Agenda packet — Porterville City Council, December 16, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

City Council Agenda December 16, 2025

Page 1 of 5 ends

CITY OF PORTERVILLE - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL, 291 N. MAIN STREET

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 16, 2025, 5:30 PM
The City of Porterville provides access to view city council meetings electronically. Please note that this service is offered as a courtesy and may not always be accessible to the public. To ensure the opportunity to participate in public comments and scheduled public hearings, individuals must attend in person.

This meeting will be available for viewing via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@cityofporterville4149
Please direct any questions to the Office of City Clerk at 559-782-7464.

Call to Order
Roll Call

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the opportunity to address the City Council on any matter scheduled for Closed Session. Unless additional time is authorized by the Council, all commentary shall be limited to three minutes.

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:

A. Closed Session Pursuant to:

1 - Government Code Section 54956.8 – Conference with Real Property Negotiators/Property: APN: 260-300-034. Agency Negotiator: Richard Tree. Negotiating Parties: City of Porterville and Self-Help Enterprises. Under Negotiation: Terms and Price.

2 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d) (2) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to Litigation: Two (2) cases in which facts are not yet known to potential plaintiff.
3 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Initiation of Litigation: Two (2) cases. 6:30 P.M. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ON REPORTABLE ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED

SESSION
City Council Agenda December 16, 2025

Page 2 of 5 ends

Pledge of Allegiance Led by Council Member Beltran
Invocation

COUNCIL COMMENTS

PRESENTATIONS
Holiday CheerMeister
Heritage Murals

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the opportunity to address the Council on any matter of interest, whether on the agenda or not. Please address all items not scheduled for public hearing at this time. Unless additional time is authorized by the Council, all commentary shall be limited to three minutes.

REPORTS
This is the time for all committee/commission/board reports; subcommittee reports; and staff informational items.

I. City Commission and Committee Meetings

1. Parks & Leisure Services Commission - December 4, 2025

2. Library & Literacy Commission - December 9, 2025

3. Youth Commission - December 10, 2025
II. Staff Informational Reports

1. Update on Closure of the Porterville Armory Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Funding Challenges

CONSENT CALENDAR
All Consent Calendar Items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar. All items removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion will be heard at the end of Scheduled Matters.

1. Authorization to Purchase a Digital Public Information Board for the Porterville Transit Center
Re: Consideration to purchase and install a digital public information board at the Porterville Transit Center, approving a contract with Signworks in an amount not to exceed $40,186.28, and authorizing payment upon satisfactory completion.

2. Authorization to Purchase SWAT Rifles Using Proforce Trade-In Credit City Council Agenda December 16, 2025

Page 3 of 5 ends

Re: Council to consider the purchase of SWAT rifles from ProForce Law Enforcement using the available ProForce trade-in credit in the amount of $20,000.64, with no General Fund impact.

3. Authorization to Purchase Refuse Containers
Re: Consideration to purchase residential waste containers from Rehrig Pacific in the amount of $151,081.32 and commercial refuse bins from Stockton Tri Industries in the amount of $123,366.75.

4. Reimbursement Request for Master Plan Improvements – Brookside Subdivision, Phases One and Two (San Joaquin Valley Homes)
Re: Consideration of acceptance of master plan improvements for Brookside Subdivision, Phases One and Two, and approval of the first reimbursement to San Joaquin Valley Homes in the amount of $2,196,124.06.

5. Authorization to Distribute a Request for Qualifications for Nitrification/Denitrification Design Services
Re: Consideration to distribute a Request for Qualifications for nitrification/denitrification design services at the Wastewater Treatment Facility and return with a recommended consultant selection and agreement.

6. Authorization to Distribute Request for Qualifications for Engineered Plans and Specifications for the Santa Fe Sportsplex
Re: Consideration to authorize the distribution of a Request for Qualifications for engineered plans and specifications for the Santa Fe Sportsplex Project.

7. Authorization of Transit Consulting Services from Moy and Associates Re: Council to consider the purchase of transit marketing materials and technical assistance from Moy and Associates in an amount not to exceed $10,000.

8. Authorization for REACH Air Medical Services to Proceed with Design and Permitting for Proposed Helipad and Staff Quarters at the Porterville Municipal Airport Re: Consideration to Authorize REACH Air Medical Services to proceed with design and permitting for a proposed helipad and staff quarters adjacent to their existing leased hangar at the Porterville Municipal Airport while the Master Ground Lease Agreement amendments are finalized.

9. Authorization for the Transfer of a Police Department Vehicle to the Public Works Department - Water Division
Re: Consideration to transfer a previously purchased 2025 Chevy Silverado 2500 from the Police Department to the Public Works Water Division and approve the reallocation of associated purchase costs to the Water Replacement Fund.

10. Authorization to Schedule Public Hearing for the Traffic Study Findings on Plano Street from State Route 190 to Worth Avenue
Re: Consideration to schedule a public hearing on January 20, 2026, to review the traffic study findings for Plano Street from State Route 190 to Worth Avenue.

