain approval from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to making any change in the place or purpose of use of treated wastewater. This process is called a “Wastewater Change Petition,” and it is filed with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Water Rights. The Division considers whether the decreased discharge might adversely affect other downstream, legal users of water, or whether it might harm instream beneficial uses. Given the numerous state and federal water project exports that occur downstream of the City’s discharge, this may be a contentious process for some recycled water project alternatives. The Wastewater Change Petition is typically developed in tandem with environmental documentation, since many similar issues are involved.
A Wastewater Change Petition would be required for any recycled water alternative that involves reducing the City’s discharge to the San Joaquin River, regardless of whether the water is used within the City or conveyed outside City limits. A Wastewater Change Petition is not required for increases in flow that have never been discharged to the river (e.g., flows that are projected to occur under future growth scenarios) – only for past discharges.
12 The Wastewater Change Petition would cover the entire amount of water that is expected to be recycled, including both surface water and groundwater supplies. The law is sometimes interpreted as being applicable only to the portion of wastewater that is derived from surface water supplies – in this case, about half of the City’s current supply portfolio. However, to be conservative, the portion of the water supply provided by groundwater should also be included in the Wastewater Change Petition, particularly since the exact balance of surface water and ground water may change in any given month and year. 12 State Water Resources Control Board. Wastewater Change Petition. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/applications/wastewaterchange/index.shtml ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 2 Water Supply and
Water Rights
January 2023 2-5
In lieu of a Wastewater Change Petition, the City could leave the water in the San Joaquin River and transfer it to a downstream user. California Water Code §1485 may allow for a downstream diverter to make use of the City’s recycled water. The City would have to file an application to appropriate the water downstream, then transfer the water to the downstream user. California Water Code §1485 is specific to the San Joaquin River and provides:
Any municipality, governmental agency, or political subdivision operating waste disposal plants producing disposal water meeting the requirements of the appropriate regional board, and disposing of said water in the San Joaquin River may file an application for a permit to appropriate an equal amount of water, less diminution by seepage, evaporation, transpiration or other natural causes between the point of discharge and the point of recovery, downstream from said disposal plant and out of the San Joaquin River or the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. A permit to appropriate such amount of water may be granted by the board upon such terms and conditions as in the board's judgment are necessary for the protection of the rights of others. Water so appropriated may be sold or utilized for any beneficial purpose. The right to the use of water granted by this section shall not include water flowing in underground streams.
The Legislature finds and declares that the problems incident to the full utilization of the waters of the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta into which it flows, are unique and that a general law cannot be made applicable thereto.
This option would not involve a Wastewater Change Petition, since there would be no change in the place or purpose of use – the City’s wastewater would continue to be discharged to the San Joaquin River. However, a water rights filing would still be required, with a regulatory and public review process that is similar in scope and complexity to the Wastewater Change Petition.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-1
Chapter 3 Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
This chapter describes the quantity and quality of recycled water that can be produced by the City’s wastewater treatment plant.
3.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City of Manteca’s Wastewater Quality Control Facility is located on the western edge of the City, near the border with the City of Lathrop and just north of Highway 120. The location of the WQCF is shown in Figure 1-1. The WQCF has been providing wastewater service for the Manteca community since 195913, and has grown over time from a simple oxidation ditch into a facility that provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment complying with Title 22 requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water. The City has been providing tertiary treatment since 2007.
The WQCF currently serves the City of Manteca, as well as portion of the City of Lathrop, with a combined population of about 87,00014. By agreement with the City, Lathrop is entitled to 14.7% of the WQCF’s treatment capacity. The permitted average dry weather flow of the WQCF is 9.87 mgd. The City plans to expand the WQCF to 17.5 mgd of treatment capacity in the future, and this future expansion has already been approved by the Regional Water Board14. However, no timeline for the expansion has been set.
The City’s WQCF includes the following treatment processes (shown below in Figure 3-1):
Primary Treatment
• Influent screening;
• Aerated grit removal;
• Primary sedimentation;
Secondary Treatment
• Biological treatment in biotowers (for a portion of primary effluent only); • Ultra-fine bubble activated sludge process, including nitrification-denitrification; • Secondary sedimentation;
Tertiary Treatment
• Coagulation and flocculation;
• Cloth media filtration;
• UV disinfection;
• Effluent flow measurement and disposal.
13 Nolte Associates, 2006. City of Manteca – Wastewater Quality Control Facility Master Plan Update. December 2006.
Prepared by Nolte Associates, Inc., for the City of Manteca. 14 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Manteca and Dutra Farms, Inc., NPDES Permit No. CA0081558. Order No. R5-2015-0026.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-2
Figure 3-1: Existing Wastewater Treatment Flow Schematic Most influent wastewater goes through the treatment process shown above in Figure 3-1. The WQCF also provides separate treatment and disposal for food processing wastewater from one large industrial discharger, Eckert Cold Storage. However, this wastewater is segregated from the tertiary treatment process, and is not considered further as part of this study.
3.2 Wastewater Quantity
During the winter months, all WQCF flow is tertiary-treated and discharged to the San Joaquin River. In the summer, a portion of WQCF secondary-treated flows are diverted to agricultural uses in land application areas located adjacent to the WQCF. However, a significant portion of WQCF flows are sent to the San Joaquin River even during peak irrigation periods. Recent reclamation and disposal rates are summarized below in Table 3-1. Average monthly WQCF influent and tertiary-treated wastewater flows to the San Joaquin River are shown in Figure 3-2.
Table 3-1: Current Disposal and Reuse
Flow Stream Million Gallons
per Day
Acre-Feet
per Year
WQCF Inflow 6.2 7,000
Secondary-Treated Wastewater Reclaimed for
Agricultural Irrigation 1.8 2,000
Disinfected Tertiary-Treated Wastewater Discharged to
San Joaquin River 4.4 5,000
Source: NPDES Permit monitoring data reported to CIWQS for period October 2011 – September 2016.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-3
Figure 3-2: Monthly Average Flow Rates at WQCF
Source: NPDES Permit monitoring data reported to CIWQS for period October 2011 – September 2016.
For the purposes of this study, no diurnal variation was assumed in the availability of tertiary recycled water. This is because the WQCF has a 7-MG secondary effluent equalization pond that provides buffering of diurnal flow variations. The equalization pond is located downstream of secondary treatment and upstream of tertiary treatment, providing constant flows through the tertiary treatment system. The assumption of constant flows through the day was also verified by WQCF operations staff15.
As listed above in Table 3-1, the average annual influent rate to the WQCF over the last several years was
6.2 mgd. However, this master plan uses a more conservative (lower) estimate of the recycled water that can be reliably delivered. Over the period October 2011 – September 2016, the daily influent flow rate was greater than 5.8 mgd about 95% of the time, and greater than 5.7 mgd about 99% of the time. A firm delivery rate of 5.7 mgd was assumed for to be available to meet customer demands (i.e., estimates of deliveries and sizing for pump stations and pipelines). For sizing of storage, an additional safety factor of 20% was applied to this low-flow condition, resulting in an estimated total flow of 4.6 mgd available for reuse on a reliable (i.e., peak hour basis). The safety factor is to account for diurnal variability in actual WQCF operations.
In the future, as Manteca grows, wastewater flows will increase, as will the availability of recycled water.
As mentioned above, the City’s current wastewater discharge permit allows the City to discharge up to 17.5 mgd of tertiary-treated wastewater to the San Joaquin River following a significant expansion of the WQCF
16. However, there is currently no timeline in place for making these improvements, and significant uncertainty exists about the exact timing of increased wastewater flows. The City’s wastewater collection system master plan calls for flows of 18.4 mgd within a ten-year planning horizon17. However, this timing appears to be unrealistic based on recent population projections. A population increase to 117,000, representing a 60% increase over the current population, could result in wastewater flows that increase by only 60%, which is within the existing 9.87-mgd capacity of the WQCF. In fact, the City’s Capital 15 Meeting with WQCF staff, July 22, 2015.
16 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Manteca and Dutra Farms, Inc., NPDES Permit No. CA0081558. Order No. R5-2015-0026 17 City of Manteca 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. January 2013. Prepared for City of Manteca by NV5. See Appendix B.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-4
Improvement Plan for FY 2016-2020 specifically defers an incremental 2.5-mgd expansion of the WQCF past 2020, since the need for additional capacity is not expected within the next 5 years.
Because of this uncertainty about the timing of future growth, the maximum amount of recycled water assumed to be available in the future was 9.87 mgd, the capacity of the treatment plant. Since this was intended to be an upper bound for planning purposes, and was only used for planning alternatives that do not include storage, no operational safety factor was applied to this flow rate. Assumptions related to recycled water availability are summarized below in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Availability of Tertiary-Treated Recycled Water Current
(2016)
Future
(10-20 year planning horizon)
Annual Average Influent Flow
Oct. 2011 – Sep. 2016 6.2 mgd -
Average Dry Weather Influent Flow
Lowest running 3-month average,
Oct. 2011 – Sep. 2016 5.9 mgd -
Minimum Dry Weather Influent Flow Rate
1st percentile, Oct. 2011 – Sep. 2016 5.7 mgd -
Recycled Water Available, mgd
Average dry weather conditions 5.7 mgd 9.87 mgd
Recycled Water Available, AFY 6,400 AFY 11,000 AFY
- 20% Safety Factor for WQCF Operations -1.2 mgd -
Minimum Recycled Water Available,
mgd 4.6 mgd 9.87 mgd
3.3 Wastewater Quality
Tertiary-treated water from the WQCF that is currently discharged to the San Joaquin River or used for construction or dust control purposes is already fully compliant with the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water found in §60301.230 of Title 22. These requirements focus primarily on pathogen inactivation.
The tertiary-treated water is also subject to state and federal requirements listed in the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit16, which means that it meets applicable water quality objectives for the San Joaquin River. These requirements focus primarily on conventional pollutants (biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended sediment, pH), non-conventional pollutants (ammonia, nitrate), and priority pollutants (metals and organic chemicals). The City must meet all water quality objectives at the point of discharge as no dilution credits were granted in the current NPDES permit.
Although these water quality limits are not legally applicable to the recycled water, they are indicative of the water quality requirements that the WQCF typically meets, and they provide a high level of certainty that the recycled water is safe for re-use in an irrigation setting.
3.3.1 Salts and Nutrients
Salts and nutrients are additional water quality constituents of concern for using recycled water for landscape and agricultural irrigation. Salts contribute to water stress in plants, and some constituents, such as sodium, chloride, and boron, can accumulative in the leaves and stems. High sodium levels can also reduce the rate that water infiltrates into the soil. This section addresses salts and nutrients in recycled water, including the following:
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-5
• A comparison of water quality from WQCF tertiary recycled water to the surface water and groundwater currently used for irrigation;
• Information about the salt sensitivity of landscape plants and crops grown in City parks, and in agricultural areas in and around the City of Manteca;
• An assessment of whether the City’s recycled water meets the acceptability criteria for unrestricted use as irrigation water.
The salt and nutrient content of the recycled water is compared to the water quality of existing groundwater and surface water supplies in Table 3-3, below. Bulk salinity of irrigation water can be expressed using Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) or Specific Conductance (S/cm at 25°), while the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR), the ratio of sodium to the sum of calcium and magnesium, is used to assess the potential for sodium to build up in the soil. The dissolved salt content of the recycled water is approximately 40-60% higher than typical groundwater supplies in the City.
Table 3-3: Water Quality Comparison
Constituent
Manteca
Tertiary-Treated
Wastewater18
Manteca
Municipal Well
Water Supply19
Municipal Surface
Water Supply20
Specific Conductance, µS/cm 768 486 114
TDS, mg/L 450 331 71
Hardness, Total, mg/L as CaCO3 141 175 47
Bicarbonate Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3 159 213 52
Ammonia, Total as N, mg/L 0.5 Not Avail. Not Avail.
Nitrate, Total as N, mg/L 5.5 7.3 Not Avail.
Boron, µg/L 219 125 100
Chloride, mg/L 96 24 8
Sodium, mg/L 84 32 5
Calcium, Total, mg/L 34 47 15
Magnesium, Total, mg/L 9 15 2
SAR (Calculated) 2.5 0.8 0.2
The dissolved salt content of WQCF tertiary-treated wastewater, measured as TDS or specific conductance, is fairly stable over time, and rarely exceeds 550 mg/L or 850 µmhos/cm. The trend over the last several years is shown below in Figure 3-3.
18 NPDES Permit monitoring data from Manteca WQCF Monitoring Point EFF-001, July 2010-July 2015. Accessed through CIWQS electronic self-monitoring reports (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ciwqs/) 19 For most constituents except boron and hardness, groundwater quality data are from the SWRCB’s Geotracker database for City of Manteca water supply wells (Well ID 3910005), 2004 – 2014. Accessed through http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/. For boron and hardness, which were not available for City wells through Geotracker, data are from well monitoring results from 2010-2014 submitted to CIWQS by Manteca WQCF for compliance with Order No. R5-2009-0095. See link to CIWQS under Note 1, above. 20 Data from water supply monitoring results from 2010-2014, submitted to CIWQS by Manteca WQCF for compliance with Order No. R5-2009-0095. See link under Note 1, above.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-6
Figure 3-3: Salt Content of WQCF Tertiary-Treated Wastewater The suitability of recycled water for irrigation depends on the salt sensitivity of the plants being irrigated, which varies by species. The most sensitive agricultural crops that are widely planted in the area include almonds, apricots, walnuts, and dry beans21. Salt-sensitive landscape plantings identified by City Public Works staff include coast redwood, pin oak, other oaks and maples. The salt sensitivity of these landscape species is approximately the same as the sensitive agricultural crops; for example, redwood trees should not be irrigated with water exceeding a specific conductance of about 1,000 µS/cm22. Most turfgrass species are fairly salt tolerant, with the exception of annual bluegrass and Kentucky bluegrass23. Some of these turfgrass species are currently used in City parks for base turf and/or annual over-seeding.
Table 3-4 and Figure 3-4, below, compare the City’s tertiary-treated wastewater with guidelines for irrigating salt-sensitive crops. In addition, Table 3-4 show drinking water standards and water quality standards for the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) non-project surface water pump-in program, which allows the federal facilities to convey non-project water (e.g., groundwater or recycled water). The Delta-Mendota Canal, which is a possible destination for the City’s recycled water (see section 5.3), is used primarily for agricultural irrigation, so the guidelines were developed to be protective of salt-sensitive crops. The guidelines below are protective for both the roots (e.g., salt stress due to high salt content in the soil) as well as foliage (e.g., salt taken up directly by foliage). 21 Hoffman, G., 2010. Salt Tolerance of Crops in the Southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta - Final Report. Completed for State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, January 5, 2010. 22 Oster, J.D., 2009. Irrigation with recycled water in Santa Clara County: Limitations and potentials. In: Solutions Project Report, Santa Clara Valley Water District.
23 Wu and Dodge, 2005. Landscape Plant Salt Tolerance Selection Guide for Recycled Water Irrigation. Special report for the Elvenia J. Slosson Endowment Fund, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis. Available online at http://slosson.ucdavis.edu/Landscape_Plant_Selection_Guide_for_Recycled_Water_Irrigation/ 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15
Specific Conductance
mhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids Conductivity
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-7
Table 3-4: Suitability of Recycled Water for Irrigation Use Constituent
Manteca TertiaryTreated
Wastewater,
Average
Drinking
Water
Standard
DMC Water
Quality
Standards(a)
Acceptable
Level for
Irrigating
Sensitive Crops
Specific Conductance, µS/cm 768 900(b) 900 700 - 1,000(d)(e) TDS, mg/L 450 500(b) 500 450 – 650(f)
Bicarbonate Alkalinity, mg/L
as CaCO3 159 - - 75(g)
Nitrate, Total as N, mg/L 5.5 10(c) 10 5
(h)
Boron, µg/L 219 - 700 500(i)
Chloride, mg/L 96 250(b) 250 100 (g)
Sodium, mg/L 84 - 69 69(g)
SAR (Calculated) 2.5 - - 0-3
(f)
Sources:
a) US Bureau of Reclamation, 2014. Delta-Mendota Canal Non-Project Surface Water Pump-in Program, 2015 Water Quality Monitoring Plan. December 30, 2014. Values listed are the lower bound when a range was provided. b) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), based on consumer acceptance criteria. c) Primary MCL, based on public health criteria.
d) Ayers and Westcot, 1985. Water Quality for Agriculture. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations – Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev. 1. Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCReP/003/T0234e/T0234E01.htm. Values listed are from Table 4 and correspond to 100% crop yield for beans (700 S/cm) and almonds (1,000 S/cm), which are widely planted in the region.
e) Harivandi, M.A. “Irrigating Turfgrasses with Municipal Reclaimed Water." Acta Horticulture 938: 95-103. Sensitive species can be irrigated with water < 700 S/cm.
f) Ayers and Westcot, Table 1. Note that 650 mg/L TDS corresponds to 1,000 S/cm. g) Ayers and Westcot, Table 1. Values were converted from meq/L to mg/L. Standards are based on leaf absorption and deposition due to overhead sprinkler irrigation.
h) Ayers and Westcot, Table 1. Applies only to sensitive species such as sugar beets and grapes. i) Ayers and Westcot, Table 16, lower bound for sensitive crops, which includes walnuts and stone fruits.
Figure 3-4: Comparison of Salt Content to Water Quality Requirements 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Surface Water Groundwater Recycled Water
Specific Conductance,
S/cm
Drinking Water Standard = 900 uS/cm
Threshold for very sensitive crops = 700 uS/cm
Threshold for sensitive crops (almonds) = 1,000 uS/cm
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-8
Based on the comparison in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-4, above, the following conclusions apply to the City’s tertiary-treated water:
• The concentration of salts in the City’s recycled water supply is typically lower than allowed by drinking water standards.
• The City’s recycled water supply can be used without blending to irrigate all but the most sensitive agricultural crops. With proper irrigation practices, no yield reduction is expected for most crop types.
• For landscape plants, the most sensitive species of turf grass (e.g., bluegrass) could experience salt stress if irrigated with recycled water; however, many other varieties of turfgrass are available that are more salt-tolerant.
• The City’s recycled water supply meets most of the water quality requirements for conveyance to agricultural irrigation customers using the Delta-Mendota Canal. The water meets DMC standards for all constituents except sodium.
• Proper irrigation practices can mitigate the increased salt stress associated with recycled water use.
Examples include:
o Applying sufficient water to leach salts away from the root zone; o Avoiding overhead sprinkler use during hot, dry periods; o Avoiding direct wetting of salt-sensitive species, such as conifers. o Protecting soil permeability, which can be affected by high sodium content, by using soil amendments such as gypsum;
o Leaching salts from the soil using lower-salinity water on a periodic basis.
Additional information is available from the WateReuse Salinity Management Guide24.
With respect to salt content, the City’s tertiary-treated water is quite typical of other recycled water projects in northern and central California. Figure 3-5 shows how Manteca’s recycled water supply compares to others in the region, including those run by the City of Santa Rosa, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD), Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (Castroville), City of Roseville, the South Bay Water Recycling Program, and the City of Clovis. Several of these programs have operated successfully for decades.
24 Salinity Management Guide. WateReuse Foundation, 2007. Available online at https://watereuse.org/salinitymanagement/index.html ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-9
Figure 3-5: Water Quality Comparison with Other Recycled Water Projects The City could take steps to lower recycled water salinity by increasing the fraction of surface water and decreasing the fraction of groundwater in the municipal drinking water supply, or by seeking to reduce salt loading from residential sources (i.e., self-regenerating water softeners), or from commercial and industrial sources. However, because the City’s recycled water supply is already appropriate for irrigation use, these steps are not required prior to expansion of the recycled water program.
3.4 Existing Recycled Water Facilities
The City currently distributes recycled water to a truck fill station located just north of the WQCF. The water is used for construction purposes and dust control. Water for the truck fill station is chlorinated prior to distribution. In mid-2015, distribution to the truck fill station averaged about 27,000 gallons per day, or about 0.5% of the total recycled that is available.
The City has anticipated eventual construction of a recycled water distribution system, and one significant segment of pipeline is currently in place. A twelve-inch recycled water pipeline runs 2,600 feet along Daniels St. from the Big League Dreams facility to Airport Way (see purple pipe shown in Figure ES-2 or Figure 6-1). The City is also requiring new developments to install recycled water pipelines sufficient for connecting new parks to recycled water distribution pipelines that may one be located in arterial roads.
3.5 Plans for Treatment Process Modification
The City’s tertiary treatment system does not require any modifications to meet Title 22 standards or end user requirements. However, if the City plans to construct a distribution system for recycled water, the WQCF will require upgrades to the chlorination system. The WQCF uses UV disinfection to meet Title 22 standards; the chlorination system is used solely to provide residual chlorine, which prevents nuisance growths in distribution pipelines. The current chlorination system is not fully automated, and does not have sufficient capacity to serve uses beyond the truck fill station. Therefore, this RFWMP assumes that a new sodium hypochlorite storage tank and fully automated dosing system will be required.