11. Adoption of Updated Seasonal and Part-Time Pay Rates for Fiscal Year 2025–2026 City Council Agenda December 16, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

Re: Council to consider a resolution amending the City’s Employee Pay and Benefit Plan to update the Seasonal and Part-Time Pay Rate Schedule for Fiscal Year 2025–2026.

12. Appointment to the Library and Literacy Commission
Re: Consider the appointment of Grant Wagner to the Library and Literacy Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2028.

13. Consideration of Additional Amendments to the City Council Order of Business Re: Consider approval of the Vice Mayor’s request to consider an amendment to the City Council Order of Business and direction to place the item on the January 20, 2026, City Council meeting agenda.

14. Status and Review of Declaration of Local Flood Emergency Re: Review of the Declaration of Local Emergency made on March 13, 2023, concerning the significant weather event and impacts relative to flood event.

A Council Meeting Recess Will Occur at 8:30 p.m., or as Close to That Time as Possible

PUBLIC HEARINGS

15. River Springs Plan Development
Re: Hold a public hearing on the River Springs Residential Development Project, located on an approximately 27.95-acre parcel located north of the Tule River, between Newcomb Street and South Beverly Street; and consider resolutions adopting the streamlined CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15183, approving the Planned Development PD Plan, and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map with Conditions.

16. Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) Substantial Amendments to 2024/25 and 2025/26 Action Plans
Re: Council to consider approval of Substantial Amendments to the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 Community Development Block Grant Action Plans and authorization to submit both amended plans to HUD.

SECOND READINGS

17. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 1926, Approving a Development Agreement between the City of Porterville and Cannabis Express, Inc.

Re: Adoption of an ordinance approving a development agreement between the City of Porterville and Cannabis Express, Inc. for the establishment of a commercial cannabis dispensary located at 1436 W. Olive Avenue, Porterville, California.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

18. Consideration of Updated Library Design and Recommended Project Budget Re: Consideration of establishing a $22 million project budget and approving the updated schematic design for the new Porterville Public Library.

City Council Agenda December 16, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

19. Reallocation of Measure I Funding and Authorization to Purchase Radio Encryption Upgrades for the Porterville Police Department
Re: Consider approval to reallocate Measure I funding programmed for Emergency Operations Center upgrades in the FY 2025–26 CIP to the Police Radio Encryption Project and authorize the purchase and implementation of encryption upgrades, flash programming, and keyloader equipment for the Porterville Police Department in the amount of $188,209.44.

20. Consideration of Funding Options for the Veterans Park Monument Project Re: Consideration of funding options for the Veterans Park Monument project exceeding the approved budget.

AB 1234 REPORTS
This is the time for all AB 1234 reports required pursuant to Government Code § 53232.3.

1. Local Initiatives Navigation Center Committee (LINC) - December 3, 2025

2. Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA) - December 4, 2025

3. Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) - December 8, 2025

4. Heritage Committee Meeting - December 9, 2025

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

OTHER MATTERS

CLOSED SESSION
Any Closed Session Items not completed prior to 6:30 p.m. will be considered at this time.

ADJOURNMENT - to the meeting of January 20, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Ralph M. Brown Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, requesting electronic participation as an accommodation, or to be able to access this agenda and documents in the agenda packet, please contact the Office of City Clerk at (559) 782-7464. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and/or provision of an appropriate alternative format of the agenda and documents in the agenda packet.

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Office of City Clerk, 291 N. Main Street, Porterville, CA 93257, and on the City’s website at www.ci.porterville.ca.us.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: 1. Update on Closure of the Porterville Armory Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Funding Challenges
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: The Porterville Armory has served as an emergency shelter since the 2023 flood disaster, providing temporary housing and basic services for displaced individuals and families. During the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 budget process, the City Council approved the remaining one-time General Fund allocation of $367,398 to continue Armory shelter operations into the current fiscal year.

This funding was intended to support a limited operational period while the City transitioned away from Armory-based sheltering.

Based on this funding plan, the Armory is scheduled to close as an emergency shelter in mid-January 2026. This timeline aligns with available resources and the need to return the facility to its primary intended use.

In preparation for the closure, staff evaluated opportunities to secure outside funding to extend Armory operations beyond the current fiscal year. This included reviewing eligibility criteria for Behavioral Health Bridge Housing (BHBH) funding and consulting with county staff familiar with the program.

After assessing the program requirements, it was determined that the Armory was not an appropriate or cost-effective candidate due to its temporary layout, the lack of designated year-round beds, and the substantial capital and operational investment needed to convert the building into a compliant bridge housing facility. For these reasons, the City was unable to identify any feasible or sustainable external funding source to continue Armory operations beyond the budgeted period.

As the closure approaches, the City is transitioning individuals through the Family Reunification Program, which helps eligible individuals reconnect with confirmed family support systems. This approach reduces reliance on temporary congregate shelter while promoting long-term stability for individuals who can be safely reunified.