The addition of reverse osmosis treatment was briefly evaluated but not considered for the alternatives to be presented in Chapter 5. Reverse osmosis could be added to the end of the current treatment train in order Manteca Santa
Rosa
SRCSD
Castroville
Roseville
South Bay
Clovis
0 200
400
600
800
1000
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 3 Wastewater
Characteristics and Facilities
January 2023 3-10
to reduce the salt content of the recycled water. A high-level cost estimate was prepared to determine the increase in cost this treatment would add to the recycled water. The cost of reverse osmosis will vary depending on the starting salt concentration and desired ending salinity, but a reasonable estimate is $0.70 per pound of salt removed25,26. This cost is roughly 25% capital cost and 75% operations, maintenance and disposal of the salt. This treatment would add about $500-1,000 per acre-foot of water produced, making the end cost of recycled water extremely high.
25 Characterizing and Managing Salinity Loadings in Reclaimed Water Systems. American Water Works Association, 2006. 26 Survey of High-Recovery and Zero Liquid Discharge Technologies for Water Utilities. WateReuse, 2008.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-1
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market Assessment
4.1 Introduction
The purpose of the recycled water market assessment was to identify specific uses for the tertiary-treated wastewater produced by the City. The recycled water market assessment was split into three categories:
1. Local demands – Landscape irrigation, commercial, and industrial demands located within the City’s sphere of influence that could be served directly by the WQCF.
2. Regional demands – Demands beyond the City’s sphere of influence, including wholesale opportunities with neighboring irrigation or water districts.
3. Groundwater recharge – Recycled water could be used to intentionally recharge the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin.
4.1.1 The three categories of demands are explored below, followed by a discussion of potential user interest, reliability needs and barriers to recycled water use. Key Assumptions
The following assumptions were made during the recycled water market assessment:
• The quality of the recycled water would be the same as the City’s existing tertiary-treated wastewater, with no additional treatment other than addition of residual chlorine (see section 3.3 and section 3.5).
• The quantity of recycled water available for delivery is 5.7 mgd under current conditions. This amount would grow to 9.87 mgd in the future (see Table 3-2, Section 3.2). This amount is available year-round. Seasonal storage was not considered. • For direct delivery of recycled water, the only uses considered were those listed in Title 22 §60303 - §60307 as acceptable end uses for disinfected tertiary recycled water. These uses include agricultural irrigation (including food crops where the edible portion comes into contact with recycled water), landscape irrigation of parks, playgrounds, and schoolyards, irrigation of unrestricted access golf courses, and residential landscaping. Direct potable reuse was not considered, as the state has not yet developed regulations allowing this practice. • Local, non-potable demands within the City included current water users, as well as anticipated water users identified in the City’s 2023 General Plan or specifically identified in recent planning documents reviewed or approved by City planning staff (see section 4.1.2, below). This corresponds to a planning horizon of approximately 5-10 years for the local customer base. • The assessment was focused on non-potable reuse. However, the potential for indirect potable reuse did not automatically exclude projects from consideration. In fact, two of the options considered -- groundwater recharge and water transfers -- would result in incidental reuse by potable water customers. Manteca’s wastewater, since it is discharged to the San Joaquin River, is already indirectly served to the millions of Californians whose drinking water supply comes from the State Water Project.
• Potential projects were initially included regardless of whether a willing project partner could be identified, since this can change with time. The ability to implement the project was considered later, during the evaluation of project alternatives (see section 5.4.3)
4.1.2 Background Data
The data analyzed as part of the Market Assessment were obtained from previous City planning documents, City-provided water use data, San Joaquin County GIS data, landscape irrigation plans provided by ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-2
Manteca Unified School District, and discussions with City staff. The documents reviewed during the Market Assessment included the following:
• City of Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facility Master Plan Update – Update of Urban Water Recycling Opportunities. Nolte Associates, Inc., September 2004. • City of Manteca 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. NV5, January 2013. • City of Manteca Water utility billing records for City potable water customers for calendar year 2013, compiled by Kennedy/Jenks for use in the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. • Well pump logs for City parks for calendar years 2004-2006. • Manteca Unified School District, 2014 Site Irrigation Inventory for elementary and middle school sites.
• Parks, schools, and other land use categories for individual parcels as listed in the San Joaquin County GIS database (see http://www.sjmap.org/, shapefiles for Parks, Schools, etc.). • Union Ranch Specific Plan, Manteca, California. HLA Group, updated May 2014. • Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – South of Woodward Avenue Project. Section 4.11, “Public Services and Utilities.” November 2014.
• Draft Austin Road Business Park and Residential Community Master Plan. City of Manteca Community Development Department, undated.
• Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. City of Manteca Community Development Department, November 2010.
• Monte Bello Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. IS-14-01. Completed by City of Manteca Community Development Department.
• Water Supply Assessment for Family Entertainment Zone. West Yost Associates, November 2014. • Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the Griffin Park Master Plan. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group for Manteca Community Development Department, June 2016. • Notice of Preparation for the Oakwood Landing – Cerri and Denali Subdivisions. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group for Manteca Community Development Department, August 2016. • Terra Ranch Subdivision – Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I. Prepared by Raney Planning & Management for City of Manteca, November 2010. • The Trails of Manteca Project – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates for City of Manteca, October 14, 2010. • Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Amended Shadowbrook Manteca Project.
Prepared by De Novo Planning Group for Manteca Community Development Department, November 2015.
• Final Environmental Impact Report for the Oakwood Trails Subdivision. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group for Manteca Community Development Department, October 21, 2015. • Proposed subdivision maps for Crivello Estates and Dolcinea.
4.2 Local Demand Identification
This section summarizes the potential urban irrigation, industrial and commercial recycled water customers identified within the City’s sphere of influence.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-3
4.2.1 Urban Irrigation Demands
Potential urban irrigation demands identified in the City’s sphere of influence are shown below in Figure 4-1. Potential urban irrigation customers are comprised of parks, school playing fields, sports complexes, a golf course, green spaces and planned parks/green spaces. The majority of the demand comes from City parks and Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) playing fields. While there were 10 MUSD schools identified outside of the City’s SOI, these potential demands were not considered past the initially developed demand list due to the increased complexity and cost associated with serving customers outside of the City’s SOI. The urban irrigation demands located within these customers are summarized in Table 4-1 and are shown in Figure 4-1. Appendix B includes a detailed table of all identified potential urban irrigation demands.
Table 4-1: Urban Irrigation Demand Summary
Urban Irrigation Demand No. of Sites Irrigable Acreage
Parks 65 310
School Playing Fields 24 209
Golf Course/Sports Complex 3 107
Green Space 4 35
Planned Park/Open Space 22 257
Total 118 sites 918 acres
Note: Villa Ticino West Parks 1 and 2 added in 2023.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-4
Figure 4-1: Urban Irrigation Demands
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-5
4.2.2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
The recycled water demands for potential recycled water users were determined according to the demand estimate methods presented below. A summary of the method applied to each of the user subgroups is shown in Table 4-5 on the following page. The overall approach was to use existing water use data from water meters or pumping records, if available. In the absence of water use data, demand was estimated based on typical landscape irrigation demands in the Manteca are. As described below, these estimates vary from about 4 to 4.5 feet of water (or acre-feet per acre) applied per year.
Method A – Irrigation Demand based on Water Use Data
Method A was used to determine the irrigation demand for potential recycled water users with available use data (either pumping records or billing data). Pumping and billing records were provided by the City for City parks (where available). It was assumed that all water usage recorded could be attributed to irrigation.
Method B – Irrigation Demand based on Water Use Data Demand Factor Method B was used to determine irrigation demands for those City parks which did not have pumping or billing data available. The rationale behind this method is that City parks are all under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department, and are therefore likely to have the similar irrigation practices. To determine those parks irrigation demand, a demand factor (acre-foot per acre of irrigable land) was calculated from the park demands from pumping data used in Method A. Irrigable acreage for parks was assumed to be 90% of the total acreage unless otherwise specified. The demand factor was calculated to be 4.46 acre-feet per acre. The calculation for this demand factor can be found in Appendix C.
Method C – Irrigation Demand based on Landscape/Crop Coefficient Data Method C was used to determine irrigation demands for playing fields and green space at Manteca Unified Schools as well as green space at CalTrans on/off ramps and the Union Memorial Cemetery. The rationale behind this method is that these areas are not under the jurisdiction of the City Parks and Recreation Department, and therefore may be irrigated differently. Evapotranspiration calculations were based on a crop coefficient for turf species (0.8) and CIMIS and precipitation data for Manteca. The demand factor was calculated to be 3.98 acre-feet per acre. The calculation for this demand factor are shown below in Table 4-2.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-6
Table 4-2: Evapotranspiration Data and Demand Factors
Month
ETo
a
(in/month)
Average
Precipitationb
(in)
Irrigation
Demand
(in/unit
area)
Adjusted
Irrigation
Demandc
(in/unit area)
Percent of
Annual
Demand
Jan 1.08 2.45 -1.3 0.0 0.0%
Feb 1.91 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.9%
Mar 3.52 1.53 2.3 2.3 4.8%
Apr 5.04 0.99 4.5 4.5 9.5%
May 6.76 0.18 7.3 7.3 15.2%
Jun 7.69 0.07 8.4 8.4 17.6%
Jul 7.97 0.1 8.7 8.7 18.2%
Aug 7.03 0.15 7.6 7.6 15.9%
Sep 5.15 0.14 5.5 5.5 11.6%
Oct 3.36 0.63 3.0 3.0 6.4%
Nov 1.67 1.96 -0.2 0.0 0.0%
Dec 1.01 2.03 -1.0 0.0 0.0%
Annual
Total 52.2 11.83 47.7 100.0%
Average Monthly Demand 3.98 acre-in/acre
Average Annual Demand Factor 3.98 AF/acre
Notes:
a. Average ETo values reported on CIMIS - Station 70 Manteca http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/UserControls/Reports/MonthlyEtoReportViewer.aspx b. Average Monthly precipitation for Manteca from Western Regional Climate Center. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5303 c. Assumes crop coefficient of 0.8, the coefficient for cool season turf species from Univ. of California Cooperative Extension and California Department of Water Resources, A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California, August 2000. Also assumes a 75 percent infiltration rate into the vegetation root zone, a leaching rate factor of 1.1 (10 percent leaching rate through the vegetation root zone), and 80% irrigation efficiency.
Method D – Irrigation Demand based on Planning Documents Method D was used for planned developments within the City’s sphere of influence. When available, the demands from the planning documents were used as the irrigation demand. Otherwise, the demand factor from Method B was applied to the provided irrigable acreage, since most of the properties correspond to future City parks.
Table 4-3: Application of Demand Estimate Methods
Method Urban Demand Count
A City Parks with Water Use Data 30
B
City Parks without Water Use Data 35
Planned Park /Open Space 21
Golf Course/Sports Complex 3
C
School Playing Field 24
Green Space 4
D Planned Park/Open Space 1
All Total 118
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-7
4.2.3 Peaking Factors
Peaking factors were determined based on monthly water use data for City parks, and planned daily irrigation windows. The peak month factor was determined to be 2.2 based on past monthly water use data (i.e., water use in August is 2.2x higher than the annual average). This reflects the fact that irrigation is typically turned on in the spring, then turned off in the fall, with relatively little adjustment throughout the dry season. As a result, there is no significant difference between peak day and peak month conditions, and no daily peaking factor. The calculations for these peaking factors can be found in Appendix C.
The peak hour factor (3.0) was calculated based on a planned eight-hour irrigation window, consistent with standard guidance to limit irrigation to late evening and early morning hours. This approach reduces the likelihood for public contact with recycled water. This planned peaking factor may be lower than existing landscape irrigation practices in the City. The parks and schools are typically irrigated at night, but at smaller parks, the irrigation happens over a shorter window (2-3 hours instead of 8 hours). Irrigation at these smaller parks could be staggered to ensure that the overall peaking factor stays within the planned ratio.
Table 4-4: Peaking Factors
Peaking Factor Category Value
Peak Month 2.2 x Annual Average Demand
Peak Hour 3.0 x Peak Month Demanda
Notes: (24 hours / 8 hour irrigation window) = 3.0 Peak Month
4.2.4 Recycled Water Demand Projections for Urban Irrigation A summary of all of the potential recycled water demands for local users is presented in Table 4-5 and is illustrated in Figure 4-2. The full list of estimated recycled water demands (listed by ID number shown in Figure 4-2) is included in Appendix B, and a partial list of the 25 largest potential users is presented in Table 4-6. The top 25 users listed in Table 4-6 make up about 60% of the total estimated demand from all 116 potential customers.
Table 4-5: Summary of Potential Recycled Water Demands
Urban Demand Count
Annual Average
Demand Peak Month Demand
(AFY) (mgd) (AFY) (mgd)
Existing Park 65 1,227 1.09 2,655 2.37
School 24 836 0.75 1,806 1.61
Playing Field/Golf Course 3 447 0.40 963 0.86
Green Space 4 140 0.12 302 0.27
Planned Park/Open Space 22 1,115 1.01 2,399 2.14
Total 118 3,765 3.37 8,011 7.26
Note: Villa Ticino West Parks 1 and 2 added in 2023.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-8
Figure 4-2: All Potential Local Demands
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-9
Table 4-6: Top 25 Potential
Landscape Irrigation Customers
ID # NAME Type Demand Source
Demand
Method
Irrigable
Acreage
Annual Average
Irrigation
Demand (AFY)
Annual Average
Irrigation
Demand (mgd)
Existing
Supply
017 Golf Course Park Estimate Method B 90.9 405.8 0.36 Well 027 Austin Rd Development Park Estimate Method B 54.9 245.1 0.22 Future 084 Family Entertainment Zone Park Development Plans Method D 60.3 244.0 0.22 Future 077 Woodward Community Park Estimate Method B 45.6 203.4 0.18 Well 014 Griffin Park Park Estimate Method B 23.4 104.5 0.09 Future 094 Lathrop High School School ET Estimate Method C 25.2 100.9 0.09 Well 106 East Union High School School ET Estimate Method C 23.3 93.3 0.08 Well 110 Sierra High School School ET Estimate Method C 23.1 92.4 0.08 Well 009 Trails at Manteca Park Park Estimate Method B 18.0 80.3 0.07 Future 114 Brockman (Stella) Elementary School ET Estimate Method C 14.7 58.9 0.05 Well 025 Chadwick Square Park Well Data Method A 8.1 50.3 0.04 Well 088 Airport Way Park Estimate Method B 10.0 44.6 0.04 Future 080 Shasta Park Park Estimate Method B 9.9 44.0 0.04 Well 086 BLD - Fields Park Estimate Method B 9.3 41.5 0.04 Well 011 Cerri Park Park Estimate Method B 9.0 40.2 0.04 Future 013 Hat Ranch Park Park Estimate Method B 9.0 40.2 0.04 Future 118 Manteca High School School ET Estimate Method C 9.6 38.2 0.03 Well 031 Tesoro Park Park Estimate Method B 8.6 38.2 0.03 Well 046 Bella Vista Park Estimate Method B 8.3 37.1 0.03 Well 111 Brock Elliott Elementary School ET Estimate Method C 9.2 36.9 0.03 Well 007 Oakwood Trails Parcel D Park Estimate Method B 8.1 36.2 0.03 Future 095 Veritas Elementary School ET Estimate Method C 9.0 36.0 0.03 Potable 056 Union Ranch North Park Park Estimate Method B 8.0 35.8 0.03 Potable 098 New Haven Elementary School ET Estimate Method C 8.5 33.9 0.03 Well 104 Cowell (Joshua) Elementary School ET Estimate Method C 8.5 33.9 0.03 Well ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-10
4.2.5 Industrial, Commercial, and Other Recycled Water Users In addition to landscape irrigation, recycled water can be used for industrial and commercial uses. The largest user that could easily be switched to recycled water is the WQCF itself, which uses groundwater and/or potable water to meet the plant’s needs for process water. The water is used for equipment washdown, and mixed with coagulant and polymer for use in the tertiary treatment system, in addition to many other uses. There is a shallow well located at the WQCF dedicated to providing process water for these uses. There is also a connection to the potable water system in place as a backup supply, in case the well water is not available or not acceptable. Potable water is not required, however, and the process water system is separate from other potable uses at the plant site (e.g., potable use inside the WQCF office). The amount of non-potable water used at the WQCF is about 5% of plant flows27, or a minimum of 300 AFY under current conditions, as indicated below in Table 4-7. The City formerly had identified a capital project in the FY 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (Project #13027) to convert the plant to secondary-treated wastewater water as a source of process water by adding sand filtration and modifying piping at the plant.
However, since tertiary-treated water is now available, the sand filters are not needed. The project was not included in the FY 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 4-7: WQCF Demand for Recycled Water
Current Future
WQCF Average Dry Weather Flow 5.7 mgd 9.87 mgd
Demand for Recycled Water = 5% of WQCF Flow 0.3 mgd 0.5 mgd Demand for Recycled Water, AFY 300 AFY 550 AFY
Although there are many uses for process water at the plant that can easily be switched to tertiary water, the polymer feed system may (or may not) be suitable for conversion. Some wastewater treatment plants use recycled water in the polymer feed system, while others report that the polymer does not perform well when mixed with recycled water. Laboratory bench-scale tests and full-scale testing at the WQCF will be required to determine the feasibility of conversion. This testing would be worthwhile, since switching the polymer feed system to tertiary water would reduce the need for piping modifications, and thereby reduce the cost of conversion.
Other than the WQCF, no other significant, viable commercial or industrial users was identified within the City’s sphere of influence. Toilet flushing was not considered further because retrofitting existing buildings for dual use (potable and recycled water) is extremely expensive, and City staff did not want to pursue alternatives involving toilet flushing. If other commercial and industrial users are identified in the future, the City could serve these customers recycled water as long as they use water for an approvable use under California Code of Regulations, Title 22 §60303 - §60307. Per this section of the code, the approvable uses for disinfected tertiary recycled water include flushing toilets, commercial laundry, decorative fountains, as well as many other industrial uses such as cooling towers and boiler feed systems.
4.3 Regional Project Identification
The recycled water market assessment for regional projects focused on potential partners for which the City could serve as a wholesale provider of recycled water. This is in contrast to the market assessment for local demands, which focused on individual customers. The regional wholesale partners could be located within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin or within the larger area of San Joaquin County. 27 Meeting with WQCF staff, July 22, 2015.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-11
Table 4-8 summarizes the total water demand in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. The available recycled water from the City is less than 1% of the total demand.
Table 4-8: Estimated and Projected Water Demands
in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin
Water Use Sector
2010 Estimated
Water Demand
2035 Projected
Water Demand
Urban 154,566 236,500
Agricultural 1,051,855 984,516
Total 1,206,421 1,221,016
Source: Excerpt from Table ES-2, Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Water Management Plan Update, June 2014. Prepared by GEI for Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority.
The following regional recycled water wholesale partners were assessed:
South San Joaquin Irrigation District. The District currently encompasses about 55,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land; its service area includes nearly all of the area in the City of Manteca. Most of SSJID’s irrigated lands are planted with permanent crops such as almonds, grapes, fruit trees, and walnuts28. From 1994-2008, average deliveries of surface water to irrigated lands were 172,696 AFY, with an additional 5,778 AFY provided from District wells28. SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights and offers a very reliable source of water to its customers. As mentioned previously, it also provides about half of the City’s potable water supply. There is no indication that recycled water would improve SSJID’s water supply reliability, which is already very strong. However, it could be feasible for the City to make a trade of potable water for recycled water, or to engage with SSJID and another third party in a water exchange. As a completely hypothetical example, Manteca could provide SSJID with recycled water, then SSJID could transfer surface water to another surface water user served by New Melones Reservoir (for example, Oakdale Irrigation District).
Central Valley Project (CVP) Contractors. The CVP is a federal water project operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Unlike SSJID, CVP water contractors are chronically short of water – particularly the agricultural contractors located south of the Delta29. For example, from water years 2008 – 2013, the annual allocations to agricultural customers located South of Delta ranged from 10% to 80% of contract amounts, with an average value of 40%30. As a group, CVP customers need additional water supplies in dry years, and improved supply reliability over the long term.
A critical component of CVP infrastructure located in the greater Manteca region is the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC), which is located about 12 miles to the southwest of the City. There are no direct municipal customers downstream of Tracy, so any connection to the DMC should be made downstream of Tracy.
The Warren Act of 1911 authorizes USBR to execute temporary contracts to impound, store, and carry water in federal irrigation canals when excess capacity is available. Such contracts are negotiated by USBR to allow the introduction of “non-project water” into the DMC. This non-project water can include groundwater from wells near the DMC, or it could include recycled water. For example, the Cities of Modesto and Turlock are currently constructing the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Project, which would convey recycled water from two wastewater treatment plants to the DMC for downstream use by 28 SSJID 2012 Agricultural Water Management Plan. December 2012. Prepared by Davids Engineering for SSJID. 29 Water Supply and Yield Study. USBR, 2008. Available online at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/docs/Water%20Supply%20and%20Yield%20Study.pdf 30 CVP Contract Water Delivery Information, Water Year 2008 – 2013. USBR. Available online at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/PA/water/docs/CVP_Water_Deliveries.pdf ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-12
Del Puerto Water District. Del Puerto Water District expects to have unmet demands even after completion of the North Valley project, and could be a potential regional partner for the City of Manteca. For reference, approximately 8,163 acres of Del Puerto Water District are located within San Joaquin County.
The California Aqueduct serving the State Water Project is also located about 12 miles from the City (about ½ mile beyond the DMC). However, because the State Water Project directly serves municipal customers, and because direct potable reuse was not considered as part of this master plan, alternatives serving the California Aqueduct were not considered.