In addition to local shelter operations, recent federal housing developments are creating challenges for regional service providers operating Housing First Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs. Communication from local housing partners indicates that this year’s federal funding competition may not recommend Porterville-based PSH programs for renewal, despite these programs supporting residents with disabilities who are at risk of returning to homelessness if funding is reduced. At the same time, federal guidance is encouraging applicants to shift from PSH to Transitional Housing (TH), a model that requires structured programming, mandatory participation in service and work-related activities, contrasting with pervious approaches and partnerships with recovery and faith-based services.

These TH program requirements do not align with Housing First principles used by the City and limit the City’s ability to provide matching or supplemental funding. Local providers also face limited time and resources to redesign their existing PSH programs into TH programs. If funding is not secured, Porterville residents may experience reduced access to supportive housing options at the same time as the Armory shelter is closing.

Staff will continue monitoring regional developments and coordinating with local service agencies and Tulare County to support individuals affected by these changes.

RECOMMENDATION: This report is informational.

ATTACHMENTS:

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Claudia Calderon, Community Development Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Item No. 1.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase a Digital Public Information Board for the Porterville Transit Center
SOURCE: Transportation
COMMENT: The Porterville Transit Center’s existing analog clock has reached the end of its useful life and no longer functions reliably. To enhance communication with transit passengers and the general public, staff proposes replacing the clock with a modern, double-sided digital information board. The new display will provide time, temperature, transit updates, and community announcements, and will support the overall modernization of the facility.

Staff obtained three quotes for comparable LED message boards, including equipment, installation, taxes, and related components. The quotes received are as follows:

Vendor Quote
Signworks $36,532.98
Multimedia LED $37,307.64
FastSigns $53,199.99
Signworks submitted the lowest responsive quote and meets the technical requirements for the project. To account for potential installation variables, staff recommends including a 10% contingency, resulting in a total not-toexceed amount of $40,186.28.

This project will be funded through the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 grant CA-2025-116, which provides federal reimbursement for 80% of eligible capital expenses. The City is responsible for the remaining 20% local match. Based on the total not-to-exceed amount of $40,186.28, the federal share is $32,149.02 and the City’s required match is $8,037.26. Sufficient grant and matching funds are available to support the project.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the purchase and installation of a digital public Item No. 1.
information board from Signworks at a cost not to exceed $40,186.28, inclusive of a 10% contingency; and

2. Authorize payment upon satisfactory delivery and installation.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Signworks Quote

2. Multimedia LED Quote

3. Fastsigns Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Russell Isom, Director of Transportation
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 2.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase SWAT Rifles Using Proforce Trade-In Credit SOURCE: Police
COMMENT: On May 7, 2024, the City Council approved the Police Department’s request to replace its aging Glock .40 caliber duty handguns with new Glock Model 45 9mm firearms equipped with Steiner MPS optics. This transition included the trade-in of seventy-six (76) Glock handguns originally purchased by the Department in 2016.

On March 18, 2025, the City Council further authorized out-of-state travel for Police Department personnel to transport the trade-in firearms to ProForce Law Enforcement in Arizona in accordance with the terms of the approved purchase.

The handgun replacement project has now been successfully completed.

Based on the final reconciliation from ProForce, the City has received a tradein credit of $20,000.64. These funds are held on the City’s account with ProForce and may be applied to future approved purchases for the Police Department.

The Police Department requests authorization to use this credit toward the purchase of new SWAT rifles. ProForce has provided a formal quote for eleven (11) SWAT rifles in the total amount of $19,691.39, inclusive of applicable taxes. The purchase will utilize the majority of the available credit, leaving an estimated remaining balance of $309.25 on the City’s ProForce account. No General Fund expenditure is required to complete this purchase.

The requested rifles will support tactical operations, replace aging equipment, and ensure the Department maintains operational readiness with modern, reliable platforms.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the Police Department to purchase SWAT rifles from ProForce Law Enforcement in an amount not to exceed
$19,691.39, to be fully funded by the existing ProForce trade-in Item No. 2.
credit of $20,000.64; and

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all necessary purchasing documents.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report - May 7. 2024

2. Staff Report - March 18, 2025

3. ProForce Trade-In Documentation and SWAT Rifle Quote Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Bobby Radar, Interim Chief of Police
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MAY 7, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration to Purchase Handguns
SOURCE: Police
COMMENT: The primary sidearm of the Porterville Police Department has been the Glock, .40 caliber handgun. This model handgun has proven durable and reliable throughout its service with the department. These handguns are critical pieces of basic safety equipment for law enforcement personnel and are necessary for the protection of the officers and the community. The current Glock handguns purchased by the Department were acquired in 2016. Due to wear and tear, our current handguns are nearing the end of their service lives. Additionally, caliber debates have existed in law enforcement for decades. What is clear, however, is that the 9mm cartridge is more abundant, less expensive, and easier to train with than any other. The 9mm cartridge is the pistol caliber choice for today’s law enforcement.

In a study conducted by the FBI, 9mm Luger offers select projectiles that outperform most of the premium line .40 S&W and .45 Auto projectiles.

Additionally, the 9mm Luger offers higher magazine capacities, less recoil, lower cost (both in ammunition and wear on the weapons), and higher functional reliability rates. The majority of the FBI shooters in the study were both faster in shot strings fired and more accurate with shooting a 9mm Luger vs shooting a .40 S&W (similar-sized weapons). It has been determined that the 9mm is factually superior in multiple areas, having less felt recoil (which allows faster, more accurate hits), the magazines holding more rounds, the 9mm ammunition is significantly less expensive, and the modern defensive 9mm has similar ballistic performance of the .40 caliber.

Each Glock handgun purchased and issued by the department currently comes equipped with tritium night sights; however, with the advancement of technology, Red Dot Sight Optics (RDS) have become the industry standard.

During multiple range sessions, Porterville Police Officers test-fired multiple handguns, including Glock models 17, 19, 43x, 48, and 45, all in 9mm caliber, and using both iron sights and red dot sights (RDS). Over 90 percent of the officers that test-fired the aforementioned handguns preferred the Glock Model

45. Approximately 80 percent of the officers shot faster and with higher accuracy using the red dot sights, with 20 percent preferring the iron sights simply due to having difficulty understanding how the RDS works in terms of aiming. The department’s Range Master has purchased a Glock model 45 with multiple RDS systems and has tested them. For law enforcement duties, he prefers the Steiner MPS Red Dot Sight Optic System for multiple reasons, including durability, easier acquisition of the red dot, and having the emitter better protected (the diode that emits the red dot light is enclosed).

Additionally, in meetings with the Tulare-Kings Counties Police Academy Advisory Board, it has been discussed that due to the industry standard being RDS Optics, the academy has acquired RDS and now trains with it. It has been determined that the RDS increases accuracy, which lowers liability.

The recommendation is to transition from the current handgun platform (Glock 22/23 .40cal) to the Glock model 45 in 9mm caliber with the Steiner MPS Red Dot Sight Optic. These guns will accept our current gun light. Staff has received the estimate from PROFORCE for the new equipment, which includes the firearm, the RDS, and new holsters. This estimate also accompanies the trade-in of our current Glocks. PROFORCE is our current vendor for firearms for the City of Porterville and, as previously mentioned, has agreed to allow for the trade-in of our current handguns (70) Glock Model 22’s and (6) Glock Model 23’s (all of which were purchased from PROFORCE in 2016).

Vendor Purchase Price
(90 Handguns)
Trade-In Value
(76 Handguns)
Cost to
City
PROFORCE Law
Enforcement
$92,008.60 $17,480.00 $74,528.60
Funds are available in the Police Department's current operating budget.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize department staff to negotiate the purchase of (90) Glock, Model 45, 9mm caliber handguns from PROFORCE Law Enforcement; and

2. Authorize payment upon receipt of handguns.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. ProForce Quote

2. ProForce Trade Quote

3. FBI - 9mm Report
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Jake Castellow, Chief of Police
Final Approver: Patrice Hildreth, City Manager
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 18, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization for Out-of-State Travel
SOURCE: Police
COMMENT: On May 7, 2024, the City Council approved the Police Department to purchase new firearms to transition from the Glock 22/23 .40cal to the Glock model 45 in 9mm caliber with the Steiner MPS Red Dot Sight Optic from PROFORCE. This transition also accompanied the trade-in of our current Glocks.

PROFORCE is our current vendor for firearms for the City of Porterville and, as previously mentioned, agreed to allow for the trade-in of our handguns, all of which were purchased from PROFORCE in 2016.

Funds are available in the Police Department's current operating budget for this travel.

Staff requests that the City Council authorize out-of-state travel for two City of Porterville Police Department personnel to travel to PROFORCE, located in Arizona, to transport and deliver the trade-in Glock firearms.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize out-of-state travel and per diem expenses for two Police Department personnel to travel to PROFORCE
Marketing Inc, located in Prescott, Arizona, to transport and deliver seventy-four department firearms for trade-in as agreed upon contract during the purchase of the new
department handguns and approved at the council meeting on May 7, 2024.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. ProForce Trade Quote

2. Staff Report (May 2024)
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Jake Castellow, Chief of Police
Final Approver: Jason Ridenour, Interim City Manager

QUOTE#

O R D E R

SHIP DATE

Q U O T E
PAGE

SOLD SHIP
TO TO
JOB # ORD. DATE CUST.# LOC. SALESMAN SHIP VIA FRT.

QTY. UOM
ORDER ITEM NO./DESC. UNIT PRICE DISC. NET PRICE

COMMENT
TERMS
742697 1
A.S.A.P.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE PORTERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
PURCHASING DIVISION ATTN: OFFICER JESUS GALLARDO
350 N. D STREET 350 NORTH D STREET
PORTERVILLE CA 93257 PORTERVILLE CA 93257
559-784-4569
N/A 12/11/25 001128 A GREGG MCCLUNG FX G-FOB ORIGIN
11 NON-STOCK 1,638.56 EA 18,024.16
GEI 08-691B .00
1 XFET .00 EA .00
THIS ITEM FET OUT .00
IMPORTANT NOTICES:

This quotation is based on the issuance of a department purchase order and F.E.T. form.