Other Agricultural Customers. The concept of serving agricultural customers in in the area northeast of the City, east of Stockton – about halfway between Manteca and Farmington – was also considered. This area is approximately the edge of the groundwater basin’s large cone of depression, as shown below in in Figure 4-3 (see next page). The area is part of the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, a federal water contractor with the CVP, but many farmers in the area rely solely on groundwater for irrigation.
Surface water deliveries from New Melones Reservoir that began in 1983 have reduced overdrafting31; the addition of recycled water could further reduce groundwater pumping in a critically overdrawn area. That said, the water conservation district is not likely to be able to serve as a wholesale customer, because there is no distribution system for reaching individual customers. Although this region of the County does not seem to be a viable partner at this time, for the City’s future reference, a cost for delivering water to this area was developed in Chapter 5 (see section 5.3.2). This information could be useful for future planning conducted with respect to groundwater basin sustainability.
Mountain House Community Services District. Water rights for the tertiary-treated wastewater currently discharged to the San Joaquin River could be used to provide water to a user located downstream. The City would be the water right holder, and would then enter into a long-term agreement with the downstream user to transfer or sell the water.
For example, the Mountain House Community Services District (CSD) is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, downstream of the City, and may have a need for water. Mountain House currently has a water services agreement with Byron-Bethany Irrigation District for up to 9,413 acre-feet of water, with current use of approximately half that amount. In the summer of 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board issued a water rights curtailment for Byron-Bethany Irrigation District’s pre-1914 water rights, which had previously been viewed as secure. Because of the legal uncertainty surrounding its water supply, the community of Mountain House and other water users may be looking to supplement or replace their existing water rights with recycled water.
31 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update. June 2014. Prepared by GEI Consultants for the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-13
Figure 4-3: Groundwater Elevations in San Joaquin County Source: Groundwater Report, Spring 2015. San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
San Joaquin County Department of Public Works, Stockton, 2015.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-14
4.4 Groundwater Recharge Assessment
Separately from the identification of potential projects within the City (Section 4.2) or with regional partners (Section 4.3), the potential for groundwater recharge within or near to the project area was evaluated. Per the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, recycled water can be used for groundwater replenishment provided multiple provisions are met, the primary of which is the blending of the recycled water with water from an approved drinking water source (referred to as ‘diluent water’) at ratios not greater than specified in Section 60320.116 of the aforementioned code section32. In such a project, typically referred to as an Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) project, recycled water is recharged into the groundwater basin via either percolation or direct injection. The blended water could then be extracted from the basin and treated and used as a supply or left in place to assist with groundwater basin sustainability. Groundwater replenishment with recycled water is addressed in this section.
4.4.1 Need for Groundwater Recharge
As discussed in Section 2.1, the City currently uses a mixture of surface water from SSJID’s South County Water Supply Project and groundwater from City-owned and -operated wells overlying the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. The California Department of Water Resources has declared the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin to be in critical overdraft33,34 and it has been ranked as a high-priority groundwater basin under the California State Groundwater Elevation Monitoring program (CASGEM).
Although there has been some gradual stabilization and recovery of groundwater levels in portions of the groundwater basin (including some of those areas underlying the City of Manteca), the groundwater basin remains threatened by overdrafting and saline water intrusion35. The City overlays both a shallow and a deep aquifer, separated by the Corcoran Clay and/or equivalent aquitard, and pumps from the deep aquifer for potable use and from the shallow aquifer for irrigation and other non-potable uses.
4.4.2 Shallow Aquifer
The depth to groundwater (the shallow aquifer) varies throughout the City, averaging around 15 feet on the west side (closer to the San Joaquin River) and 25 feet on the east side of Manteca. Groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer underlying the City have been relatively stable for about two decades, as shown in Figure 4-4, even as groundwater levels have dropped elsewhere in the basin. Water quality in this aquifer is generally acceptable for irrigation purposes, though there are some concerns throughout the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin regarding salinity intrusion from the San Joaquin River which is reflected in some instances of higher sodium and chloride levels, increasing total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations, and general degradation of water quality from overlying land uses. Additionally, the City Parks and Recreation Department has reported that some wells in the southeast section of the City are likely suffering from poor water quality as evidenced by trees in those parks showing signs of salt stress. 32 22 CCR § 60320.116 – Recycled Municipal Wastewater Contribution (RWC) Requirements. Available online at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I003BF4E0FE8D11E3B0769A3904EA2000 33 Final List of Critically Overdrafted Basins. California Department of Water Resources, January 2016. Available online at http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/cod.cfm
34 California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118, Update 2003. California Department of Water Resources, October 2003. 35 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update. June 2014. Prepared by GEI Consultants for the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-15
Figure 4-4: Groundwater Elevation in the Shallow Aquifer underlying Manteca Source: Groundwater elevation data from the CASGEM database, Local Well # 02SO8E08A001 in SSJID Service Area, also tracked as “Well V” in San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District groundwater reports. Location is east of Murphy Road and south of Cedar Ln. Available online at http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/data.cfm and http://www.sjwater.org/Groundwater%20Reports.htm
4.4.3 Deep Aquifer
The deep aquifer is located below an aquitard, a section of the Corcoran Clay (or equivalent), at a depth ranging from approximately 190 to 400 feet below the ground surface36. In general, the water quality in this deeper aquifer is suitable for potable use with minimal treatment, though arsenic and nitrate levels are a growing concern.
4.4.4 Recharge Methods
The simplest and most cost-effective method for groundwater recharge is through percolation ponds.
Percolation ponds provide a large surface area and natural pressure head which allows for continual, natural infiltration to the water table aquifer. The recharge rate is driven by a number of factors, the most important of which are soil type, depth of the pond and depth to groundwater. In the Manteca area, soils consist primarily of a mix of fine sand, loamy sand, and loamy coarse sand, which are conducive to relatively high infiltration rate; however, field tests would be needed to determine the most suitable pond location(s).
When percolation ponds are used, infiltrated water travels from the pond through the area directly below the ponds but above the water table, referred to as the vadose zone. As water travels through this area, naturally-occurring biological and geochemical processes occur that provide some measure of water treatment, typically referred to as Soil Aquifer Treatment. Once the water reaches the water table, it typically forms a mound, or area of elevated water levels (as shown in Figure 4-5), as the water slowly moves both vertically and horizontally through the aquifer and the water table rises. 36 City of Manteca 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. See p. 10. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 199119921992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016 Groundwater Elevation
(feet above MSL)
Manteca, Airport Way at Hwy 120 East of Manteca, Murphy Road and Cedar Ln ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-16
Figure 4-5: Groundwater Recharge Mounding
Groundwater recharged via percolation will not generally recharge areas below confining layers such as the Corcoran Clay. In the Manteca area, any recharged recycled water would remain in the shallow aquifer and therefore most likely available only for non-potable uses.
A second mode of recharging a groundwater basin is through direction injection. Direct injection is similar to groundwater pumping but in reverse – water is moved from the surface into the screened zone of a well, where it then moves vertically out into the water-bearing formation. For the Manteca area, direct injection would be required to recharge the deep aquifer used for potable supply. To achieve this, injection wells would need to be designed, constructed and maintained.
4.4.5 Recharge Method Analysis
Recycled water percolation is typically a preferred alternative for groundwater recharge in that percolation basins are fairly easy to construct, easy to maintain, and most often cost-effective. However, as previously noted, percolation ponds will only recharge the water table (or shallow) aquifer. This could result in groundwater level rises, potentially impacting root zones, basements and other subsurface structures, especially on the west side of the City where groundwater elevations are already high. Additionally, while such a project would recharge the groundwater basin, it would only benefit the shallow zone which is presently only used for non-potable water.
Groundwater recharge via direct injection is currently allowed under California regulations, provided permitting is acquired on a site-by-site basis and the State’s current guidelines for this type of reuse are followed. Injection wells can be, however, expensive to design and construct, and can be difficult to maintain. Unlike percolation ponds, biological growth and/or geochemical interactions resulting in encrustation or precipitation of solids onto the well screens, can have detrimental effects on injection well performance, requiring, in some cases, an extensive well rehabilitation program. The primary benefit to be achieved by direct injection is the recharge of the deeper potable water aquifer, providing additional supplies, and the mitigation of overdraft conditions in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin as a whole.
4.4.6 Groundwater Recharge Feasibility
Though the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin has been classified as being in critical overdraft, groundwater elevations in the Manteca area have been relatively stable. Given this general stability and the shallow depth to groundwater throughout the City (and especially on the western side of the City near the wastewater treatment plant), there appears to be limited capacity for groundwater recharge within City ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-17
limits. This limited capacity would be further lessened by water table mounding resulting from groundwater recharge by either method, and could potentially lead to adverse consequences in the shallow aquifer. Considering groundwater recharge in light of other potential reuse alternatives for the City’s recycled water, it is not recommended that the City pursue groundwater recharge as a local recycled water reuse alternative at this time.
Groundwater recharge may be a feasible alternative for reuse outside of the City limits. A recycled water recharge project to the east of the City could potentially benefit local agriculture and the groundwater basin itself. However, for such a project to occur, recycled water would need to be piped to a section of the groundwater basin with capacity for recharge. This type of project would be compatible with Alternative 7 in Section 5.3.2. While the project would benefit the groundwater basin, a recycled water pipeline would have to be constructed to the east and could potentially make the project cost-prohibitive. Additionally, for any groundwater recharge project with recycled water, diluent water from an approved surface water source would have to be obtained to meet the required dilution requirements prior to recharge. Given the current status of surface water allocations in the State, along with current programs being evaluated to reduce surface water diversions from the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Mokelumne, and Merced Rivers to increase fish flows, it is unclear if additional surface water supplies would be available for the required diluent water.
4.5 Customer Outreach
4.5.1 Local Outreach
In February 2015, Woodard & Curran and representatives from the City Public Works Department held separate meetings with the Manteca Parks and Recreation Department and with representatives from the Manteca Unified School District. At these meetings, the project team presented information about master planning process, and the suitability of using recycled water for irrigation. The project team solicited information about existing irrigation practices, and on whether switching to recycled water would be a concern. The following important points emerged during these discussions:
• Most of the MUSD school sites irrigate front landscaping with potable water, and have a separate system for landscape irrigation with non-potable groundwater in the back where the sports fields are located.
• For MUSD, the cost of providing irrigation water is a major concern, whether with groundwater, potable water, or recycled water. Water is the second-highest utility bill for MUSD. • For Parks and Recreation Department staff, the primary concern with switching to recycled water is the salt content in the recycled water, including TDS and boron. Some trees in the City are already showing signs of salt stress. The Parks and Recreation Department were especially protective of turf and landscaping at the community parks, particularly Woodward Park and Northgate Park. They were supportive of an incremental approach whereby recycled water use would only be expanded after it has been successfully demonstrated at a pilot test site. • A few parks are irrigated with potable water; these should be the highest-priority for switching to recycled water, if possible.
• Most parks do not have bathrooms or other extensive cross-connections between the landscaping and potable uses (e.g., drinking fountains), and retrofitting existing parks to recycled water should not be particularly difficult.
• The golf course, which currently uses groundwater for irrigation, has unlined storage ponds that are currently filled from groundwater pumps. It is possible to hydraulically separate these lakes from other landscape irrigation piping. This might be necessary because (a) storing recycled water in unlined ponds is generally not permissible, except as part of an intentional recharge project and (b) storing recycled water in shallow ponds is likely to lead to nuisance algal growth.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 4 Recycled Water Market
Assessment
January 2023 4-18
4.5.2 Regional Outreach
City staff and Woodard & Curran held a meeting with a representative from Del Puerto Water District in August 2015 to discuss the potential use of Manteca recycled water by the irrigation district. City staff provided written notice to SSJID as the local irrigation district and requested their participation in development of the Master Plan; however, SSJID elected not to participate.
4.5.3 City Council and Public Meetings
During the course of the project, there were three public meetings and three City Council meetings. These meetings were used to explain the master planning process and keep the public up to date on its progress while also gathering feedback that could be incorporated into project alternatives and alternative evaluation.
Table 4-9 summarizes the topics covered at the three public and City Council meetings.
Table 4-9: Summary of City Council and Public Meetings
Topics Covered
Meeting Date
Public Meeting City Council Meeting
Description of the Recycled Water Master Plan
process and presentation of customers identified. March 26, 2015 May 19, 2015 Project alternatives identified. June 30, 2015 August 4, 2015 Ranking of project alternatives and identification
of recommended project portfolio September 29, 2015 January 24, 2023 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-1
Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis
Based on the results of the market assessment conducted in 2017 and discussions held as part of the master plan outreach process, conceptual project alternatives were developed for five local alternatives and five regional alternatives for recycled water use. For each alternative, a conceptual set of facilities – primarily pipelines, pump stations, and diurnal storage – was developed. These facilities were used as the basis for estimating the cost of each alternative. Operating costs were also estimated based on routine maintenance, electricity use at pumps, and chemical use for booster chlorination. Combining the total capital and operational cost with the volume of recycled water delivered under each alternative provides a unit cost ($/AF of recycled water) that can be used to compare the alternatives. The alternatives were also compared to one another based on non-monetary criteria such as groundwater sustainability, ease of implementation, and environmental impacts.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the development and evaluation of the recycled water project alternatives, with the goal of identifying a project or set of projects that maximizes the beneficial use of recycled water and improves water supply reliability at the lowest cost.
5.1 Design Criteria
To reduce groundwater pumping by implementing projects in-line with the regional GSP, recycled water pipelines are needed to connect to recycled water end users to the source of recycled water at the WQCF, whether it is a single pipeline to reach a single wholesale customer, or entire network designed to reach potential customers around the City, including City parks, residential and commercial irrigation, and construction sites. A Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheet-based hydraulic model was used to size the pipelines and pump stations and estimate their cost for all the project alternatives evaluated. The hydraulic criteria shown in Table 5-1 were used as a basis for these analyses.
Table 5-1: Design Criteria
Criteria Value Unit
Design Velocity Range 2 – 10 feet per second (fps)
Minimum Delivery Pressurea 40 psi
Maximum Delivery Pressure 120 psi
Minimum Pipe Size 6 inches
Available Pipe Sizesb 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 30” inches Maximum Head Loss 7 feet per 1,000 feet of pipe
Notes:
a. While some local groundwater customers may be able to retrofit their existing pumps to boost pressure onsite, and thereby accept delivery at approximately 10 psi, setting the minimum pressure at 40 psi will allow greater flexibility for expansion of the system.
b. Pipe sizes are for new pipes only. Wastewater force mains are also repurposed in specific locations for local alternatives.
Pump Stations
Pump stations must be capable of pumping a range of flows based on varying demand. The following design criteria were used to establish planning-level pump station facilities and cost estimates; • Construction on City property (assumed that all pump stations would be located at the WQCF); • Sized for peak hour demands;
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-2
• Driven by variable frequency drives (VFDs), since there is no storage downstream of the pump station;
• No back-up power supply, since recycled water is assumed to be an interruptible supply based on the customers served (primarily irrigation);
• One standby pump; and
• At least two pumps should be the same size.
Storage
For the local supply alternatives, storage tanks were sized to allow sufficient supply during the 8-hour irrigation window. The storage tanks were assumed to be located at the WQCF. Storage is necessary because the night-time demand peak will not be accompanied by an increase in recycled water production from the tertiary treatment system, which operates at a constant flow rate through the day. To estimate storage needs, peak hour recycled water supply was assumed to be 4.6 mgd, which includes a 20% safety factor for operational flexibility within the WQCF (see Table 3-2). The recycled water to be used internally within the WQCF under dry weather conditions (about 0.3 mgd) was subtracted from this capacity, resulting in a firm capacity of 4.3 mgd available to meet peak hour recycled water demands outside of the WQCF.
A visual representation of the storage volume calculation is shown in Figure 5-1. Regional alternatives would receive water as it is treated at the WQCF, at a constant rate throughout the day, and therefore these alternatives do not require storage.
Figure 5-1: Representative Storage Calculation
The assumption of 4.3 mgd for the firm capacity has a significant impact on the phasing of storage construction. No storage is needed initially, as peak hour demands would not exceed the firm capacity.
Once more customers are connected and the average summer demands exceed 1.4 mgd, storage is required to meet peak hour demands. If the plant can be operated with a higher firm capacity (i.e., 5 mgd), the need for storage would be reduced and construction could be delayed further into the future.
5.2 Local Alternatives
Five conceptual distribution system alternatives (numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) were developed to serve local landscape irrigation demands within the City. The alternatives were developed based on the results of the 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Flow Rate
Hour in Irrigation Window
Peak Demand Firm Capacity
Required Storage
Firm Capacity = 4.3 mgd
Peak Hour Demand (varies)
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-3
Market Assessment discussed in Chapter 4. For each alternative, a conceptual pipeline network was developed to serve a specific list of customers. Backbone (i.e., main distribution) pipelines were first identified to serve the largest irrigation users, then smaller users were added in, with the intent of constructing the fewest facilities to serve the most users.
5.2.1 Alternative 1 – Core Demands
Alternative 1 focuses on serving the “core” demands — those demands closest to the WQCF, including the golf course, Big League Dreams and the Family Entertainment Zone. Facilities required for Alternative 1 are illustrated in Figure 5-2 and a summary of the customers and demands served is presented in Table 5-2.
Figure 5-2: Alternative 1 - Core Demands
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-4
Table 5-2: Alternative 1 Demands Served
Alternative 1 - Core
No. of
Customers
(by type)
Schools 2
Parks 8
Playing Field/Golf Course 3
Green Space 0
Planned Park/Open Space 1
Total
Demand
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 910
Peak Month Demand (AFY) 2,000
Peak Month Demand (mgd) 1.8
5.2.2 Alternative 2 – All Demands
Alternative 2 was created to serve as many demands within the City’s General Plan boundary as economically feasible, with an emphasis on providing recycled water to planned future development. The recycled water distribution layout was based on an analysis of the demand densities throughout the City, as well as the location of existing sanitary sewer force mains that can be re-purposed for distribution of recycled water. Due to a lack of anchor customers in the northwest portion of the City (north of Yosemite Avenue and east of Main Street), no distribution pipelines were extended to this area. Distribution pipelines were extended to each existing customer, and to the edge of proposed future developments. Small distribution pipelines (or laterals) within new developments were not included in the cost estimate for Alternative 2 as the developer was assumed to be responsible for construction.
The existing 12-inch sanitary sewer force main in Woodward Avenue forms the initial backbone of the distribution system in this alternative. However, this 12-inch pipeline does not have sufficient capacity to meet all buildout demands south of Highway 120. A parallel pipeline has therefore been included in the design to serve future customers, with the exact alignment to be determined at a later date. Alternatively, the 12-inch pipeline in Woodward Avenue could be removed and replaced with a larger pipeline.
Facilities required for Alternative 2 are illustrated in Figure 5-3, and a summary of the customers and demands served is presented in Table 5-3.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-5
Figure 5-3: Alternative 2 - All Demands
Table 5-3: Alternative 2 Demands Served
Alternative 2 – All
No. of
Customers
(by type)
Schools 9
Parks 28
Playing Field/Golf Course 2
Green Space 0
Planned Park/Open Space 19
Total
Demand
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 2,686
Peak Month Demand (AFY) 5,829
Peak Hour Demand (mgd) 5.2
Note: Villa Ticino West Parks 1 and 2 added in 2023.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-6
5.2.3 Alternative 3 – Core & North Demands
Alternative 3 was created to serve similar demands as Alternative 2, but with a backbone pipe serving northern Manteca aligned along N. Union Road instead of Airport Way. City staff requested that Alternative 3 not be developed further due to the complexity and cost of laying a new pipe along a significant portion of N. Union Road. Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 both assume a backbone pipe alignment along Airport Way. A summary of the customers and demands served is presented in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Alternative 3 Demands Served
Alternative 3 – Core & North
No. of
Customers
(by type)
Schools 6
Parks 23
Playing Field/Golf Course 3
Green Space 0
Planned Park/Open Space 8
Total
Demand
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 2,031
Peak Month Demand (AFY) N/A
Peak Hour Demand (mgd) N/A
5.2.4 Alternative 4 – Core & North Demands
Alternative 4 was created to serve as many demands identified for Alternative 2 located to the north of Highway 120 as economically feasible in addition to the core demands identified in Alternative 1. The pipeline alignment to the north seeks to take advantage of existing pipeline in Airport Way that can be repurposed for recycled water. Facilities required for Alternative 4 are illustrated in Figure 5-4 and a summary of the customers and demands served is presented in Table 5-5.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-7
Figure 5-4: Alternative 4 – North and Core Demands
Table 5-5: Alternative 4 Demands Served
Alternative 4 – Core & North
No. of
Customers
(by type)
Schools 8
Parks 18
Playing Field/Golf Course 2
Green Space 0
Planned Park/Open Space 13
Total
Demand
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 1,889
Peak Month Demand (AFY) 4,080
Peak Month Demand (mgd) 3.6
5.2.5 Alternative 5 – Core & South Demands
Alternative 5 was created to serve as many demands identified for Alternative 2, located to the south of Highway 120, as economically feasible in addition to the core demands identified in Alternative 1. The pipeline alignment to the south of Highway 120 seeks to take advantage of existing sanitary sewer force main in Woodward Avenue that can be repurposed for recycled water. However, similar to Alternative 2, this force main does not have sufficient capacity to meet all buildout demands south of Highway 120. A ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-8
parallel pipeline has been included to serve future customers, with the exact alignment to be determined at a later date. Alternatively, the 12-inch pipeline in Woodward Avenue could be removed and replaced with a larger pipeline.