ATF or the manufacturer may require additional
forms. Sample forms may be found at:
http://www.ProForceonline.com/forms.html
Standard Terms are Net 30 days. If department policy does not allow for partial shipments and payments, separate
purchase orders for each item will be necessary.

Standard manufacturer's warranty applies to all department This quote is valid for 15 days from the date issued,
pending credit approval. The shortened validity period is due to recent economic shifts and the potential for new tariffs, which may impact pricing and availability. All items are subject to manufacturer availability and potential price changes.

For updated pricing after the expiration date, please
contact or sales representative or our support center at QUOTE#

O R D E R

SHIP DATE

Q U O T E
PAGE

SOLD SHIP
TO TO
JOB # ORD. DATE CUST.# LOC. SALESMAN SHIP VIA FRT.

QTY. UOM
ORDER ITEM NO./DESC. UNIT PRICE DISC. NET PRICE

COMMENT
TERMS
742697 2
A.S.A.P.

ProForce Law Enforcement agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless its customers from claims for personal
injury or property damages, to the extent arising from the negligent acts or omissions of ProForce Law Enforcement or its employees, agents or independent contractors.

ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS: Please reply to your sales represen- tative in writing to process this order or send an email to [email protected]. For orders over $5,000, a PO or signed quote is required to process the order.

Returned items are subject to 20% restocking fee. All sales are final on non-stocked/special order items
IMPORTANT: To order from this quotation, please sign below.

Printed Name: ____________________________________________ -
Date: ___________________________ P.O.:___________________ -
Signature: _______________________________________________

SALES AMOUNT
CREDIT
18,024.16
-20,000.64

9.250% SALES TAX

SUB TOTAL

AMOUNT DUE

REMAINING CREDIT
1,667.23
19,691.39

0.00 309.25 DUE NET 30 DAYS
Item No. 3.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Refuse Containers
SOURCE: Transportation
COMMENT:

The Refuse Division needs to replace aging residential waste containers and commercial refuse bins as part of its ongoing equipment replacement program. Staff solicited quotes from three established container manufacturers: Rehrig Pacific, Stockton Tri Industries, and WasteQuip.

For residential containers, Rehrig Pacific was the only responsive vendor.

Stockton Tri Industries does not manufacture residential carts, and WasteQuip did not submit a proposal. Rehrig Pacific provided a quote totaling $151,081.32, which meets the City’s specifications and operational needs.

For commercial front-load bins, quotes were requested from the same three vendors. Rehrig Pacific does not produce steel commercial bins suitable for the City’s operations, offering only plastic versions, and WasteQuip did not respond. Stockton Tri Industries submitted a complete and responsive quote for steel commercial bins totaling $123,366.75, including delivery and tax.

Their quote provides the necessary range of bin sizes and configurations required to support commercial refuse collection.

These purchases align with the Refuse Division’s ongoing replacement schedule to ensure safe, reliable, and efficient refuse collection services.

Sufficient funding is available for both acquisitions through the Refuse Equipment Replacement Account.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the purchase of residential waste containers from Rehig Pacific in the amount of $151,081.32;

2. Authorize the purchase of commercial refuse bins from Stockton Tri Industries in the amount of $123,366.75; and

3. Authorize all purchases to be funded through the Refuse Equipment Replacement Account.

Item No. 3.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Stockton Tri Quote - 22837

2. Rehrig ROC 251210-2
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Russell Isom, Director of Transportation
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk ID: Date:

To Quote To
Ph: Ph:

Terms Ship Via Salesperson
Quantity Description
Briana Spry (559) 782-7586

CITY OF PORTERVILLE/ FIELD SERVICES
555 N. PROSPECT STREET
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 N. MAIN ST
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States
Unit Price Amount
Net 30 Days Our Truck
559-782-7584 559-782-7584
Quote
Ph: 209-948-9701 Fax: 209-469-0862

STOCKTON TRI INDUSTRIES LLC
2141 E. ANDERSON ST.

STOCKTON, CA 95205
United States
YONJ
22837 09-Dec-25
Reference: NEW CONTAINERS
Rev:

Line: Expiration Date: 29-Dec-25 001
Part: 2-YARD PITCH TOP

FRONT-LOAD CONTAINER
Standard PITCH-TOP Design
12 Gauge Floor
14 Gauge Sides
Formed Metal Top Banding
Standard 11 Gauge Side Channels
With Entry Gussets, Bumper Plates, Channel Covers, and Pull Handles 6" x 2" POLY-O Swivel Casters
Standard Triangle and Quick-Release Caster Plates
1-1/2" Drain with Plug
Single Wall Plastic Lids (Black)
Threaded Lid Rod
Underseal Coating on Inside
Alkyd Primer on Outside
Outside Finish Painted (Enamel) --- GREEN
Safety Yellow Stickers at Corners -- Near Top and Bottom 20 ea $965.00 $19,300.00

Page 1 of 4 ends

ID: Date:

To Quote To
Ph: Ph:

Terms Ship Via Salesperson
Quantity Description
Briana Spry (559) 782-7586

CITY OF PORTERVILLE/ FIELD SERVICES
555 N. PROSPECT STREET
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 N. MAIN ST
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States
Unit Price Amount
Net 30 Days Our Truck
559-782-7584 559-782-7584
Quote
Ph: 209-948-9701 Fax: 209-469-0862

STOCKTON TRI INDUSTRIES LLC
2141 E. ANDERSON ST.