Facilities required for Alternative 5 are illustrated in Figure 5-5 and a summary of the customers and demands served is presented in Table 5-6.
Figure 5-5: Alternative 5 – North and Core Demands
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-9
Table 5-6: Alternative 5 Demands Served
Alternative 5 – Core & South
No. of
Customers
(by type)
Schools 4
Parks 18
Playing Field/Golf Course 2
Green Space 0
Planned Park/Open Space 15
Total
Demand
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 2,082
Peak Month Demand (AFY) 4,580
Peak Month Demand (mgd) 4.1
5.2.6 Local Alternative Summary
A summary of the demands served by the local alternatives can be found in Table 5-7. Alternative 1 focuses on serving the “core” demands—those demands closest to the WQCF, including the golf course, Big League Dreams and planned development of the Family Entertainment Zone. Alternative 2 was designed to serve as many demands to the north and south of Highway 120 as economically feasible (based on an analysis of the demand densities throughout the city). From there, Alternatives 4 and 5 were developed which served varying levels of demands within the range set by Alternatives 1 and 2. As discussed previously, Alternative 3 was eliminated because it is serves the same customers as Alternative 2, but with a less desirable pipeline alignment.
Table 5-7: Summary of Local Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 4 5
Core All Core &
North
Core &
South
No. of
Customers
(by type)
Schools 2 9 8 4
Parks 8 28 16 17
Playing Field/Golf Course 2 2 2 2
Green Space 0 0 0 0
Planned Park/Open Space 1 19 6 16
Total
Demand
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 910 2,630 1,889 2,082
Peak Month Demand (AFY) 2,000 5,680 4,081 4,580
Peak Month Demand (mgd) 1.8 5.1 3.6 4.1
Demand
Information
Average Day Demand
Potable Use Offset (AFY) 34 97 34 97
Average Day Demand
of Future Customers (AFY) 244 1,058 346 956
City staff provided Woodard & Curran with information on two existing wastewater force mains (pipelines operating under pressure downstream of pump stations) that are scheduled to be decommissioned and could potentially be repurposed for recycled water. Using this information, Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5 were adjusted and evaluated further as described in Section 5.4.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-10
5.3 Regional Alternatives
Based on discussions with the City staff and the results of the Market Assessment discussed in Chapter 4, five conceptual alternatives (numbered 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) were developed to explore the possibility of collaborating with a regional partner. For each potential partner, a small and large sub-alternative was developed based on the following assumptions:
(a) For the larger sub-alternative, recycled water deliveries were set equal to the maximum flow rate available at buildout of the WQCF (9.87 mgd), with no allowance for other landscape irrigation customers. The represents the maximum possible volume of recycled water deliveries.
(b) For the smaller sub-alternative, recycled water deliveries were capped at a peak month flow rate of 3.6 mgd. This is equal to the current availability of recycled water (5.7 mgd) less planned internal usage at the WQCF (0.3 mgd) and less deliveries to the small base of urban landscape irrigation customers listed in Alternative 1 (1.8 mgd).
Each regional alternative is discussed further in the sections below.
5.3.1 Alternative 6 – Partner with South San Joaquin Irrigation District In Alternative 6, the City would partner with South San Joaquin Irrigation District. The City would pump recycled water to the east into the SSJID distribution system. SSJID would either purchase the water or exchange it for treated water for potable use in Manteca. It is assumed that SSJID would only receive water during the 6-month irrigation season when irrigation demand is high, resulting in a demand of 1,990 AFY under current conditions and 5,190 AFY at buildout. Facilities required for Alternative 6 are illustrated in Figure 5-6.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-11
Figure 5-6: Alternative 6 – Transfer to South San Joaquin Irrigation District ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-12
5.3.2 Alternative 7 – Deliver Water to Agricultural Users to the Northeast of the City Under Alternative 7, the City would sell water to agricultural users northeast of the City, located within the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District service area, or provide the water to the local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) for use in groundwater basin recharge to overcome existing overdraft conditions and help sustain the basin. Under the first version of Alternative 7, the City would target customers located northeast of the City so that recycled water use for irrigation would offset groundwater pumping in an area with a significant cone of depression. No specific customers have been identified this alternative; rather, this alternative was developed primarily to support a cost estimate for designing and constructing a recycled water pipeline to this area of the county. Under this alternative, it is assumed that agricultural users would only receive water during the 6-month irrigation season, resulting in a demand of 1,990 AFY under current conditions and 5,190 AFY at buildout. Facilities required for Alternative 7 are illustrated in Figure 5-7.
Either version of Alternative 7 – with or without percolation ponds for recharge of recycled water – could be also used for seasonal deliveries to landscape or agricultural irrigation customers located near the pipeline right-of-way. The pipeline alignment show below was developed primarily for cost estimating purposes, without consideration of utility conflicts or consideration of irrigation demands along the pipeline route.
Figure 5-7: Alternative 7 – Transfer to Agriculture to the Northeast of Manteca ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-13
A second version of Alternative 7 would be to use the same assumed pipeline to deliver recycled water for a year-round groundwater recharge project. As shown in Figure 5-8, the pipeline would terminate near the edge of the Farmington Groundwater Recharge Area. The Farmington Groundwater Recharge Area is operated as part of the Farmington Groundwater Recharge Program (Farmington Program), a program designed to replenish the underlying aquifers to help ensure future groundwater supply and protect against further saltwater intrusion. The goal of the Farmington Program is to primarily benefit the groundwater basin and enhance local habitats. As envisioned, the program would obtain 25 to 30 parcels of land, totaling 1,200 acres, for directly recharging the groundwater aquifers. It is estimated that the development of the identified parcels into recharge areas may return approximately 35,000 AF/Y of water into the over-drafted groundwater basin in eastern San Joaquin County. The program is referenced here as an example of the type of recharge projects that have already been envisioned in the region, not a requirement or endorsement of this specific program.
At present, the Farmington Groundwater Recharge Program facility consists of two 15-acre recharge ponds with earthen berms, one 5-acre overflow pond and one 19-acre dual purpose storage/recharge pond, with a capacity of 60-million gallons for a total active recharge area of 49 acres, about 80% of the 60-acre site.
Water is gravity fed into the recharge ponds until a sufficient head is developed to regulate percolation.
Since 2003, the observed range of recharge at the Farmington Program site has fluctuated from 2,789 AFY to 5,825 AFY with an average of 4,400 AFY.
Under this version of Alternative 7, additional percolation ponds could be constructed in the Farmington Program area for additional basin augmentation. Surface water currently being percolated by the project would potentially provide the required diluent water for a recycled water recharge program, and the blended (surface water + recycled water) water supplies would be percolated into the groundwater basin via new percolation ponds. For direct recharge of the recycled water alone, and without consideration of seasonal storage, a parcel size of between 4 – 115 acres would be required for direct percolation of the City’s anticipated recycled water production, as shown below in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8: Estimated Percolation Area Required for Recycled Water Recharge Percolation Rate Basis
Area Needed for 3.4
mgd flow rate (acres)
Area needed for 9.4
mgd flow rate (acres)
High – 3 ft/day CALFED Recharge Basin 3.5 10
Low - 0.25 ft/day Tracy Lakes 42 115
Source: Amended Map to Accompany Permit 10477 by North San Joaquin Water Conservation District. December 2014. Available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/applications/petitions/2014/12842_draft_map.pdf Percolation rates (and therefore percolation pond sizing) is highly dependent on site-specific soil conditions, which vary considerably in the region east of the City, as indicated below in Figure 5-8. The areas with the most favorable soil conditions for recharge are within City limits or to southeast (see Figure 5-8), while the areas of the groundwater basin with critical overdraft conditions are primarily north and northeast of the City (see Figure 4-3).
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-14
Figure 5-8: Alternative 7 – Transfer to Northeast of Manteca for Groundwater Recharge In summary, Alternative 7 could be implemented to directly supply agricultural irrigators northeast of the City, or it could support a groundwater recharge program in the area. Either approach could contribute to groundwater sustainability in the region, thereby warranting further analysis in the context of SGMA and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan to be developed for the basin. Due to the array of possible outcomes for SGMA implementation (see section 2.1.1), this alternative was not carried forward for additional analysis except to develop a cost estimate for the relevant pipeline and pump station.
5.3.3 Alternative 8 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Indirect Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal
In Alternative 8, the City would sell water to a Central Valley Project (CVP) contractor. Water would be piped from the WQCF to an intermediary’s canal (such as the Banta-Carbona Canal), which would deliver water to the Delta-Mendota Canal for diversion and use by the water buyer. The City would deliver water year-round, resulting in a delivery of 4,030 AFY under current conditions and 10,530 AFY at buildout.
Facilities required for Alternative 8 are illustrated in Figure 5-9.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-15
Figure 5-9: Alternative 8 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Indirect Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-16
5.3.4 Alternative 9 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Indirect Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal
In Alternative 9, the City would sell water to a CVP contractor (as under Alternative 8); however, under this alternative, the water would be piped from the WQCF directly to the Delta-Mendota Canal for diversion and use by the water buyer. The City would deliver water year-round, resulting in a delivery of 4,030 AFY under current conditions and 10,530 AFY at buildout. Facilities required for Alternative 9 are illustrated in Figure 5-10.
Figure 5-10: Alternative 9 – Transfer to Central Valley Project Contractor with Direct Pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-17
5.3.5 Alternative 10 – Transfer of Water Rights to Mountain House Irrigation District In Alternative 10, the City would continue discharging recycled water to the San Joaquin River, secure water rights for those discharges and then sell those rights to Mountain House Community Services District.
The City would not be required to build any additional facilities, but Mountain House would have to construct new intake facilities on Middle River or use its existing delivery infrastructure that connects to Clifton Court Forebay. The City would deliver water to the San Joaquin River year-round, resulting in a delivery of 4,030 AFY under current conditions and 10,530 AFY at buildout. Alternative 10 is illustrated in Figure 5-11.
Figure 5-11: Alternative 10 – Transfer of Water Rights to Mountain House Irrigation District ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 5 Project Alternatives
Analysis
January 2023 5-18
5.3.6Summary of Regional
Alternatives
Table 5-9 summarizes the demands for each of the regional alternatives.
Table 5-9: Summary of Regional Alternatives
Alternative
6 7 8 9 10
a b a b a b a b a b
Regional Partner South San Joaquin
Irrigation District
Agriculture NE of
Manteca
CVP Contractor
(indirect pipeline to
the DMC)
CVP Contractor
(direct pipeline to the
DMC)
Mountain House
Irrigation District
Description
Pump water to the
east of the City into
the SSJID distribution
system
Pump water to the
agricultural users to
the northeast of the
City where there is a
significant cone of
depression for use in
lieu of groundwater
for irrigation
Pump water to an
existing canal (such
as the BantaCarbona Canal)
which can wheel
water to the DMC for
use by a CVP
partner
Pump water directly to
the DMC to be
transported to a CVP
partner
Continue
discharging water
to the San
Joaquin River
and transfer
water rights for
that discharge to
Mountain House.
Annual Demand
(AFY) 5,190 1,990 5,190 1,990 10,530 4,030 10,530 4,030 10,530 4,030 Peak Month
Demand (mgd) 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 5 Project Alternatives
Analysis
January 2023 5-19
Using the Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheet-based hydraulic model and the design criteria described in the previous section, the pipeline and pump station sizes were determined for each alternative. Table 5-10 summarizes the infrastructure required for each of the local alternatives. All of the local alternatives will require addition of sodium hypochlorite to provide a chlorine residual within the local distribution system.
The treatment system will be sized according to demands for the alternative.
Table 5-10: Summary of Local Alternatives Infrastructure Alternative 1 2 4 5
Infrastructure
Needed
Total Pipe Length (ft) 23,600 158,000 63,100 95,100
Pump Station (HP) 370 1,080 560 860
Storage (MG) 0.4 3.7 1.4 2.7
Treatment Needed
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Y Y Y Y
Total
Demand
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 910 2,686 1,447 2,082
Peak Month Demand (AFY) 2,000 5,790 3,180 4,580
Peak Month Demand (mgd) 1.8 5.2 2.8 4.1
Peak Hour Demand (mgd) 5.4 15.5 8.5 12.3
Table 5-11 summarizes the requirements for the regional alternatives, which do not include booster chlorination prior to distribution, as that cost would be put on the water exchange partner if it is required.
After meeting with WQCF staff, it was determined that a new clearwell will be required at the pump station, even if new storage is not constructed (e.g., for the regional alternatives).
Table 5-11: Summary of Regional Alternatives Infrastructure Alternative
6 7 8 9 10
a b a b a b a b a b
Regional
Partner SSJID
Agriculture NE
of Manteca
CVP
Contractor
CVP
Contractor
Mountain
House
Total Pipe
Length (ft) 68,100 52,800 41,200 68,000 None
Pump Station
(HP) 640 800 480 480 320 400 480 None
Demand
(AFY) 5,190 1,990 5,190 1,990 10,530 4,030 10,530 4,030 10,530 4,030 Demand
(mgd) 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6
5.4 Alternative Evaluation
Alternatives were evaluated based on cost as well as a number of non-monetary criteria as discussed below.
5.4.1 Estimated Cost
Planning-level cost estimates were developed for each alternative. The estimated costs are summarized in Table 5-12 and Table 5-13 for the local and regional alternatives, respectively. A more detailed breakdown of the costs for each alternative can be found in Appendix E. Costs associated with any required retrofits for recycled water use on the customer’s property were not included in the overall alternative cost estimates.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 5 Project Alternatives
Analysis
January 2023 5-20
Table 5-12: Local Project Alternative Cost Estimates
Alternative 1 2 4 5
Total Capital Costa $7,839,000 $44,825,000 $16,407,000 $26,281,000 Annual O&Mb $192,000 $568,000 $309,000 $450,000
Total Annualized Costc $594,000 $2,855,000 $1,146,000 $1,791,000 Estimated Yield (AFY) 910 2,686 1,450 2,080
Peak Flow (mgd) 5.4 15.5 8.5 12.3
Unit Cost ($/AF) $650 $1,063 $790 $860
Notes:
a. Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for November 2022 at 13,175. which represents an approximate 32% increase from the January 2015 CCI at 9,972. Includes 25% for implementation and 30% for contingency in 2022 dollars. Costs for Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for January 2015 at 9,972. b. Assumes no escalation of O&M costs.
c. Assumes project lifespan of 30 years and 3% interest rate.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 5 Project Alternatives
Analysis
January 2023 5-21
Table 5-13: Regional Project
Alternative Cost Estimates
Alternative
6 7 8 9 10
a b a b a b a b a b
Regional Partner
SSJID Agriculture NE of Manteca CVP Contractor CVP Contractor Mountain House
Demand (mgd) 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6 9.4 3.6
Total Capital Costa 45,260,000 $30,866,000 $37,645,000 27,676,000 $27,676,000 $18,974,000 $50,357,000 $35,469,000 $0 $0 Annual O&Mb $515,000 $281,000 $679,000 $360,000 $133,000 $315,000 $1,404,000 $684,000 $0 $0 Total Annualized
Costc $2,824,000 $1,856,000 $2,600,000 $1,772,000 $1,988,000 $1,283,000 $3,973,000 $2,494,000 $0 $0 Estimated Yield
(AFY) 5,190 1,990 5,190 1,990 10,530 4,030 10,530 4,030 10,530 4,030 Wheeling
Costs ($/AFY)
USBR
DMCd
-- -- -- -- $50 $50 $50 $50 -- --
BantaCarbonad
-- -- -- -- $200 $200 -- -- -- --
Unit Cost ($/AF) $540 $930 $500 $890 $440 $570 $380 $620 N/A N/A Notes:
a. Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for January 2015 at 9,972. Includes 25% for implementation and 30% construction contingency. b. Includes 30% for contingency.
c. Assumes project lifespan of 30 years, 3% interest rate. d. Wheeling costs are estimates.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-22
5.4.2 Non-Monetary Criteria
A number of different criteria taken into consideration in evaluating the ten identified alternatives. Table 5-14 provides an overview of the criteria used in the evaluation.
Table 5-14: Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Description Score Range
Ease of
Implementation -
Planning/Permits/
Partners
Assessment of the time, challenges
and requirements to plan the project,
obtain all required permits, and
coordinate with partner agencies to
develop the institutional structure for
project operation.
1 – Least Favorable (Requires the
most planning/permits/partners)
4 – Most Favorable (Requires the least
planning/permits/partners)
Ease of
Construction
Assessment of the time, challenges
and requirements to design and
construct the necessary infrastructure
for the supply option.
1 – Least Favorable (Requires the
most effort to construction)
4 – Most Favorable (Requires the least
effort to construct)
City Supply
Benefits
Assessment of the impact to the
City’s water supply. Does the
alternative benefit the City's local
water supply by offsetting potable
water use, decreasing reliance on
groundwater, or improving supply
reliability?
1 – Does not impact the City’s water
supply
2 – May impact the City’s water supply
3 – Will increase the City’s water
supply
Regional
Groundwater
Sustainability
Assessment of the impact on regional
groundwater sustainability. Does the
alternative contribute to regional
groundwater sustainability?
1 – Water is not used within the
groundwater basin
2 – Water is used within the
groundwater basin
Environmental
Impacts
Assessment of the challenges to
implement the alternative without
significant impacts to the environment
and the level of mitigation that may be
required to address any impacts.
1 – Water that would be discharged to
the San Joaquin River is redirected for
other use, or discharged water is
diverted downstream
2 – All treated water remains in the
San Joaquin River
A score was developed for each alternative based on how well it met the goals of the criteria in Table 5-14, and the relative weight of each criteria based on City feedback. The scoring for each alternative is presented in Table 5-15. The score assigned to each alternative for each criteria ranged from (1) being least favorable to (2), (3) or (4) being the most favorable, with a 2.84 being a perfect final score. Alternative 7 was not evaluated as the City requested that this alternative be removed from further consideration.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-23
Table 5-15: Alternative Evaluation – Criteria Grading, Weighting and Scoringa Criteria
(Scoring Range)
Weight
1 - Core
2 - All
4 - North
5 - South
6 - SSJID
8 – Indirect
DMC
9 - Direct
DMC
10 – Mtn
House
Ease of Implementation -
Planning/Permits/Partners
(1, 2, 3 or 4)
13% 4 3 3 3 2 1 2 2
Ease of Construction
(1, 2, 3 or 4) 8% 4 3 4 4 2 2 1 4
City Supply Benefits
(1, 2, or 3) 40% 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1
Regional Groundwater
Sustainability
(1 or 2)
29% 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Environmental Impacts
(1 or 2) 11% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Scoreb 2.69 2.49 2.56 2.56 1.89 1.08 1.13 2.69
Score as a Percentage 95% 88% 90% 90% 67% 38% 40% 95%
Notes:
a. The City requested that Alternative 7 be removed from further consideration. b. The larger the number, the more favorable the score, with a perfect score being 2.84
5.4.3 Alternative Evaluation
Once the alternatives were scored, the results were compared using both unit costs ($/AF) and nonmonetary criteria scoring. The cost and score of each alternative is shown below in Figure 5-12, in which the lower right area (green shading) is labeled “Best” because these projects have the highest score for the least cost. Conversely, the “Worst” projects (orange shading in the upper left) have the lowest score and the highest cost.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 5 Project Alternatives Analysis January 2023 5-24
Figure 5-12: Alternative Scores versus Costs
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-1
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities Project Plan
Based on the results of Chapter 5, the recommended project is to move forward with a local project that maximizes reuse within the City. The recommended project, Alternative 2, includes approximately 2,686 AFY of deliveries to current and future landscape irrigation customers, and approximately 300 AFY for internal reuse within the WQCF.
6.1 Recommended Project (Alternative 2 with Additional Use at Treatment Plant)
Alternative 2 (All Demands) was selected as the recommended local project for the following reasons:
• Maximizes Local Reuse: Alternative 2 serves as many local demands as possible, resulting in more reuse within the City than any other alternative. Existing customers, such as the golf course and Woodward Community Park would be converted from groundwater to recycled water for irrigation, reducing the City’s reliance on groundwater pumping and contributing to groundwater sustainability. This approach is also consistent with California's water use targets (SBx7-7 and its recycled water mandate).
• Ability to Expand Over Time: The project can initially be sized to serve existing demands, in particular those located adjacent to the WQCF and listed as part of Alternative 1. New customers can be added gradually as the distribution grows north along Airport Way and south along Woodward Avenue.