STOCKTON, CA 95205
United States
YONJ
22837 09-Dec-25
Rev:

Line: Expiration Date: 29-Dec-25 002
Part: 3-YARD PITCH TOP

FRONT-LOAD CONTAINER
Standard PITCH-TOP Design
12 Gauge Floor
14 Gauge Sides
Formed Metal Top Banding
Standard 11 Gauge Side Channels
With Entry Gussets, Bumper Plates, Channel Covers, and Pull Handles 6" x 2" POLY-O Swivel Casters
Standard Triangle and Quick-Release Caster Plates
1-1/2" Drain with Plug
Single Wall Plastic Lids (Black)
Threaded Lid Rod
Underseal Coating on Inside
Alkyd Primer on Outside
Outisde Finish Painted (Enamel) --- (20) PEPSI BLUE
(20) PORTERVILLE BROWN
Safety Yellow Stickers at Corners -- Near Top and Bottom 40 ea $1,025.00 $41,000.00

Page 2 of 4 ends

ID: Date:

To Quote To
Ph: Ph:

Terms Ship Via Salesperson
Quantity Description
Briana Spry (559) 782-7586

CITY OF PORTERVILLE/ FIELD SERVICES
555 N. PROSPECT STREET
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 N. MAIN ST
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States
Unit Price Amount
Net 30 Days Our Truck
559-782-7584 559-782-7584
Quote
Ph: 209-948-9701 Fax: 209-469-0862

STOCKTON TRI INDUSTRIES LLC
2141 E. ANDERSON ST.

STOCKTON, CA 95205
United States
YONJ
22837 09-Dec-25
Rev:

Line: Expiration Date: 29-Dec-25 003
Part: 4-YARD PITCH TOP

FRONT-LOAD CONTAINER
Standard PITCH-TOP Design
12 Gauge Floor
14 Gauge Sides
Formed Metal Top Banding
Standard 11 Gauge Side Channels
With Entry Gussets, Bumper Plates, Channel Covers, and Pull Handles 6" x 2" POLY-O Swivel Casters
Standard Triangle and Quick-Release Caster Plates
1-1/2" Drain with Plug
Single Wall Plastic Lids (Black)
Threaded Lid Rod
Underseal Coating on Inside
Alkyd Primer on Outside
Outisde Finish Painted (Enamel) --- (20) PEPSI BLUE
(20) PORTERVILLE BROWN
Safety Yellow Stickers at Corners -- Near Top and Bottom 40 ea $1,125.00 $45,000.00

Page 3 of 4 ends

ID: Date:

To Quote To
Ph: Ph:

Terms Ship Via Salesperson
Quantity Description
Briana Spry (559) 782-7586

CITY OF PORTERVILLE/ FIELD SERVICES
555 N. PROSPECT STREET
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 N. MAIN ST
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
United States
Unit Price Amount
Net 30 Days Our Truck
559-782-7584 559-782-7584
Quote
Ph: 209-948-9701 Fax: 209-469-0862

STOCKTON TRI INDUSTRIES LLC
2141 E. ANDERSON ST.

STOCKTON, CA 95205
United States
YONJ
22837 09-Dec-25
Rev:

Line: Expiration Date: 29-Dec-25 004
Part: DELIVERY FREIGHT

FLATBED TRUCKLOAD
Per Load Rate --- Unloading is by Others
8 ea $975.00 $7,800.00
Rev:

Line: Expiration Date: 29-Dec-25 005
Part: 9.75% SALES TAX
1 lot $10,266.75 $10,266.75
Total: $123,366.75

Page 4 of 4 ends

Locations:
1000 Raco Court, Lawrenceville, GA 30046 8875 Commerce Dr, DeSoto, KS 66018 625 West Mockingbird Lane, Dallas, TX 75247 7800 100th St, Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158 1738 W. 20th St, Erie, PA 16502 4010 East 26th St, Los Angeles, CA 90058 7452 Presidents Dr, Orlando, FL 32809
Proposal #: ROC 251210
Name: Briana Spry Name: Briana Spry
Phone: 559-782-7586 Phone: 559-782-7586

QUANTITY UNIT
PRICE

EXTENDED
PRICE
Rollout Cart Type: 123 $35.68 $ 4,388.64
Body Color: Lid Color:

Wheels / Casters:

Options:

Body: Lid:

Artwork:

Rollout Cart Type: 77 $0.00
Body Color: Lid Color:

Wheels / Casters:

Options:

Body: Lid:

Artwork:

Rollout Cart Type: 1,547 $42.50 $ 65,747.50
Body Color: Lid Color:

Wheels / Casters:

Options:

Body: Lid:

Artwork:

Rollout Cart Type: 129 $0.00
Body Color: Lid Color:

Wheels / Casters:

Options:

Body: Lid:

Artwork:

Rollout Cart Type: 662 $47.55 $ 31,478.10
Body Color: Lid Color:

Wheels / Casters:

Options:

Body: Lid:

Artwork:

Rollout Cart Type: 40 $0.00
Body Color: Lid Color:

Wheels / Casters:

Options:

Body: Lid:

Artwork:

Rollout Cart Type: 702 $47.55 $ 33,380.10
Body Color: Lid Color:

Wheels / Casters:

Options:

Body: Lid:

Artwork:

Is Product Taxable? Subtotal = $ 134,994.34
Is Freight Taxable? Estimated Tax on Product = 12,486.98 Recycle Credit Yes Recycle credit= (1,200.00)
Tax Rate: Freight Rate = 4,800.00
Terms: Tax on Freight =
Total = $ 151,081.32
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Contract Options:

Ship From:
65G/95G TLs Lead Time:
35G/65G combo TL Lead Time:

Warranty:

Quote Valid:

Taxes:
*** All Credit Card transactions are subject to a 2% processing fee.

Paulo Figuerola 12/10/2025
Paulo Figuerola Date Date
Account Specialist- Environmental
AK, WA, OR, MT, ID, WY, Northern CA, NV, HI
Cell: 949-466-3623 Email: [email protected]

9.25%
95 Gallon EG Cart - Garbage - item#315301- under warranty Black Black
10" Snap on with Intergrated Spacer
To initiate order, please call or send signed proposal via fax or email to Presented By representative.

ACCEPTED BY:
3 weeks or sooner
30 Days
10 year unprorated warranty
Sign and Print Name
Title:_________________________________________________________ PRESENTED BY:

Proposal
City of Porterville
555 N Prospect St
Porterville, CA 93257
Ship-to: 213103
December 10, 2025
35 Gallon EG Cart - Garbage - item#553334- under warranty Black Black
Billing Contact: Shipping Contact:
35 Gallon EG Cart - Garbage - item#553334
Black Black
10" Snap on with Intergrated Spacer
N/A
None
Net 30 Days
Bill-to: 205273

ITEM DESCRIPTION
All applicable taxes shall be paid by the Buyer unless a proper exemption is provided and validated.

Black
City of Porterville
291 N Main St
Porterville, CA 93257
Buckeye, AZ facility
Yes
No
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Kelly Green
10" Snap on with Intergrated Spacer
N/A
10" Snap on with Intergrated Spacer
N/A
10" Snap on with Intergrated Spacer
N/A
Black
95 Gallon EG Cart - Garbage - item#315301
N/A
5 weeks or sooner
65 Gallon EG Cart - Recycle - item#499121
Pepsi Blue Pepsi Blue
10" Snap on with Intergrated Spacer
N/A
65 Gallon EG Cart - Recycle - item#499121- under warranty Pepsi Blue Pepsi Blue
10" Snap on with Intergrated Spacer
N/A
95 Gallon EG Cart - Organics - item#330915
Kelly Green
A FAMILY TRADITION OF GROWTH, SERVICE AND INNOVATION Page 1 of 1 Item No. 4.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Reimbursement Request for Master Plan Improvements – Brookside Subdivision, Phases One and Two (San Joaquin Valley Homes) SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: San Joaquin Valley Homes, the developer of the Brookside Subdivision, Phases One and Two, has completed master plan water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements required under the City's adopted master plans. These improvements are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 25-32.3, 25-45.1, and 19A-40, which authorize the City to reimburse developers for constructing facilities that provide systemwide benefit beyond the needs of the subdivision itself.

City staff has reviewed all design, construction, and administrative documentation submitted by the developer and verified that the improvements are eligible for reimbursement and meet City Standards. The master plan improvements completed to date include the following:

Water Improvements
Water Main & appurtenances: $1,289,495.62
Water Main administrative costs: $231,937.48
Sewer Improvements
Sewer Main & appurtenances: $1,170,822.27
Sewer Main design costs: $181,248.45
Sewer Main administrative costs: $211,519.79
Storm Drain Improvements
Storm Drainage & appurtenances: $380,429.47
Storm Drainage administrative costs: $78,746.60
In total, master plan improvements equal $3,544,199.68, of which $2,196,124.06 is recommended for reimbursement at this time. This represents the first reimbursement request for this project. The remaining reimbursement balance of $1,348,075.62 will be brought forward for City Council consideration after final acceptance of the full project, pending final quantity amounts.

Item No. 4.