• Meets Demands of New Development: New users can be tied into the distribution system as development occurs. Notable future users include development along Airport Way in the northern part of the City; development near Austin Road in the southeastern part of the City; and planned subdivisions such as Griffin Park, Trails at Manteca, and others. • Utilization of Existing Infrastructure: Alternative 2 takes advantage of two existing pipeline spines which decreases the unit cost of reaching customers and eliminates the cost of decommissioning the main
The recommended project is illustrated in Figure 6-1. This alternative would be implemented along with the conversion of the WQCF to use recycled water for internal process water.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities Project Plan January 2023 6-1
Figure 6-1: Recommended Project
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-1
6.1.1 Target Users
The recommended project would provide approximately 2,686 AFY of recycled water to irrigation customers throughout the City, including 643 AFY for landscape irrigation demands serving future development. In addition, the project will result in approximately 300 AFY of reuse onsite at the treatment plant. The target users are listed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Recommended Project Target Users
ID # Name Type
Demand
(AFY) Potable Offset (Y/N)
Groundwater
Offset
(Y/N)
017 Golf Course Park 406 N Y
018 Morenzone Ballfield Park 13 N Y
019 Villa Ticino Park Park 27 N Y
021 Monte Bello Park Park 12 N Y
022 Primavera Park Park 31 N Y
023 Woodward Park 2 Park 17 N Y
024 Woodward Park 3 Park 20 N Y
025 Chadwick Square Park 50 N Y
026 Woodward Park 1 Park 14 N Y
027 Austin Rd
Development Park 245 N Y
015 Palmer Memorial Park Park 21 N Y
030 Terra Bella Park Park 14 N Y
031 Tesoro Park Park 38 N Y
032 Antigua Park Park 20 Y Y
034 Dutra S.E. Park Park 28 N Y
044 Union Road Tennis
Park Park 11 N Y
046 Bella Vista Park 37 N Y
047 Dutra Estates Park Park 21 N Y
051 Gonsalves Estate
Greenbelt Park 10 Y Y
054 Union Ranch West
Park Park 22 N Y
055 Union Ranch Rec
Center Park 28 N Y
056 Union Ranch North
Park Park 36 N Y
060 Union Road Park Park 6 Y Y
061 Doxey Park Park 16 N Y
063 Northgate Parks Park 17 N Y
073 Cambridge Greenbelt Park 6 N Y
074 Gonsalves Estate
Park Park 3 N Y
075 Union West Park Park 19 Y Y
076 Robert Estates Park 22 N Y
077 Woodward
Community Park 203 N Y
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-2
ID # Name Type
Demand
(AFY) Potable Offset (Y/N)
Groundwater
Offset
(Y/N)
078 Paseo West Circle
Park Park 6 Y Y
083 Union Ranch East
Park Park 30 N Y
084 Family Entertainment
Zone Park 244 N Y
086 BLD - Fields Park 42 N Y
087 Stadium Plaza Park Park 19 N Y
088 Airport Way Park 45 N Y
095 Veritas Elementary
School School 36 Y Y
105 McParland (George)
Elementary School School 31 N Y
106 East Union High
School School 93 N Y
107 Hafley (Neil)
Elementary School 22 N Y
109 Woodward (Walter)
Elementary School School 26 N Y
110 Sierra High School School 92 N Y
111 Brock Elliott
Elementary School School 37 N Y
114 Brockman (Stella)
Elementary School School 59 N Y
115
Brockman (Stella)
Elementary School
Annex School 20 N Y
003 Evans Estates Park Park 23 N Y
007 Oakwood Trails
Parcel D Park 36 N Y
008 Oakwood Trails
Parcel A Park 20 N Y
009 Trails at Manteca
Park Park 80 N Y
010 Terra Ranch Park Park 20 N Y
011 Cerri Park Park 40 N Y
012 Denali Park Park 24 N Y
013 Hat Ranch Park Park 40 N Y
014 Griffin Park Park 104 N Y
001 Blossom Grove Park Park 9 N Y
002 Pillsbury Estates Park Park 19 N Y
#N/A Villa Ticino West Park 1 Park 28 N Y
#N/A Villa Ticino West Park 2 Park 28 N Y
Total (AFY) 2,686 97 2,349
Note: Villa Ticino West Parks 1 and 2 added in 2023.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-3
6.1.2 Primary Facilities
Table 6-2 summarizes the primary facilities required for this alternative. These facilities include a 1,080- horsepower (HP) recycled water pump station at the WQCF, approximately 160,000 linear feet (LF) of distribution pipelines (including 32,000 LF of already constructed recycled water main and 22,000 LF of constructed main to be rehabbed for recycled water delivery), and approximately 3.7 million gallons (MG) of storage at the WQCF. A new clearwell and a sodium hypochlorite disinfection treatment will also be required to treat water before distribution to customers. Onsite retrofits will be needed at the golf course and other sites to make use of recycled water, and pressure reducing valves (PRVs) will likely be required at the Family Entertainment Zone and Big League Dreams in order to ensure delivery pressures fall within the required range. Additionally, onsite retrofitting of the WQCF will be needed in order to utilize recycled water at the treatment facility.
Due to the number of future demands (and their large associated flow rates) served with Alternative 2, the proposed pump station and storage can be phased in order to maximize efficiency and cost. The pump station should be constructed so as to allow for easy expansion when future parks are developed south of Highway 120. This includes the initial construction of empty pump cans, extensions of discharge/suction headers, and added space and conduits for the electrical wiring and pump drives. The storage requirement can be split into two tanks, the first of which will provide storage for existing customers and the second tank can be constructed as future customers come online.
Table 6-2: Recommended Project Facilities
Project Facilities Quantity Unit
Pipelines
4-inch 27,200 LF
6-inch 18,200 LF
8-inch 12,800 LF
10-inch 16,500 LF
12-inch 55,000a LF
16-inch 13,000 LF
18-inch 7,900 b LF
20-inch 2,900 LF
24-inch 6,500 c LF
Storage
Storage Tanks 3,700,000 Gallons
Pumping
Pump Station at WQCF
1,080-HP Pump Station 1 ea
Number of Duty Pumps 4 ea
Pump Size 300 HP
Onsite Customer Retrofits
Retrofits for existing customer,
including extensive golf course
and WQCF retrofits 40 EA
Customer PRV
Customers requiring PRVs 2 EA
Notes:
a. Includes 24,000 LF of installed recycled water main and 15,500 LF of installed pipeline to be rehabbed. Assumes that all installed recycled water main is 12-inch diameter. b. Includes 7,900 LF of installed recycled water main (rehabbed) c. Includes 6,500 LF of installed pipeline to be rehabbed.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-4
6.1.3 Cost Estimate
Table 6-3 presents the estimated costs for this alternative. These costs include $396,000 for onsite retrofits at the WQCF, based on the City’s 2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as well as costs for converting the golf course and other sites. Exact requirements for the onsite retrofits (and therefore associated costs) are not yet known, but were estimated as $330,000 for the golf course, $11,800 per site for existing potable water users, and $14,500 per site for existing groundwater users. These costs are based on similar recycled water conversion projects throughout the state, primarily in Southern California.
Table 6-3: Recommended Project Estimated Costs
Project Facilities Estimated Costb
Pipelines $/lfa
4-inch $56 $2,143,680
6-inch $84 $1,989,240
8-inch $112 $1,730,520
10-inch $140 $3,026,760
12-inch $168 (new) & $42 (rehabbing pipe) $4,686,680
16-inch $224 $3,108,000
20-inch $280 $1,071,840
24-inch $84 (rehabbing pipe) $722,040
Storage
Storage Tank $5,616,600
Pumping
1,080-HP Pump Station and Clearwell $2,538,360
Treatment
Sodium Hypochlorite $330,000
Onsite Customer Retrofits
1 Retrofit per existing customer $550,440
Extensive Golf Course Retrofit $330,000
Customer PRV $13,200
Retrofit of WQCF $396,000
Raw Construction Cost $28,251,360
Capital Implementation Costs (25%) $6,497,875
Construction Total $34,749,450
Capital Project Contingency (30%) $10,077,356
Total Capital Cost $44,826,861
Total Annualized Capital Cost $2,287,033
Operations & Maintenance
Annual O&Mc $568,000
Total Annualized Cost $2,855,033
Yield (AF)c 2,686
Unit Cost ($/AF) $1,063
Notes:
a. Cost per lineal foot of pipe remains unchanged from previous draft. Estimated cost totals are escalated per note b.
b. Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for November 2022 at 13,175. which represents an approximate 32% increase from the January 2015 CCI at 9,972.
c. Annual O&M and Yield estimates remain unchanged from previous draft.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-5
6.1.4 Implementation Considerations
In order to implement the recommended project, the City will need to prepare a Title 22 Engineering Report, complete a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR), file for water rights (wastewater change petition), and secure funding through grants and/or low-interest loans. The City would also need to enroll in the State Water Resources Control Board’s general order, Waste Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (Order No. WQO-2016-0068-DDW), which would replace portions of the City’s current NPDES permit related to recycled water production and distribution. The City is currently developing their Urban Water Management Plan, and upon completion, will be able to apply for state grant funding.
Environmental Review and Documentation
An initial analysis of the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur from construction and operation of the recommended project must be conducted in order to proceed with project implementation.
The environmental analysis should evaluate the impacts of removing all recycled water from the discharge stream (to the San Joaquin River) as preparation for potential future expansion of recycled water use.
Water Rights Filing
As described in Section 2.3, the City should file a Wastewater Change Petition under California Water Code §1211 to secure water rights for the wastewater currently discharged to the San Joaquin River. This filing will ensure the City’s ability to fully utilize all of the tertiary-treated wastewater as recycled water, though it will likely be met with some resistance from water users downstream on the San Joaquin River.
Alternatively, if the City ultimately determines to transfer or sell water to Mountain House or another downstream user, a water rights filing under California Water Code §1485 would be required.
Title 22 Engineering Report and General Order Enrollment The City completed an Engineering Report for Production, Distribution, and Use of Reclaimed Water in 200537. The report, often referred to as a “Title 22 Report,” included some details about landscape irrigation, but the City never received formal approval from California Department of Public Health (now the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water) for landscape irrigation. This 2005 report is the basis for the City’s approved truck fill program, which was approved and is described in the City’s NPDES permit.
The 2005 Engineering Report requires a major update, as follows:
• Revise any descriptions of the actual, installed tertiary treatment system that differ from the design described in the 2005 document. The 2005 document was completed before the tertiary treatment system was constructed.
• Add additional details about actual end users (golf course, Big League Dreams, etc.) and the distribution system that will be constructed.
• Develop and add more detailed information about how the City will implement a recycled water program, including monitoring of use sites, cross-connection testing, and training. • Remove information about hypothetical end users that are not currently planned, such as groundwater recharge and dual plumbed use areas.
The Title 22 Report serves as the core technical document needed for the City to receive approval from the Division of Drinking Water to delivery recycled water to end users, and to enroll in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (Order No. WQO2016-0068-DDW). According to WQCF staff, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 37 Nolte, December 2005.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-6
staff have expressed a strong preference for the City to enroll in this general order, rather than modifying the City’s NPDES permit to include recycled water distribution and use. Unlike the NPDES permit, enrollment in the General Order does not expire, and permit terms will not change every 5 years (as they are likely to do under the NPDES permit).
Table 6-4 summarizes key required permits for the recommended project.
Table 6-4: Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Agencies for Permitting or Review for Recycled Water Use
Agency Name Permits or Special Topics
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• Water Discharge Requirements and/or Water
Recycling Requirements (preferred option is
to enroll in General Order WQO-2016-0068-
DDW)
• Stormwater General Permit for Construction
State Water Resources Control Board – Division
of Water Rights Wastewater Change Petition
State Water Resources Control Board – Division
of Drinking Water
Title 22 Engineers Report for the Production,
Distribution and Use of Recycled Water
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Permit to Construct City of Manteca Department of Public Works • Grading and clearing • Encroachment Permit
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, cable and
telecommunications providers Infrastructure review, as applicable
6.2 Implementation Plan
The recommended project can be split into four phases in order to better manage cash flow and the scaling up of recycled water deliveries. A description of those phases is presented below.
Phase 1
Phase 1 would include the following activities:
• Begin pre-design, to the extent that it is necessary for properly phasing the project, preparing applications for grant funding, and identifying environmental impacts. • Complete a Wastewater Change Petition (California Water Code §1211). • Complete and certify an Environmental Impact Report.
• Obtain agreements with end users (particularly those that are not part of the City Parks and Recreation Department) to ensure that customers will convert to recycled water once the distribution system is constructed.
• Apply for funding applicable to Phases 1, 2, and 3.
• Update the Title 22 Engineering Report for Production, Distribution, and Use of Reclaimed Water.
• Apply for enrollment under the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Order, Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (Order No. WQO-2016-0068-DDW). • Upon preparation of the reports and receipt of all required permits, finalize design and construct the disinfection treatment system (sized for Phases 1 through 3). Outside funding can be pursued to help offset these construction costs.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-7
• Complete retrofits at the WQCF for about 300,000 gpd of onsite recycled water use. Grant funding can be pursued to help offset these construction costs.
Phase 2
In Phase 2, planning, permitting and design for the pipelines and pump station serving all demands should be prepared (e.g., complete the pipeline design for both Phase 2 and Phase 3). Construction of the pump station (with pumps to meet existing demands) and pipelines to Big League Dreams and the Family Entertainment Zone should be completed and work should be done to rehabilitate existing pipeline (cleaning, testing, etc.). All required retrofits at the Big League Dreams facility should also be completed; retrofits are not needed for Family Entertainment Zone because it is not yet constructed. Outside funding can be pursued to help offset construction costs, although pipelines that are sized for future uses are subject to special rules.
Phase 3
In Phase 3, construction of the pipelines to serve existing customers should be completed in addition to retrofits at the user facilities for recycled water. Finally, the first recycled water storage tank at the WQCF can be built. Outside funding can be pursued to help offset construction costs.
Phase 4 – Phased with Development
In Phase 4, construction of the pipelines to serve future customers will take place as those developments are finalized. The pump station at the WQCF can be upsized, as appropriate, to handle the increased demands, and a second storage tank will be constructed to meet additional demands. Developer funding can be pursued to help offset construction costs. The timing of this phase is completely dependent on planned development and can be shifted ahead of or in conjunction with Phase 3. Major construction to be completed during each phase is listed below in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5: Major Facilities within each Phase of Recommended Project Phase Facility Upgrade/Construction
1 • Install booster chlorination system at WQCF
• Compete retrofits at WQCF to allow for onsite recycled water use 2 • Construct pump station at WQCF
• Rehab existing sanitary sewer force mains for recycled water use • Install pipe to serve Big League Dreams and Family Entertainment Zone
• Complete retrofits at Big League Dreams to allow for recycled water use
3 • Install pipelines to serve all additional existing customers (except those already constructed in Phase 2)
• Complete retrofits for existing customers to allow for recycled water use, including retrofits to golf course
• Construct storage tank at WQCF to meet recycled water demands 4 • Install pipelines to serve future customers as they come online • Upsize pump station at WCQF (fill empty can and controls/electrical) to meet demands of additional customers
• Construct additional storage tank at WQCF to meet additional recycled water demands
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-8
6.2.1 Phasing Schedule and Cost Breakdown
A breakdown of the recommended project costs by phase are presented below in Table 6-6.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-9
Table 6-6: Recommended Project Estimated Costs by Phase Project Facilities Estimated Costa
Phase 1
Planning
Title 22 Eng. Report, EIR, Water Rights Filingb $400,000 Distribution System Pre-Design (including Pump
Station)b $1,732,000
Treatment
Sodium Hypochlorite $535,920
Onsite Customer Retrofits
1 extensive retrofit at the WQCF $396,000
Raw Construction Cost $2,663,920
Capital Implementation Costs (25%) $665,980
Capital Project Contingency (30%) $998,970
Total Phase 1 Capital Cost $4,328,870
Total Phase 1 Cost $4,728,870
Phase 2
Pipelines
Prepare existing pipeline for cleaning/rehab c(~22,000 LF) + Ongoing Design for Phase 3 $2,223,320
Pumping
1,080-HP Pump Station $1,164,240
Onsite Customer Retrofits
BLD and FEZ retrofits $66,000
Storage
Storage Tank Design b $1,276,000
Raw Construction Cost $4,729,560
Capital Implementation Costs (25%) $1,182,390
Capital Project Contingency (30%) $1,773,585
Total Phase 2 Capital Cost $7,685,535
Total Phase 2 Cost $7,685,535
Phase 3
Pipelines
Install new pipe to connect to existing users (~67,400
LF)d $8,354,720
Onsite Customer Retrofits
1 golf course retrofit $330,000
1 retrofit per existing customer $484,440
Storage
Storage Tank Construction $2,246,640
Raw Construction Cost $12,415,800
Capital Implementation Costs (25%) $3,103,450
Capital Project Contingency (30%) $4,655,925
Total Phase 3 Capital Cost $20,175,675
Total Phase 3 Cost $20,175,675
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-10
Project Facilities Estimated Cost
Phase 4
Pipelines
Install new pipe to connect to future users (~26,700 LF) d $5,068,800 Pumping
1,080-hp Pump Station Buildout $776,160
Storage
Storage Tank Construction $1,684,320
Raw Construction Cost $7,529,280
Capital Implementation Costs (25%) $1,882,320
Capital Project Contingency (30%) $2,823,480
Total Phase 3 Capital Cost $12,235,080
Total Phase 4 Cost $12,235,080
Total Cost $44,825,160
Notes:
a. Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for November 2022 at 13,175. which represents an approximate 32% increase from the January 2015 CCI at 9,972.
b. Design/permitting costs remains unchanged from previous draft. c. Length of pipe to be rehabbed has decreased since 2017 based on conversion to recycled water pipe. d. Length of proposed recycled water pipe is assumed to be equal to proposed length from previous draft.
An implementation schedule for the recommended project is shown in Figure 6-2.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities Project Plan January 2023 6-11
Figure 6-2: Implementation Schedule
Task Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Local Reuse Alternative
Petition for Change (Water Rights Filing)
Environmental Documentation
Funding Pursuit
Market Assurances
Title 22 / General Order Enrollment
Design (All Phases)
Permitting Phase 1
Bidding Phase 1
Construction Phase 1
Permitting Phase 2
Bidding Phase 2
Construction Phase 2
Permitting Phase 3
Bidding Phase 3
Construction Phase 3
Permitting Phase 4
Bidding Phase 4
Construction Phase 4
2026 2027
Future
2023 2024 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 6 Recommended Facilities
Project Plan
January 2023 6-12
6.3 Regional Expansion
The recommended project, if fully constructed, will use much of the City’s available recycled water during summer months (5.5 mgd out of a currently available flow of 5.7 mgd). However, should the City choose to implement a smaller project— such as Alternative 1, serving users located adjacent to the WQCF — it could be supplemented with additional recycled water use project(s). Additionally, WQCF flows are expected to grow in the future, providing additional recycled water. From a cost perspective, a single, larger project that would utilize all remaining recycled water with minimal additional infrastructure would be best, and therefore the supplemental project would most likely be one of the regional alternatives. As such, three regional alternatives are recommended for future consideration, described below.
Mountain House Water Rights Transfer
This option, which would build off Regional Alternative 10, is the lowest-cost project. The City would secure water rights to their recycled water discharges and then sell those rights to Mountain House. This project is ideal because the City would not have to construct any additional facilities; the major costs would be associated with legal and planning work. Further discussions and negotiations are needed with Mountain House before a more detailed implementation plan can be prepared, but the City should seek to secure water rights for its current recycled water discharges to the San Joaquin River so that it is able to transfer that water to its future partner should this alternative move forward.
South San Joaquin Irrigation Partnership
This option would build off of Regional Alternative 6 in which the City would partner with SSJID. The City could either sell recycled water to SSJID or trade it for potable supply. In addition to sending recycled water to SSJID, additional local users could potentially be served along the regional pipeline route. At this time, SSJID has not expressed interest in the City’s recycled water, so further discussion and negotiations would be needed to develop a more detailed plan. In the meantime, the City should seek to secure water rights for its current recycled water discharges to the San Joaquin River so that it is able to transfer that water to SSJID should this alternative move forward.
Central-Valley Project Contractor Partnership
This option would build off of Regional Alternative 9 in which the City would construct a direct pipeline to the DMC and sell water to a downstream CVP contractor. Further discussions and negotiations are required with a potential CVP partner(s) before a more detailed implementation plan can be prepared. In the meantime, the City should seek to secure water rights for its current recycled water discharges to the San Joaquin River so that it is able to transfer that water to its future partner(s) should this alternative move forward.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-1
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program
7.1 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Schedule
The total cost of facilities to serve the customers is $44.8 million in 2022 dollars. The following CIP schedule matches the order of the recommended project phasing presented in Chapter 6. This schedule can be incorporated into the City’s existing CIP in order to properly budget and schedule the recommended project. The Phased costs are escalated at 3% per year for the first 5 years, resulting in a total capital cost of $50.8 million. The column titled, “Phased with Development,” corresponds to project elements that are for future planned developments; the phasing of these elements would be development-dependent and could be partially or fully funded by developers. In this case, the “Phased with Development” costs could be higher depending on the timing of development projects. The proposed CIP schedule for the recommended project is shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Capital Improvement Program
Project
Component
Proposed
FY 22/23
Proposed
FY 23/24
Proposed
FY 24/25
Proposed
FY –23 - 25
Phased with
Development Total
Planning (Title 22
Eng. Report, EIR,
Water Rights
Filing)
$200,000 $200,000 $400,000
Treatment
(Sodium
Hypochlorite)
$535,920 $535,920
Pump Station $1,083,000 $2,006,000 $1,419,000 $4,508,000 Pipelines $1,950,000 $1,545,000 $4,555,000 $15,811,000 $9,271,000 $33,132,000 Onsite Customer
Retrofits $114,000 $1,447,000 $1,561,000
WQCF Retrofits $644,160 $644,160
Storage $2,905,000 $3,990,000 $3,082,000 $9,977,000
Total $2,880,080 $2,828,000 $9,580,000 $21,248,000 $13,772,000 $50,758,080 Note: Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for November 2022 at 13,175 which represents an approximate 32% increase from the January 2015 CCI of 9,972.
7.2 Financial Planning
In order to offset the costs of the recommended project, the City should pursue state and/or federal funding.
There are various grant and low-interest loan financing opportunities available to municipalities through programs administered by multiple funding agencies as described in section 7.4, below. By leveraging grants and low-interest loans, project costs paid directly by the City and its ratepayers can be offset. Any portion of the project costs not funded by a grant or low-interest loan would be added to the City’s CIP and be financed through sewer rates. The City will need to determine how to incorporate the cost of the recommended project into its rates. If the project is expanded in the future to include a regional partner, it is assumed that the partner will share in the costs of the project expansion. It should also be noted that the proposed schedule in Figure 6-2 does not include potential delays caused by synching the project with ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-2
funding and financial cycles. For example, applying for SRF funding by the end of 2023 would result in funding of a construction loan around June 2025, pushing out the proposed schedule accordingly.
In preparation for state and federal funding, the City should prepare a Title 22 Engineering Report, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that addresses CEQA, as well as applicable federal crosscutters (often referred to as CEQA-Plus), and file for the wastewater change petition. For those funding opportunities which could offset the cost of construction, preliminary designs (with associated construction cost estimates) should be completed prior to the pursuit of funding. Planning and design costs are sometimes eligible for construction grant funding, and if not, they can often count towards a local cost share.
7.3 Revenue Program
In order to create an appropriate cash flow during project implementation, a preliminary cash flow analysis was conducted assuming payments from the City, offset City costs and an outside funding source.
7.3.1 Offset City Costs
Once the recommended project has been implemented, the City will be able to eliminate costs associate with groundwater pumping or potable water deliveries at those sites to be served by recycled water. Table 7-2 summarizes the City’s costs that would be offset by recycled water use. MUSD pumping costs for those schools served by this alternative are listed for reference, but are not included in the total costs shown at the bottom of Table 7-2. These costs were developed in 2017 and will be updated as each project is developed.
Table 7-2: Annual City Costs Offset by Recycled Water Use Demand Served Water Source
Demand
(AFY)
Pumping Costs
($/Yr)
Potable Water
Costs ($/Yr)
Airport Way Groundwater 45 -- --
Antigua Park Potable 20 -- $10,200
Austin Rd Development Groundwater 245 -- --
Bella Vista Groundwater 37 $400 --
BLD - Fields Groundwater 42 $448 --
Blossom Grove Park Groundwater 9 $96 --
Brock Elliott Elementary School Groundwater 37 $400
paid by MUSD --
Brockman (Stella) Elementary
School Groundwater 59 $640paid by MUSD --
Brockman (Stella) Elementary
School Annex Groundwater 20 $224paid by MUSD --
Cambridge Greenbelt Groundwater 6 $64 --
Cerri Park Groundwater 40 $432 --
Chadwick Square Groundwater 50 $544 --
Denali Park Groundwater 24 $256 --
Doxey Park Groundwater 16 $176 --
Dutra Estates Park Groundwater 21 $224 --
Dutra S.E. Park Groundwater 28 $304 --
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-3
Demand Served Water Source
Demand
(AFY)
Pumping Costs
($/Yr)
Potable Water
Costs ($/Yr)
East Union High School Groundwater 93 $1,024
paid by MUSD --
Evans Estates Park Groundwater 23 $256 --
Family Entertainment Zone Groundwater 244 -- --
Golf Course Groundwater 406 $4,432 --
Gonsalves Estate Greenbelt Potable 10 -- $5,015
Gonsalves Estate Park Groundwater 3 $32 --
Griffin Park Groundwater 104 $1,136 --
Hafley (Neil) Elementary Groundwater 22 $240
paid by MUSD --
Hat Ranch Park Groundwater 40 $432 --
McParland (George) Elementary
School Groundwater 31 $336paid by MUSD --
Monte Bello Park Groundwater 12 $128 --
Morenzone Ballfield Groundwater 13 $144 --
Northgate Parks Groundwater 17 $192 --
Oakwood Trails Parcel A Groundwater 20 $224 --
Oakwood Trails Parcel D Groundwater 36 $400 --
Palmer Memorial Park Groundwater 21 $224 --
Paseo West Circle Park Potable 6 -- $3,160
Pillsbury Estates Park Groundwater 19 $208 --
Primavera Park Groundwater 31 $336 --
Robert Estates Groundwater 22 $240 --
Sierra High School Groundwater 92 $1,008
paid by MUSD --
Stadium Plaza Park Groundwater 19 $208 --
Terra Bella Park Groundwater 14 $144 --
Terra Ranch Park Groundwater 20 $224 --
Tesoro Park Groundwater 38 $416 --
Trails at Manteca Park Groundwater 80 $880 --
Union Ranch East Park Groundwater 30 $336 --
Union Ranch North Park Groundwater 36 -- --
Union Ranch Rec Center Groundwater 28 $304 --
Union Ranch West Park Groundwater 22 -- --
Union Road Park Potable 6 -- $2,840
Union Road Tennis Park Groundwater 11 $112 --
Union West Park Potable 19 -- $9,340
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-4
Demand Served Water Source
Demand
(AFY)
Pumping Costs
($/Yr)
Potable Water
Costs ($/Yr)
Veritas Elementary School Potable 36 --
$18,019
paid by MUSD
Villa Ticino Park Groundwater 27 $288 --
Woodward (Walter) Elementary
School Groundwater 26 $288paid by MUSD --
Woodward Community Groundwater 203 $2,224 --
Woodward Park 1 Groundwater 14 -- --
Woodward Park 2 Groundwater 17 -- --
Onsite use at WQCF Groundwater 300 $3,280 --
Total 2,930
$19,744 a $30,555a
$50,299a
Notes:
a. Does not include the costs paid by MUSD.
7.3.2 Recycled Water Rates
Recycled water rates were estimated in 2017 based on the estimated annual operation and maintenance costs of the recycled water system. It is assumed that the City will not include the capital costs associated with the recommended project in the recycled water rates, because doing so would result in recycled water rates that exceed potable water rates. A recycled water rate of about $167/AF (in $2015) is expected to offset the costs of operation and maintenance for the recycled water system. This rate will not be applied to internal use of recycled water at the WQCF, and costs associated with use at the facility were not included in this analysis. This calculated recycled water rate is less than half of the current City potable water rate of $449/AF38, making this a reasonable estimate for the recycled water rate. A breakdown of the recycled water rate is presented in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3: Recycled Water Rate Estimate
Project Component Unit Cost Units
Annual O&M
Cost
Treatment $ 0.50 $ / MG $ 43,000
Pipeline $ 0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 80,000
Pump Station
$ 0.16 $ / kWh $ 165,000
5% of capital + $10k $ 108,000
Storage Facility 1% % of capital $ 43,000
Total $ 439,000
RW Yield AFY 2,630
Rate $ / AF $ 167
Rate $ / ccf $ 0.38
Note: O&M costs based on 2017 data. Actual costs will be evaluated with each implementation phase 38 This corresponds to a water rate of $1.03/ccf for the first tier of residential water rates.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-5
7.4 Potential Funding Opportunities
7.4.1 Introduction
There are a variety of funding opportunities for planning and implementing recycled water projects. In addition to customary financing methods, including pay-as-you-go (cash reserves and operating revenues) and traditional bond financing, there are funding methods such as grant and low-interest loan programs administered by various state and federal agencies including, but not limited to:
• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program
• SWRCB Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) Grants
• California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) Infrastructure SRF Program • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Title XVI / Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN)
• Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
7.4.2 DAC Benefits
While there are disadvantaged communities (DACs) within the City of Manteca, the City itself is not considered a DAC. A DAC is a community with a median household income (MHI) less than 80% of the CA MHI of $78,672, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) dataset for 2016-2020.
DACs have MHIs less than $62,938 and severely DACs (SDACs) have MHIs less than $47,203. Manteca’s MHI is $76,846 based on the ACS 2016-2020 data, and thus, it does not qualify as a DAC. There are census tracts and census block groups within the City’s boundaries, so it is possible project benefits could be realized by DACs and securing grants and/or low-interest loans could reduce or eliminate potential rate increases that could provide a financial burden to DACs.
Funding programs that provide grants to DACs often require that the project will directly benefit a small DAC (either with a population less than 20,000 or 10,000 depending on the program). With a population of approximately 83,000, the City would not be considered “small” under the Drinking Water or Clean Water State Revolving Funding programs. If recycled water will offset potable supplies within the City and thus, benefit DACs in its service area and/or regional DACs with critical water supply or quality issues, it is possible that the project could more competitive.
7.4.3 Funding Opportunities
The recommended project could be eligible for the following programs which include grants, principal forgiveness, and low-interest loans. Grants are more desirable than low-interest loans. Low-interest loans from SWRCB through the CWSRF Program or ISRF loans from I-Bank are more desirable than WIFIA loans. This is described in more detail below and summarized in Error! Reference source not found..
CWSRF – SWRCB
SWRCB administers the CWSRF Program, offering low-interest loans to eligible applicants for construction of publicly-owned facilities, including wastewater treatment, local sewers, sewer interceptors, water reclamation facilities, and stormwater treatment; expanded use projects including implementation of nonpoint source projects or programs; and development and implementation of estuary comprehensive conservation and management plan, as well as water recycling projects.
CWSRF loans typically have a lower interest rate than bonds, at 50% of the rate obtained by the State Treasurer for California’s most recent General Obligation bond (typically 2.5% to 3%, currently 2.6%) at the time of the financing agreement. Loans are paid back over a term of up to 30 years. Repayment begins one year after construction is complete. Historically, SWRCB has offered principal forgiveness (PF) (i.e.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-6
grants) to applicants if the project directly benefits a small, DAC. Guidelines for the amounts of PF/grants available to DACs are outlined in the annual Intended Use Plan released by SWRCB each year.
The CWSRF application consists of the General, Technical, Financial, and Environmental packages each of which includes a form and various attachments. For a recycled water project, a CWSRF application is submitted, in addition to necessary water recycling project-specific application items including recycled water user assurances and a user connection schedule. Once an application is submitted, it can take nine to 12 months to execute a financing agreement once a project is placed on the intended Use Plan funding list, which is a 6 month process. Projects must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and additional federal requirements (i.e. CEQA-Plus). Other eligibility requirements include certification for compliance with water metering, certification for maintaining a Fiscal Sustainability Plan, complying with RWQCB requirements, and approval of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) by DWR.
Applications are submitted through SWRCB’s online submittal system, FAAST.
SWRCB funds projects on a readiness-to-proceed basis and score projects at the end of each calendar year to develop a fiscal year fundable list. It is important to be aware that funding through the CWSRF Program has been limited due to an oversubscription of funds. They continue to encourage agencies to apply, but have recommended applicants have a back-up plan for project financing should CWSRF financing not be available.
More information about the SWRCB CWSRF Program can be found here:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/.
Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) Grants
Prop 1 allocated $625M for water recycling projects, administered by SWRCB. Planning grants are available and applications are continuously accepted. WRFP construction grants are awarded when funding is available; based on information from SWRCB, because of the significant influx of recycled water applications, water recycling grants for construction projects is already allocated; however, additional funding could be available in the future.
Planning: The WRFP provides planning grants to assist public agencies to investigate the feasibility of recycling wastewater and assist with completing planning for water recycling projects.
Grants cover 50% of eligible project costs, up to the maximum established by the SWRCB in the CWSRF Intended Use Plan, or as otherwise limited by the SWRCB. Currently, a planning grant up to $300,000 is available with 50% ($150,000) cost sharing by the City. The application consists of a form; a Plan of Study that describes the activities to complete the study and develop the project report; a certification for compliance with water metering; demonstration of compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; an authorizing resolution to submit the application and execute an agreement; and any relevant service, management, operating or joint powers agreements.
Applications are submitted through SWRCB’s online submittal system, FAAST. The City is currently developing the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and will be eligible for funding once it is finalized.
Since this Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan was intended to align with the requirements of a Water Recycling Planning Grant (despite not receiving funding), a planning grant would only be needed if the City plans to substantively revise the analysis included in this Master Plan.
Construction: Construction grants through the WRFP fall under the purview of the CWSRF loan program, meaning in order to apply for a WRFP construction grant, a CWSRF application consisting of the General, Technical, Financial, and Environmental Packages is submitted to SWRCB. Once the application is submitted and a financing agreement is executed, SWRCB allocates the best loan and grant package possible (i.e. typical CWSRF financing, WRFP grant if available, principal forgiveness if available, etc.).
SWRCB can award WRFP grants for construction projects up to 35% of the reasonable, estimated ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-7
construction cost for the project or the final construction cost for the project. Because the WRFP is part of the CWSRF program, the same funding limitations apply. As stated above, construction grants are not likely to be available to new applicants due to the large number of applications received to date; however, funding could be available in the future.
More information about WRFP grants is available here:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/proposition1_fundin g.shtml.
Infrastructure SRF Program – I-Bank
The Infrastructure SRF (ISRF) Program provides low-interest loan financing to public agencies for a wide variety of infrastructure projects such as water supply, parks and recreation facilities, sewage collection and treatment, and water treatment and distribution projects. Financing is available in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $25 million with loan terms up to 30 years. I-Bank uses a proprietary interest rate method to ensure borrowers have the best chance to receive below-market interest rates, and the interest rate is set at the time the financing is approved. As of Fall 2021, interest rates were about 2.5-3%. Eligible applicants include cities, counties, special districts, assessment districts, joint power authorities, and nonprofit organizations. The applicant must demonstrate project readiness and feasibility to complete construction within 2 years after I-Bank’s loan approval. Additionally, the project must promote economic development and attract, create, and sustain long-term employment opportunities. There is no required match; however, there is a one-time origination fee of 1% of the ISRF financing amount or $10,000, whichever is greater. Applications are accepted on continuous basis. The I-Bank recommends applications be submitted upon completion of design as construction must begin within 6 months of the I-Bank’s loan commitment.
More information about the ISRF Program can be found here:
https://www.ibank.ca.gov/loans/infrastructure-loans/
Title XVI / WIIN
The WIIN Act was enacted in December 2016 to address water resources infrastructure that is critical to the country’s economic growth, health, and competitiveness. Through the Title XVI Water Reuse and Reclamation grant program, Reclamation identifies and investigates opportunities to reclaim and reuse wastewaters and impaired ground and surface waters. Title XVI funds the planning, design, and construction of water recycling and reuse projects.
Prior to the WIIN act, only projects that were congressionally authorized could apply for Title XVI grant funding. Now, any project can apply once it receives Reclamation approval of its Title XVI Feasibility Study (prepared using the Directives & Standards provided by Reclamation). An authorized Title XVI project is a project that is specifically authorized for funding by Congress under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575. Projects eligible for funding under the WIIN Act are those that have a completed Feasibility Study that has been reviewed and approved by Reclamation. Reclamation has combined the funding solicitations for Title XVI projects and WIIN-eligible projects. The total amount of available funds is $550 million, however the funding available per round varies. Typically, Reclamation awards between $1 million and $6 million per applicant per round but this can vary depending on the administration and priorities at the time of awards. Applicants apply repeatedly each solicitation until it reaches its maximum award. Title XVI / WIIN provides grant funding to maximum of 25% of the total project costs or $30 million, whichever is less.
While compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not required for a feasibility determination, it is required prior to the receipt and expenditure of Federal funds.
More information is available from Reclamation’s website here: http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-8
WIFIA
The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) is intended to accelerate investment in the nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure by providing long-term, low-interest loans. The loan program is being administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The loans have repayment periods of 35 years or the useful life of the project, whichever is less. Other program details include:
• WIFIA assistance may not exceed 49% of a project’s eligible costs (i.e. planning, design, construction, property acquisition costs).
• Eligible costs can be reimbursed retroactively (like CWSRF loans). • Total federal assistance may not exceed 80% of a project’s eligible costs. • Projects must cost at least $20 million for large communities and $5 million for small communities (population of 25,000 or less). Manteca qualifies as sa large community so the project cost must exceed $20 million.
• Interest rate is no less than the yield on Treasury securities of a similar maturity, estimated to be around 2.5 to 3.5% for 30 year loans.
• Approximately $5.5 billion is available in total funding. • Costs can cover planning, design, construction, property acquisition for eligible projects such as:
o Wastewater conveyance and treatment projects that are eligible for the Clean Water SRF o Drinking water treatment and distribution projects that are eligible for the Drinking Water SRF
o Enhanced energy efficiency at drinking water and wastewater facilities o Repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of a treatment works, community water system, or aging water distribution or waste collection facility
o Brackish or seawater desalination, aquifer recharge, and water recycling projects o Prevent, reduce, or mitigate the effects of drought, including projects that enhance the resilience of drought-stricken watersheds
o Acquisition of property if it is integral to the project or will mitigate the environmental impact of a project
o Bundled SRF projects submitted under one application by an SRF program o A combination of projects secured by a common security pledge Generally, WIFIA is not desirable if CWSRF loans or other funding is available because the WIFIA program has a $100,000 application fee and additional credit fees required by the applicant. To apply, an applicant submits a Notice of Intent to USEPA. If selected to prepare a full application, the applicant does so and at that time, pays the application fee.
More information at the program’s website here: https://www.epa.gov/wifia/learn-aboutwifiaprogram#information.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-9
Table 7-4: Potential Funding
Opportunities for Recycled Water Projects
Program
Administering
Agency Program Goals / Objectives Requirements / Other Info Funding Amounts and Terms Website Clean Water
State
Revolving
Fund
(CWSRF)
loan program
& WRFP
construction
grants
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(SWRCB)
The CWSRF Program provides lowinterest loans (and some grant funding small DACs and/or recycled water
projects when available) for the
construction of publicly-owned facilities
including wastewater treatment, local
sewers, sewer interceptors, water
reclamation and distribution, stormwater
treatment, and combined sewers, as well
as water recycling.
Construction financing agreements can
reimburse soft costs (planning, design,
environmental) already incurred.
Applications are submitted
through SWRCB online
application system, FAAST. Each
application consists of the
General, Technical, Financial, and
Environmental Packages.
CEQA-Plus is required.
SWRCB scores projects at the
end of each calendar year and
develops a fundable list that is
included in its annual Intended
Use Plan.
Once a complete application is
submitted, it can take between 9
and 12 months for SWRCB to
review, process, and execute a
financing agreement.
Interest rate is ½ of the General
Obligation Rate (SRF i=2.6% for
this year). Financing term up to
30 years.
There is no maximum financing
amount for a project / agency.
A recycled water project may
receive grant funds up to 35% of
project costs for construction.
http://www.w
aterboards.c
a.gov/water_i
ssues/progra
ms/grants_lo
ans/srf/
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-10
Program
Administering
Agency Program Goals / Objectives Requirements / Other Info Funding Amounts and Terms Website Water
Recycling
Funding
Program
(WRFP)
Planning
Grants
SWRCB Provide grants to assist public agencies
with facilities planning studies to
evaluate the feasibility of implementing
recycled water projects to offset the use
of fresh/ potable water from the state
and/ or local supplies.
The facilities planning report must
include an analysis of all of the
essential components of the
projects and be prepared using
SWRCB WRFP project report
outline.
Only local public agencies are
eligible for planning grants.
Grant funds are provided in two
disbursements. Up to 50% of the
grant may be disbursed after
SWRCB acknowledges receipt of
the draft project report. The
remainder of the grant amount
may be disbursed after SWRCB
accepts the final project report.
Grants for 50% of eligible costs
up to the maximum established
by the SWRCB in the CWSRF
Intended Use plan, or as
otherwise limited by the
SWRCB, currently $150,000.
http://www.w
aterboards.c
a.gov/water_i
ssues/progra
ms/grants_lo
ans/water_re
cycling/faciliti
esplan.shtml
Infrastructure
SRF Loan
Program
California
Infrastructure
and Economic
Development
Bank (I-Bank)
Provides low-interest loans to public
agencies and non-profit corporations for
a wide variety of infrastructure and
economic development projects. Eligible
project categories include, but are not
limited to, city streets, county highways,
state highways, drainage, water supply
and flood control, educational facilities,
environmental mitigation measures,
parks and recreational facilities, port
facilities, public transit, sewage collection
and treatment, solid waste collection and
disposal, water treatment and
distribution, defense conversion, public
safety facilities, and power and
communications facilities.
Financing applications are
continuously accepted.
Project must demonstrate
economic development / job
creation.
ISRF Program funding is
available in amounts ranging
from $50,000 to $25,000,000,
with loan terms of up to 30
years.
Interest rate typically 2.5% - 3%.
https://www.i
bank.ca.gov/l
oans/infrastr
ucture-loans
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan
Chapter 7 Construction Financing Plan
and Revenue Program
January 2023 7-11
Program
Administering
Agency Program Goals / Objectives Requirements / Other Info Funding Amounts and Terms Website Title XVI /
WIIN
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
(Reclamation)
Provide funding for identifying and
investigating opportunities to reclaim and
reuse wastewater. These grant monies
are made available for the construction
of water recycling treatment and
conveyance facilities.
The program is open to both
congressionally authorized Tite
XVI projects and WIIN projects.
For WIIN eligibility, a Feasibility
Study must be submitted to
Reclamation for review and
approval.
Recent fiscal year
appropriations for Title XVI and
WIIN varies per round.
Typically, awards between $1
million and $6 million per
applicant.
http://www.us
br.gov/waters
mart/title/
WIFIA USEPA
Accelerate investment in our nation’s
water infrastructure by providing longterm, low-interest loans.
Examples of eligible projects
include wastewater conveyance
and treatment projects, drinking
water treatment and distribution
projects, desalination and water
recycling projects, land
acquisition. Must comply with
NEPA, Davis Bacon, and all other
federal cross-cutters.
Minimum project size for the
City would be $20M. Maximum
of 49% of costs can be financed
by WIFIA. Interest rate greater
or equal to U.S. Treasury rate of
similar maturity. There is an
80% federal funding cap per
project.
$100,000 application fee due at
time of submittal. Additional
credit fees up to an additional
$150,000 apply.
https://www.e
pa.gov/wifia
ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A - Allowable Uses of Recycled Water in California ATTACHMENT 2
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Appendix A: Allowable Uses of Recycled Water in California1 Notes:
1. Per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 as of 2017.
2. This is the level of treatment that Manteca currently produces.
Recycled Water Use
Treatment Level
Disinfected
Tertiary
Rec. Water2
Disinfected
Secondary-2.2
Rec. Water
Disinfected
Secondary-23
Rec. Water
Undisinfected
Secondary
Rec. Water
Irrigation
Food crops where recycled water contacts the edible portion of the crop, including all root crops
Allowed Not Allowed
Not Allowed Not Allowed
Parks and playgrounds
School yards
Residential landscaping
Unrestricted-access golf courses
Any other irrigation uses not prohibited by other provisions of the California Code of Regulations
Food crops, surface-irrigated, above-ground edible portion, and not contacted by recycled water
Allowed Allowed
Cemeteries
Allowed Not Allowed
Freeway landscaping
Restricted-access golf courses
Ornamental nursery stock and sod farms with unrestricted access Pasture for milk animals for human consumption
Nonedible vegetation with access control to prevent use as a park, playground or school yard
Orchards with no contact between edible portion and recycled water Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Non food-bearing trees, including Christmas trees not irrigated less than 14 days before harvest
Fodder and fiber crops and pasture for animals not producing milk for human consumption
Seed crops not eaten by humans
Food crops undergoing commercial pathogen-destroying processing before consumption by humans
Toilet/ Urinal Flushing
Flushing toilets and urinals Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Impoundments and Fountains
Non-restricted recreational impoundments, with supplemental monitoring for pathogenic organisms
Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Decorative fountains
Restricted recreational impoundments and accessible fish hatcheries Allowed Landscape impoundments without decorative fountains Allowed Cooling/ Air Conditioning
Industrial or commercial cooling or air conditioning involving cooling tower, evaporative condenser, or spraying that creates a mist
Allowed
Not Allowed Not Allowed
Not Allowed Industrial or commercial cooling or air conditioning not involving cooling tower, evaporative condenser, or spraying that creates a mist Allowed Allowed Other Uses
Priming drain traps
Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed
Industrial process water that may contact workers
Structural fire fighting
Commercial laundries
Consolidation of backfill material around potable water pipelines Artificial snow making for commercial outdoor uses
Commercial car washes, not heating the water, excluding the general public from the washing process
Industrial process water that will not come into contact with workers Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Allowed
Industrial boiler feed
Nonstructural fire fighting
Backfill consolidation around nonpotable piping
Soil compaction
Mixing concrete
Dust control on roads and streets
Cleaning roads, sidewalks and outdoor work areas
Flushing sanitary sewers Allowed
Groundwater Recharge Allowed under special case-by-case permits (prior to July 2014) or if project complies with new Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project rules made effective in 2014 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix B - Estimated Local Recycled Water Demands
ATTACHMENT 2
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Appendix B: Estimated Local Recycled Water Demands
ID # NAME Address APN Type 2 Type Demand Source
Demand
Method
Irrigable
Acreage
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(mgd)
Peak
Month
Demand
(mgd)
Existing
Supply
Offset
Potable
Use? (Y
/ N)
Within
Service
Area?
(Y / N)
Considered
for Alternative
development?
(Y / N)
017 Golf Course 305 N. Union Rd. 20015030
Playing Field/Golf
Course Park Estimate Method B 90.9 405.8 0.36 0.78 Well N Y Y 027 Austin Rd Development 22614008
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 54.9 245.1 0.22 0.47 Future N Y Y 084 Family Entertainment Zone 24130048
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Development Plans Method D 60.3 244.0 0.22 0.47 Future N Y Y 077 Woodward Community
710 E. Woodward
Ave. 22404023 Park Park Estimate Method B 45.6 203.4 0.18 0.39 Well N Y Y 014 Griffin Park Griffin Park Project
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 23.4 104.5 0.09 0.20 Future N Y Y 094 Lathrop High School
647 West Lathrop
Rd. 19121028 School School ET Estimate Method C 25.2 100.9 0.09 0.19 Well N N N 106 East Union High School 1700 N Union Rd 21612001 School School ET Estimate Method C 23.3 93.3 0.08 0.18 Well N Y Y 110 Sierra High School 1700 Thomas St 22211001 School School ET Estimate Method C 23.1 92.4 0.08 0.18 Well N Y Y 009 Trails at Manteca Park Trails at Manteca Project
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 18.0 80.3 0.07 0.16 Future N Y Y 114
Brockman (Stella) Elementary
School 763 Silverado Dr 20002010 School School ET Estimate Method C 14.7 58.9 0.05 0.11 Well N Y Y 025 Chadwick Square 1953 London Ave. 20229033 Park Park Well Data Method A 8.1 50.3 0.04 0.10 Well N Y Y 088 Airport Way 22614008
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 10.0 44.6 0.04 0.09 Future N Y Y 080 Shasta Park 955 E. Edison St. 22327003 Park Park Estimate Method B 9.9 44.0 0.04 0.08 Well N Y Y 086 BLD – Fields 24131048
Playing Field/Golf
Course Park Estimate Method B 9.3 41.5 0.04 0.08 Well N Y Y 011 Cerri Park Cerri Project
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 9.0 40.2 0.04 0.08 Future N Y Y 013 Hat Ranch Park Hat Ranch Project
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 9.0 40.2 0.04 0.08 Future N Y Y 118 Manteca High School 450 E Yosemite Av 22109020 School School ET Estimate Method C 9.6 38.2 0.03 0.07 Well N Y Y 031 Tesoro Park 1399 Tesoro Dr. 22448039 Park Park Estimate Method B 8.6 38.2 0.03 0.07 Well N Y Y 046 Bella Vista 1580 Bella Terra Dr. 24142078 Park Park Estimate Method B 8.3 37.1 0.03 0.07 Well N Y Y 111
Brock Elliott Elementary
School 1110 Stonum Lane 22230001 School School ET Estimate Method C 9.2 36.9 0.03 0.07 Well N Y Y 007 Oakwood Trails Parcel D Oakwood Trails Parcel D
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 8.1 36.2 0.03 0.07 Future N Y Y 095 Veritas Elementary School 1600 Pagola St 22449011 School School ET Estimate Method C 9.0 36.0 0.03 0.07 Potable Y Y Y 056 Union Ranch North Park 20434036
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 8.0 35.8 0.03 0.07 Potable Y Y Y 098
New Haven Elementary
School 14600 S Austin Rd 20610005 School School ET Estimate Method C 8.5 33.9 0.03 0.07 Well N Y Y 104
Cowell (Joshua) Elementary
School 740 Pestana Av 20852001 School School ET Estimate Method C 8.5 33.9 0.03 0.07 Well N Y Y 091 Mossdale Elementary School 455 Brookhurst Blvd 19119048 School School ET Estimate Method C 7.8 31.1 0.03 0.06 Potable Y Y Y 093
Nile Garden Elementary
School 5700 E Nile Rd 22607003 School School ET Estimate Method C 7.7 30.9 0.03 0.06 Well N Y Y ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
ID # NAME Address APN Type 2 Type Demand Source
Demand
Method
Irrigable
Acreage
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(mgd)
Peak
Month
Demand
(mgd)
Existing
Supply
Offset
Potable
Use? (Y
/ N)
Within
Service
Area?
(Y / N)
Considered
for Alternative
development?
(Y / N)
022 Primavera Park 1253 Primavera Ave. 20222015 Park Park Well Data Method A 6.2 30.9 0.03 0.06 Well N Y Y 105
McParland (George)
Elementary School 1601 Northgate Dr 20206011 School School ET Estimate Method C 7.7 30.6 0.03 0.06 Well N Y Y 083 Union Ranch East Park
925 Raccoon Valley
Dr. 19702054 Park Park Estimate Method B 6.8 30.1 0.03 0.06 Potable Y Y Y 103 Sequoia Elementary School 710 Martha Street 21925004 School School ET Estimate Method C 7.2 28.6 0.03 0.06 Well N Y Y 055 Union Ranch Rec Center 20416047 Park Park Estimate Method B 6.3 28.1 0.03 0.05 Potable Y Y Y 034 Dutra S.E. Park
1850 Sparrowhawk
St. 22621031 Park Park Estimate Method B 6.2 27.7 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 112 Shasta Elementary School 751 W Edison 22327001 School School ET Estimate Method C 6.9 27.6 0.02 0.05 Potable Y Y Y 108 Lincoln Elementary School 750 E Yosemite Av 22118001 School School ET Estimate Method C 6.8 27.2 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 097
Golden West Elementary
School 1031 N Main St 21707006 School School ET Estimate Method C 6.7 26.8 0.02 0.05 Potable Y Y Y 019 Villa Ticino Park 1970 Geneva Wy. 20020042 Park Park Well Data Method A 5.0 26.7 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 109
Woodward (Walter)
Elementary School 575 Tannehill Drive 22404037 School School ET Estimate Method C 6.6 26.5 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 068 Yosemite Park 600 E. Portal 21909010 Park Park Well Data Method A 4.5 26.1 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 057 Springport Park 746 Pestana Ave. 20851001 Park Park Estimate Method B 5.8 25.9 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 028 Diamond Oaks 1179 Pestana Ave. 20809023 Park Park Well Data Method A 5.8 24.1 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 012 Denali Park Denali Project
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 5.4 24.1 0.02 0.05 Future N Y Y 036 Civic Center (Non-bldg.) 1001 W. Center St. 21703003 Park Park Estimate Method B 5.3 23.6 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 045 Greystone Park 810 Agate 21739030 Park Park Well Data Method A 4.7 23.3 0.02 0.05 Well N Y Y 003 Evans Estates Park Evans Estates / end of Mono St.
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 5.1 22.9 0.02 0.04 Future N Y Y 072 Curran Grove Parks 196 Bernt Ave. 22123001 Park Park Well Data Method A 4.1 22.4 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 054 Union Ranch West Park 20410036
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 4.9 21.7 0.02 0.04 Potable Y Y Y 107 Hafley (Neil) Elementary 849 Northgate Drive 21612003 School School ET Estimate Method C 5.4 21.7 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 076 Robert Estates 1740 Rail St. 22220047 Park Park Well Data Method A 4.6 21.6 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 047 Dutra Estates Park 2701 Ancestry St. 24159041 Park Park Estimate Method B 4.7 21.2 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 069 Cotta Park
505 Mission Ridge
Dr. 21960032 Park Park Well Data Method A 3.3 20.8 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 015 Palmer Memorial Park 1495 Sephos St. 22618016 Park Park Estimate Method B 4.6 20.7 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 032 Antigua Park 1055 Collins St. 22449011 Park Park Estimate Method B 4.6 20.4 0.02 0.04 Potable Y Y Y 035 Colony Park 1232 Trailwood Ave. 21638002 Park Park Estimate Method B 4.5 20.2 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 008 Oakwood Trails Parcel A Oakwood Trails Parcel A
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 4.5 20.1 0.02 0.04 Future N Y Y 010 Terra Ranch Park Terra Ranch Project
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 4.5 20.1 0.02 0.04 Future N Y Y 024 Woodward Park 3 22405013
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 4.5 20.1 0.02 0.04 Future N Y Y 033 Pillsbury Park 890 Mono St. 22432009 Park Park Estimate Method B 4.5 20.1 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
ID # NAME Address APN Type 2 Type Demand Source
Demand
Method
Irrigable
Acreage
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(mgd)
Peak
Month
Demand
(mgd)
Existing
Supply
Offset
Potable
Use? (Y
/ N)
Within
Service
Area?
(Y / N)
Considered
for Alternative
development?
(Y / N)
115
Brockman (Stella) Elementary
School Annex 763 Silverado Dr 20002016 School School ET Estimate Method C 5.0 19.9 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 087 Stadium Plaza Park 2470 Daniels St. 24153003 Park Park Estimate Method B 4.3 19.1 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 020 St. Francis Park 1273 Devonshire 20216030 Park Park Estimate Method B 4.3 19.1 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 075 Union West Park 1291 Parkview St. 22217030 Park Park Well Data Method A 3.3 18.7 0.02 0.04 Potable Y Y Y 002 Pillsbury Estates Park 890 Mono St. Park Park Estimate Method B 4.1 18.5 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 038 Tidewater Bikeway
Lathrop Rd to Moffat
Blvd. 21715010 Park Park Well Data Method A 30.6 18.5 0.02 0.04 Well N Y Y 053 Quail Ridge Parks
1020 Mission Ridge
Dr. 21953001 Park Park Well Data Method A 2.8 17.8 0.02 0.03 Well N Y Y 048 Southside Park 409 Oregon St. 21932023 Park Park Well Data Method A 3.0 17.5 0.02 0.03 Well N Y Y 023 Woodward Park 2 22405011
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 3.9 17.3 0.02 0.03 Future N Y Y 063 Northgate Parks 1750 Hoyt Ln. 21612003 Park Park Well Data Method A 13.6 17.0 0.02 0.03 Well N Y Y 067 Springtime Park 1268 Springtime Ave. 21818002 Park Park Estimate Method B 3.6 16.2 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 059 Mayors Park 1440 Kelley Dr. 20006021 Park Park Estimate Method B 3.6 16.2 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 006 Shadowbrook Park Shadowbrook Project
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 3.6 16.1 0.01 0.03 Future N Y Y 061 Doxey Park 1355 Northgate Dr. 20206012 Park Park Well Data Method A 7.6 15.7 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 052 Sequoia Park 868 Wawona St. 21948046 Park Park Well Data Method A 3.6 15.6 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 062 Crestwood Park 1901 Crestwood 21608026 Park Park Estimate Method B 3.5 15.5 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 026 Woodward Park 1 22614003
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 3.2 14.2 0.01 0.03 Future N Y Y 030 Terra Bella Park 1630 Luna Bella Ln. 22442049 Park Park Estimate Method B 3.1 13.6 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 096 Calla High School
10500 E State Route
120 22803001 School School ET Estimate Method C 3.4 13.6 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 065 Franciscan Park 1041 Elm Ave. 21742012 Park Park Well Data Method A 3.6 13.5 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 018 Morenzone Ballfield 1323 W Center St 20015011 Park Park Estimate Method B 3.0 13.3 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 071
Spreckels Recreation Park
(BMX) 1063 Spreckels Ave. 22121035 Park Park Estimate Method B 2.9 13.1 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 066 Walnut Place Park 360 Victory Ave. 21767045 Park Park Well Data Method A 1.8 13.0 0.01 0.03 Well N Y Y 021 Monte Bello Park 20222006 Park Park Estimate Method B 2.7 12.1 0.01 0.02 Well N Y Y 058 Rodoni Park 1006 Lucio St. 22361050 Park Park Estimate Method B 2.5 11.1 0.01 0.02 Well N Y Y 089
French Camp Elementary
School 241 E Fourth St 19311018 School School ET Estimate Method C 2.7 10.7 0.01 0.02 Well N Y Y 044 Union Road Tennis Park 307 N. Union Rd 21738004 Park Park Estimate Method B 2.4 10.7 0.01 0.02 Well N Y Y 051 Gonsalves Estate Greenbelt 407 Fishback Rd. 22203035 Park Park Billing Data Method D 3.1 10.0 0.01 0.02 Potable Y Y Y 050 Dutra N.E. Park 1282 Laurel Park Cr. 22236068 Park Park Billing Data Method D 1.6 9.9 0.01 0.02 Potable Y Y Y #N/A Union Memorial Cemetery 1050 N Union Rd. 20004053 Green Space Open
Space ET Estimate Method C 2.3 9.1 0.01 0.02 Well N Y N 001 Blossom Grove Park Pagola Ave Park Park Estimate Method B 2.0 8.8 0.01 0.02 Well N Y Y 092
McParland (George) Annex
Elementary School 1370 London Ave 20222021 School School ET Estimate Method C 2.2 8.6 0.01 0.02 Potable Y Y Y ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
ID # NAME Address APN Type 2 Type Demand Source
Demand
Method
Irrigable
Acreage
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Average
Irrigation
Demand
(mgd)
Peak
Month
Demand
(mgd)
Existing
Supply
Offset
Potable
Use? (Y
/ N)
Within
Service
Area?
(Y / N)
Considered
for Alternative
development?
(Y / N)
099 Manteca Day School 737 W Yosemite Av 21712039 School School ET Estimate Method C 1.9 7.6 0.01 0.01 Potable Y Y Y 005
Springport Park Addition at
Crivello Estates Azalea Ave
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 1.5 6.8 0.01 0.01 Future N Y Y 016 Moffat Basin Park 800 Moffat Blvd. 22104061 Park Park Estimate Method B 1.4 6.4 0.01 0.01 Well N Y Y 049 Baccilieri Park 154 Stockton St. 21938401 Park Park Well Data Method A 1.1 6.4 0.01 0.01 Well N Y Y 078 Paseo West Circle Park 1759 Buena Vista Dr. 22435043 Park Park Billing Data Method D 0.9 6.3 0.01 0.01 Potable Y Y Y 064 Wm. Martin Park 1605 Maywood 21613021 Park Park Estimate Method B 1.4 6.2 0.01 0.01 Well N Y Y 073 Cambridge Greenbelt 406 Fishback Rd. 22204049 Park Park Estimate Method B 1.4 6.0 0.01 0.01 Well N Y Y 060 Union Road Park 245 N. Union Rd. 20015002 Park Park Billing Data Method D 1.3 5.7 0.01 0.01 Potable Y Y Y 070 Lincoln Park and Pool 245 S. Powers Ave. 22118007 Park Park Well Data Method A 3.3 5.4 0.00 0.01 Well N Y Y 004 Dolcinea Park Dolcinea Subdivision
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 1.2 5.2 0.00 0.01 Future N Y Y 042 Library Park 320 W. Center St. 21721071 Park Park Estimate Method B 1.1 5.0 0.00 0.01 Well N Y Y 074 Gonsalves Estate Park 435 Fishback Rd. 22204050 Park Park Estimate Method B 0.7 3.2 0.00 0.01 Well N Y Y 029 Button Estates
1457 Discovery
Creek Dr. 20822028 Park Park Well Data Method A 3.3 3.2 0.00 0.01 Well N Y Y 037 Giles Memorial Park 545 W. Alameda St. 21708010 Park Park Billing Data Method D 3.6 3.1 0.00 0.01 Potable Y Y Y 043 Center St. Tennis Courts 311 W. Center St. 21722111 Park Park Well Data Method A 0.4 1.9 0.00 0.00 Well N Y Y 041 Wilson Park 244 W. Center St. 21721012 Park Park Estimate Method B 0.3 1.5 0.00 0.00 Well N Y Y 079 Hildebrand Park 431 Pine St. 22322108 Park Park Well Data Method A 0.5 1.5 0.00 0.00 Well N Y Y 039 Skate Park
Center St and Elm
Ave 21715012 Park Park Estimate Method B 0.3 1.3 0.00 0.00 Well N Y Y 082 Montecello Montecello Lane 22354020 Park Park Billing Data Method D 0.3 1.0 0.00 0.00 Potable Y Y Y 040 Mini Parks 246 Elm St. 21720001 Park Park Estimate Method B 0.2 0.7 0.00 0.00 Well N Y Y 081 Souza Is. 900 Blk Souza Ln. 22351030 Park Park Billing Data Method D 0.1 0.3 0.00 0.00 Potable Y Y N 085 BLD – Basin 1077 Milo Candini Dr. 24131044
Playing Field/Golf
Course Park Estimate Method B 6.6 0.0 0.00 0.00 Well N Y Y 090 Manteca Adult School 2271 W Louise 19811006 School School ET Estimate Method C 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 Potable Y Y Y #N/A Villa Ticino West Park 1 Villa Ticino West 19816038 Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 6.3 28.2 0.03 0.05 Future N Y Y #N/A Villa Ticino West Park 2 Villa Ticino West
Planned
Park/Open Space Park Estimate Method B 6.3 28.0 0.03 0.05 Future N Y Y Notes: 1. Demand sources are as follows:
a. Method A – Demand determined based on historical water use data (pumping records or billing data) b. Method B – Demand determined based on a demand factor (acre-foot per acre of irrigable land) calculated from the water use data compiled for Method A c. Method C – Demand determined based on evapotranspiration calculations d. Method D – Demands based on planning documents for parcels yet to be developed
2. Water demand estimates were developed in 2017.
3. Villa Ticino West Park 1 and Park 2 added in 2023.
ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix C - Demand and Peaking Factor Methodology
ATTACHMENT 2
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Method A – Irrigation
Demand based on Water Use Data
Method A was used to determine the irrigation demand for potential recycled water users with available use data (either pumping records or billing data). Pumping and billing records were provided by the City for City parks (where available). It was assumed that all water usage recorded could be attributed to irrigation.
Method B – Irrigation Demand based on Water Use Data Demand Factor Park Irrigation Demand Factor Calculation from Use Data The park irrigation demand factor was calculated using data from City pumping records. Complete pumping records for the parks listed below were only available from 2004-2006. The total annual average demand was divided by the irrigated acreage of the park to determine the demand factor for each individual park. Those demand factors were then averaged to determine the park irrigation demand factor of 4.5. 2004-06 Averages (gal)
Irrigated
Area
(acre)
Deman
d (AFY/
Park Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Acre) Total
(gal/y)
Total
(AFY
)
Baccilieri
Park
-
1,100 198,900
154,500
266,367
243,633
357,067
270,700
273,697
178,451
145,813
3,289
2,093,515
6.4 1.13
5.69 Button
Estates
- - 290,300
748,100 - - - - -
-
- -
1,038,400
3.2 3.33
0.96 Center St.
Tennis
Courts
- - 27,342
48,999
80,201
99,391
111,449
103,062
106,748
22,955
1,468 -
601,616
1.8 0.41
4.50 Chadwick
Square
2,400
44,650 458,550
1,195,933
2,680,100
2,723,650
2,953,750
2,970,823
2,231,120
835,583
273,108
22,050
16,391,718
50.3 8.10
6.21 Cotta Park
-
600 159,250
484,133
953,833
1,109,497
1,207,150
1,252,283
989,017
398,104
209,183
17,792
6,780,841
20.8 3.33
6.25 Curran
Grove
Parks
- - 47,763
562,227
846,138
1,272,594
1,394,409
1,500,601
1,049,527
366,664
205,948
59,623
7,305,493
22.4 4.05
5.54 Diamond
Oaks
-
3,400 214,650
583,900
857,967
1,722,450
1,625,200
1,367,833
913,313
414,763
140,917
12,843
7,857,237
24.1 5.81
4.15 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
2004-06 Averages (gal)
Irrigated
Area
(acre)
Deman
d (AFY/
Park Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Acre) Total
(gal/y)
Total
(AFY
)
Doxey Park
- - -
356,250
609,200
751,970
1,081,117
1,039,267
649,153
387,927
178,365
46,260
5,099,508
15.6 7.56
2.07 Dutra N.E.
Park
2 12,200 215,400
210,963
439,302
462,302
470,041
496,656
590,818
310,895
114,492
38,137
3,361,208
10.3 1.58
6.53 Greystone
Park
-
9,550 165,000
624,267
1,093,667
1,293,817
1,526,817
1,249,967
1,058,753
377,193
187,985
16,125
7,603,140
23.3 4.67
5.00 Hildebrand
Park
-
7,480 11,070
25,656
56,362
86,326
77,146
88,127
61,937
51,770
7,212
910
473,996
1.5 0.52
2.80 Lincoln
Park and
Pool
7,447
35,065 108,544
149,986
157,619
247,623
278,113
245,587
240,229
150,655
101,983
34,937
1,757,788
5.4 3.34
1.62 Northgate
Parks
70,267
214,666 187,663
570,243
783,655
802,084
982,979
886,628
677,945
290,886
45,454
38,468
5,550,937
17.0 13.60
1.25 Primavera
Park
- - 245,400
925,667
1,582,767
1,563,217
1,811,850
1,854,427
1,359,103
544,733
132,787
35,437
10,055,387
30.9 6.22
4.96 Quail
Ridge
Parks
40,000
50,000 113,900
322,433
694,200
831,600
1,052,360
1,052,800
745,217
679,445
198,278
8,100
5,788,333
17.8 2.76
6.44 Roberts
Estates
-
100 290,800
547,667
1,058,803
1,207,311
1,038,950
1,401,367
871,323
409,900
190,220
27,420
7,043,860
21.6 4.56
4.74 Sequoia
Park
- - -
351,967
734,567
1,195,899
823,015
1,153,700
419,123
253,837
116,735
33,180
5,082,022
15.6 3.57
4.37 Southside
Park
- - 466,250
529,009
754,009
782,256
911,486
732,971
732,404
519,384
240,346
41,508
5,709,621
17.5 2.99
5.86 Tidewater
Bikeway
2,768
63,692 188,544
969,767
1,591,877
771,141
743,497
769,402
580,767
332,056
5,988
269
6,019,767
18.5 30.60
0.60 Union West
Park
1,050 - 127,650
338,300
1,074,233
1,218,033
1,019,767
989,667
658,533
438,067
186,657
34,900
6,086,857
18.7 3.28
5.70 Villa Ticino
Park
1,300 - 219,150
579,833
1,318,833
1,427,817
1,600,950
1,381,857
1,123,887
736,000
215,813
101,700
8,707,140
26.7 5.04
5.30 Walnut
Place Park
800
82,231 311,521
293,941
535,381
644,946
732,442
401,069
377,946
459,929
238,978
160,795
4,239,978
13.0 1.84
7.07 Yosemite
Park
2,700 - 135,200
526,200
976,633
1,241,317
1,562,650
1,701,883
1,127,290
675,920
535,350
27,890
8,513,033
26.1 4.50
5.81 Average Demand (AFY/Acre or Ft/Yr)
4.50 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Methodology C – Irrigation Demand based on Landscape/Crop Coefficient Data Evapotranspiration Demand Factor Calculation
The evapotranspiration demand factor was calculated utilizing the below equation to determine the Irrigation Demand (in/unit area).
𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 [
𝑖𝑛
𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
]
= ((𝐾𝑐 ∗ 𝐸𝑇𝑜
) − (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [𝑖𝑛.] ∗ 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 [%])) ∗ 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗ ( 1 𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 [%]
)
Month
Crop
Coefficienta,
Kc
ETo
b
(in/month)
Average
Precipitation
(in) c
Percent
Infiltrate d
Leaching
Rate
Factor e
Irrigation
Efficiency
Irrigation
Demand,
(in/unit area)
Irrigation
Demand,
(in/unit area)
Percent of
Annual
Demand
Jan 0.8 1.08 2.45 75% 1.1 80% -1.3 0.0 0.0%
Feb 0.8 1.91 1.6 75% 1.1 80% 0.5 0.5 0.9%
Mar 0.8 3.52 1.53 75% 1.1 80% 2.3 2.3 4.8%
Apr 0.8 5.04 0.99 75% 1.1 80% 4.5 4.5 9.5%
May 0.8 6.76 0.18 75% 1.1 80% 7.3 7.3 15.2%
Jun 0.8 7.69 0.07 75% 1.1 80% 8.4 8.4 17.6%
Jul 0.8 7.97 0.1 75% 1.1 80% 8.7 8.7 18.2%
Aug 0.8 7.03 0.15 75% 1.1 80% 7.6 7.6 15.9%
Sep 0.8 5.15 0.14 75% 1.1 80% 5.5 5.5 11.6%
Oct 0.8 3.36 0.63 75% 1.1 80% 3.0 3.0 6.4%
Nov 0.8 1.67 1.96 75% 1.1 80% -0.2 0.0 0.0%
Dec 0.8 1.01 2.03 75% 1.1 80% -1.0 0.0 0.0%
Annual Total 52.2 11.83 47.7 100.0%
Average Monthly Demand 3.98 inches
Average Annual Demand Factor 3.98 AF/acre
a. Crop coefficient for cool season turf species from Univ. of California Cooperative Extension and California Department of Water Resources, A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California, August 2000. b. Average ETo values reported on CIMIS - Station 70 Manteca (http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/UserControls/Reports/MonthlyEtoReportViewer.aspx) c. Average Monthly precipitation for Manteca from (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5303) d. Assumed 75 percent infiltration rate into the vegetation root zone e. Leaching rate factor represents a 10 percent leaching rate through the vegetation root zone ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Method D – Irrigation Demand based on Planning Documents Method D was used for planned developments within the City’s sphere of influence. When available, the demands from the planning documents were used as the irrigation demand. Otherwise, the demand factor from Method B was applied to the provided irrigable acreage.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Peaking Factor Calculations
Peak Month Factor Calculation
The peak month factor was calculated using monthly demand estimates from the evapotranspiration calculation. Shown in the table below, the monthly peaking factor for each month was calculated using the equation:
𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∗
1 12
The peak month factor was determined to be 2.2 (from the month of July).
Month
Irrigation Demand,
(in/unit area)
Percent of Annual
Demand
Monthly Peaking
Factor a
Jan 0.0 0.0% 0.0
Feb 0.5 0.9% 0.1
Mar 2.3 4.8% 0.6
Apr 4.5 9.5% 1.1
May 7.3 15.2% 1.8
Jun 8.4 17.6% 2.1
Jul 8.7 18.2% 2.2
Aug 7.6 15.9% 1.9
Sep 5.5 11.6% 1.4
Oct 3.0 6.4% 0.8
Nov 0.0 0.0% 0.0
Dec 0.0 0.0% 0.0
Annual Total 47.7 100.0%
Notes:
a. Monthly peaking factor is the calculated monthly irrigation demand divided by the average monthly irrigation demand
Peak Hour Factor Calculation
The peak hour factor was calculated based on the assumed irrigation window for recycled water users.
After discussing the irrigation window with the City, it was determined that an 8-hour irrigation window should be assumed. The peak hour factor was calculated as follows:
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝑑𝑎𝑦
8 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤
= 3.0
Combined Peaking Factor
The combined peaking factor was calculated by multiplying the peak month and daily peaking factors.
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = (𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟) ∗ (𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟) = 2.2 ∗ 3.0 = 6.6 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Appendix D - Not Used
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix E - Unit Costs and Detailed Cost Estimates
ATTACHMENT 2
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Unit Costs
ENR CCI (20-city, Jan '15) = 9,972
Item Unit Cost Units/Notes Cost Reference
Capital Costs
Pipelines
6-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 8-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 10-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 12-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 14-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 16-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 18-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 20-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 24-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 28-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 32-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience 36-inch diameter $14 in-dia/LF North Valley Project/Engineering experience Slip-lining Pipelines (fusible PVC)
8-inch in 12-inch $97 /LF (includes annular
space grout) Trenchless Pipe Specialist – Jennifer Glynn 8-inch in 18-inch $102 /LF (includes annular
space grout) Trenchless Pipe Specialist – Jennifer Glynn 12-inch in 18-inch $136 /LF (includes annular
space grout) Trenchless Pipe Specialist – Jennifer Glynn 6-inch in 18-inch $85 /LF (includes annular
space grout) Trenchless Pipe Specialist – Jennifer Glynn 10-inch in 24-inch $144 /LF (includes annular
space grout) Trenchless Pipe Specialist – Jennifer Glynn Item Unit Cost Units/Notes
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
12-inch in 24-inch $156 /LF (includes annular
space grout) Trenchless Pipe Specialist – Jennifer Glynn 16-inch in 24-inch $193 /LF (includes annular
space grout) Trenchless Pipe Specialist – Jennifer Glynn Pump Station 0.58 x HP x (17,437 x HP ^
(-0.36) x CCI / 4500) HP (Based on peak flow) JMM Pump Station Cost Curve Capital Costs
Retrofit (Golf Course) $250,000 per site City of San Clemente Retrofit Program and Engineering Experience
Retrofit (offset Potable) $9,000 per site City of San Clemente Retrofit Program and Engineering Experience
Retrofit (not offset potable) $11,000 per site City of San Clemente Retrofit Program and Engineering Experience
Storage $1.15 per gallon LADWP, 2012 and Engineering Experience O&M Annual
Costs
Treatment Disinfection
with NaOCl
$
50 $ / MG
Conveyance $
0.60 $ / LF / yr LADWP, 2012 and Engineering Experience Pump Station Equipment 5.0% of capital costs LADWP, 2012 and Engineering Experience $ 10,000 $ / yr
Pump Station
Electrical
$
0.16 per kWh Average electricity cost (PG&E)
Pressure Reducing Stations 1.0% of capital costs
Storage 1.0% of capital costs LADWP, 2012 and Engineering Experience Contingencies
Capital Implementation Costs 25% for design,
environmental, etc.
Capital Project Contingency 30% for construction / O&M
costs
Item Unit Cost Units/Notes Cost Reference
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
O&M Cost
Contingency 30% of O&M Cost Subtotal
Project Financing
Interest Rate 3.0%
Period 30
Present Worth Factor (to P given
A) 19.60
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 1 - Urban Landscape Irrigation
serving Core Demands
Item Qty Units Cost
Capital Costs
Treatment $ 130,000
Conveyance $ 2,871,000
Pumping Stations $ 987,000
Pressure Regulating Stations $ -
Retrofits $ 376,000
Storage $ 460,000
Construction Subtotal $ 4,824,000
Capital Implementation
Costs 25% $ 1,206,000
Construction Total $ 6,030,000
Capital Project
Contingency 30% $ 1,809,000
Total Capital Costs $ 7,839,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment 50 $ / MG $ 15,000
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 14,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 59,400
Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $55,300
Pressure Regulating Stations $ -
Storage 1% of capital costs $ 4,600
O&M Subtotal $ 148,300
O&M Cost Contingency 30% $ 44,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 192,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 400,000
Annual O&M Costs $ 192,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 592,000
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 910
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $650
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 2 - Urban Landscape Irrigation
serving North, South, & Core Demands
Item Qty Units Cost
Capital Costs
Treatment $ 330,000
Conveyance $ 18,969,000
Pumping Stations $ 2,538,000
Pressure Regulating Stations $ -
Retrofits $ 1,289,000
Storage $ 5,616,000
Construction Subtotal $ 29,400,000
Contingencies 30% $ 11,025,000
Construction Total $ 36,750,000
Capital Implementation
Costs 25% $ 7,350,000
Total Capital Costs $ 44,775,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment $50 $ / MG $ 43,000
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 78,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 98,000
Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $165,000
Pressure Regulating Stations 1% of capital costs $ -
Storage 1% of capital costs $ 43,000
O&M Subtotal $ 437,000
Capital Project Contingency 30% $ 131,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 568,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 2,388,752
Annual O&M Costs $ 568,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 2,956,752
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 2,686
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $1,124
Note: Costs are referenced to the ENR 20-city CCI for November 2022 at 13,175. which represents an approximate 32% increase from the January 2015 CCI at 9,972. O&M costs remain unchanged from 2017 estimates.
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 4 - Urban Landscape Irrigation
serving North & Core Demands
Item Qty Units Cost
Capital Costs
Treatment $ 190,000
Conveyance $ 6,458,000
Pumping Stations $ 1,287,000
Pressure Regulating Stations $ -
Retrofits $ 552,000
Storage $ 1,610,000
Construction Subtotal $ 10,097,000
Capital Implementation Costs 25% $ 2,524,000
Construction Total $ 12,621,000
Capital Project Contingency 30% $ 3,786,000
Total Capital Costs $ 16,407,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment $50 $ / MG $ 24,000
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 38,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 75,000
Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $85,000
Pressure Regulating Stations 1% of capital costs $ -
Storage 1% of capital costs $ 16,000
O&M Subtotal $ 238,000
O&M Cost Contingency 30% $ 71,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 309,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 837,000
Annual O&M Costs $ 309,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 1,146,000
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 1,450
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $790
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 5 - Urban Landscape Irrigation
serving South & Core Demands
Item Qty Units Cost
Capital Costs
Treatment $ 250,000
Conveyance $ 10,873,000
Pumping Stations $ 1,693,000
Pressure Regulating Stations $ -
Retrofits $ 502,000
Storage $ 3,105,000
Construction Subtotal $ 16,173,000
Capital Implementation Costs 25% $ 4,043,000
Construction Total $ 20,216,000
Capital Project Contingency 30% $ 6,065,000
Total Capital Costs $ 26,281,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment 50 $ / MG $ 34,000
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 54,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 85,000
Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $132,000
Pressure Regulating Stations 1% of capital costs $ -
Storage 1% of capital costs $ 31,000
O&M Subtotal $ 346,000
O&M Cost Contingency 30% $ 104,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 450,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 1,341,000
Annual O&M Costs $ 450,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 1,791,000
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 2,080
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $860
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 6 - Manteca WQCF to SSJID Reservoir
Item Qty Units 9.4 mgd 3.6 mgd
Capital Costs
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance 68,100 LF $ 25,212,000 $ 17,585,000
Pumping Stations $ 2,640,000 $ 1,409,000
Pressure Regulating
Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ -
Construction Subtotal $ 27,852,000 $ 18,994,000
Capital Implementation
Costs 25% $ 6,963,000 $ 4,749,000
Construction Total $ 34,815,000 $ 23,743,000
Capital Project
Contingency 30% $ 10,445,000 $ 7,123,000
Total Capital Costs $ 45,260,000 $ 30,866,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 41,000 $ 41,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 132,000 $ 70,000 Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $ 223,000 $ 105,000 Pressure Regulating Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ - $ -
O&M Subtotal $ 396,000 $ 216,000
O&M Cost Contingency 30% $ 119,000 $ 65,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 515,000 $ 281,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 2,309,000 $ 1,575,000
Annual O&M Costs $ 515,000 $ 281,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 2,824,000 $ 1,856,000
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 5,193 1,989
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $540 $930
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 7 - Manteca WQCF to Ag. Irrigation Northeast of City Item Qty Units 9.4 mgd 3.6 mgd
Capital Costs
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance 52,800 LF $ 19,744,000 $ 15,077,000
Pumping Stations $ 3,422,000 $ 1,954,000
Pressure Regulating Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ - $ -
Construction Subtotal $ 23,166,000 $ 17,031,000
Capital Implementation
Costs 25% $ 5,792,000 $ 4,258,000
Construction Total $ 28,958,000 $ 21,289,000
Capital Project
Contingency 30% $ 8,687,000 $ 6,387,000
Total Capital Costs $ 37,645,000 $ 27,676,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 32,000 $ 32,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 171,000 $ 98,000 Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $ 319,000 $ 147,000 Pressure Regulating Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ - $ -
O&M Subtotal $ 522,000 $ 277,000
O&M Cost Contingency 30% $ 157,000 $ 83,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 679,000 $ 360,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 1,921,000 $ 1,412,000
Annual O&M Costs $ 679,000 $ 360,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 2,600,000 $ 1,772,000
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 5,193 1,989
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $500 $890
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 8 - Manteca WQCF to Banta-Carbona Irrigation District Item Qty Units 9.4 mgd 3.6 mgd
Capital Costs
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance 41,200 LF $ 15,077,000 $ 10,463,000
Pumping Stations $ 1,954,000 $ 1,213,000
Pressure Regulating
Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ - $ -
Construction Subtotal $ 17,031,000 $ 11,676,000
Capital Implementation
Costs 25% $ 4,258,000 $ 2,919,000
Construction Total $ 21,289,000 $ 14,595,000
Capital Project
Contingency 30% $ 6,387,000 $ 4,379,000
Total Capital Costs $ 27,676,000 $ 18,974,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 98,000 $ 61,000
Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $ 320,000 $ 156,000 Pressure Regulating Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ - $ -
O&M Subtotal $ 443,000 $ 242,000
O&M Cost Contingency 30% $ 133,000 $ 73,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 576,000 $ 315,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 1,412,000 $ 968,000
Annual O&M Costs $ 576,000 $ 315,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 1,988,000 $ 1,283,000
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 10,529 4,033
USBR Wheeling Charge for DMC $50 $50
Banta-Carbona Wheeling Charge $200 $200
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $440 $570
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan Appendices
Manteca RWFMP
Alternative 9 - Manteca WQCF to Delta-Mendota Canal
Item Qty Units 9.4 mgd 3.6 mgd
Capital Costs
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance 67,600 LF $ 27,202,000 $ 19,631,000
Pumping Stations $ 3,787,000 $ 2,196,000
Pressure Regulating Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ - $ -
Construction Subtotal $ 30,989,000 $ 21,827,000
Capital Implementation
Costs 25% $ 7,747,000 $ 5,457,000
Construction Total $ 38,736,000 $ 27,284,000
Capital Project
Contingency 30% $ 11,621,000 $ 8,185,000
Total Capital Costs $ 50,357,000 $ 35,469,000
O&M Costs (Annual)
Treatment $ - $ -
Conveyance $0.60 $ / LF / yr $ 41,000 $ 41,000
Pumping Stations 5% of capital costs $ 189,000 $ 110,000 Pumping Stations Electrical $0.16 per kWh $ 850,000 $ 375,000 Pressure Regulating Stations $ - $ -
Storage $ - $ -
O&M Subtotal $ 1,080,000 $ 526,000
O&M Cost Contingency 30% $ 324,000 $ 158,000
Total O&M Costs ($/yr) $ 1,404,000 $ 684,000
Annual Costs ($ / Year)
Annualized Capital Costs $ 2,569,000 $ 1,810,000
Annual O&M Costs $ 1,404,000 $ 684,000
Total Annualized Cost $ 3,973,000 $ 2,494,000
Unit Cost ($/AF)
Yield (AFY) 10,529 4,033
USBR Wheeling Charge for DMC ($/AF) $0 $0
Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF) $380 $620
ATTACHMENT 2
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 2