Funding for this reimbursement will come from the City’s enterprise funds, specifically the Water Replacement Fund, Sewer Revolving Fund, and Storm Drain developer fee fund, as adopted in the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 budget.

These enterprise funds exist to support system-wide improvements, and no General Fund impact is anticipated. The improvements completed by SJVH provide long-term community benefit by extending system capacity beyond the immediate development and helping meet future infrastructure needs consistent with the City’s Master Plans.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Accept the water, sewer, and storm drainage master plan improvements for Brookside Subdivision, Phases One and Two, for maintenance.

2. Approve the first reimbursement to San Joaquin Valley Homes in the amount of $2,196,124.06, pending receipt and approval of certified payroll and final documentation required under Municipal Code Sections 25-32.3, 25-45.1, and 19A-40; and

3. Authorize the Finance Director to disburse $2,196,124.06 to San Joaquin Valley Homes from the water, sewer, and storm drain enterprise funds.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Master Plan Municipal Code Sections

2. Westfield Design - SIGNED

3. Westfield Construction - SIGNED

4. Westfield Construction - Additional Work - SIGNED
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Javier Sanchez, Engineering & Project Management Director Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk SEWER
25-45.1: ACREAGE FEE:

A. Purpose: In order to implement the goals and objectives of the wastewater facilities master plan of the city, and to provide needed wastewater facilities for new development in the planning area, certain public wastewater facilities must be constructed. The city council has determined that a development impact fee is needed in order to finance these public improvements and to pay for the development's fair share of the construction costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described below, the city council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan and, pursuant to Government Code section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

B. Established: An acreage fee is hereby established upon issuance of certificate of occupancy for development in the city, or upon connection to the city sewer system for development in the city, or upon connection to wastewater facilities. The city council shall, in a council resolution, set forth the specific amount of the fee, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development fee is imposed, list the specific public improvements to be financed, describe the estimated cost of these facilities, describe the reasonable relationships between this fee and the various types of new development and set forth time for payment. As described in the fee resolution, this development fee shall be paid by each developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or connection to the sewer system.

On an annual basis, this fee shall be adjusted by the public works director or designee in accordance with the "Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index" publication.

C. Limited Use Of Fees: The revenues raised by payment of this fee shall be placed in a separate and special account, and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be used solely to:

1. Pay for the city's future construction of wastewater facilities described in the resolution enacted with this section, or to reimburse the city for those described or listed wastewater facilities constructed by the city with funds advanced by the city from other sources; or

2. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted as set forth below, to install such listed wastewater facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity.

D. Developer Construction Of Facilities: Whenever a developer is required, as a condition of approval of a development permit, to construct a public facility described in a resolution adopted pursuant to this section, and when such construction is necessary to ensure efficient and timely construction of the facilities network, a reimbursement agreement with the developer shall be offered. The reimbursement amount shall not exceed the actual cost of the construction of the facility by the developer. In the event the actual construction cost of the facility exceeds the fee required of the development project, the city shall enter into a reimbursement agreement for the cost in excess of the fee required for the project, to be paid from the special account established pursuant to this section. (Ord. 1754, 6-2-2009)
WATER
25-32.3: ACREAGE FEE:

A. Purpose: In order to implement the goals and objectives of the water system master plan of the city, and to provide needed water facilities for new development in the planning area, certain public water facilities must be constructed. The city council has determined that a development impact fee is needed in order to finance these public improvements and to pay for the development's fair share of the construction costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following subsections, the city council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan and, pursuant to Government Code section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

B. Established: An acreage fee is hereby established upon issuance of certificate of occupancy for development in the city, or upon connection to the city water system to pay for water system improvements. The city council shall, in a council resolution, set forth the specific amount of the fee, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development fee is imposed, list the specific public improvements to be financed, describe the estimated cost of these facilities, describe the reasonable relationships between this fee and the various types of new development and set forth time for payment. As described in the fee resolution, this development fee shall be paid by each developer upon issuance of certificate of occupancy or connection to the water system. On an annual basis, this fee shall be adjusted by the public works director department in accordance with the "Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index" publication.

C. Limited Use Of Fees: The revenues raised by payment of this fee shall be placed in a separate and special account and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be used solely to:

1. Pay for the city's future construction of water facilities described in the resolution enacted with this section, or to reimburse the city for those described or listed facilities constructed by the city with funds advanced by the city from other sources; or

2. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted as set forth below, to install such listed facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity. (Ord. 1754, 6-2-2009)

STORM DRAINAGE
19A-40: ACREAGE FEE
A. Purpose: In order to implement the goals and objectives of the storm drain master plan of the city, and to provide needed storm drainage facilities for new development in the planning area, certain public storm drain facilities must be constructed. The city council has determined that a development impact fee is needed in order to finance these public improvements and to pay for the development's fair share of the construction costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described below, the city council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan and, pursuant to Government Code section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

B. Established: An acreage fee is hereby established, upon issuance of certificate of occupancy for development in the city, or upon creation of any additional runoff to the city's storm drain system to pay for storm drainage improvements. The city council shall, in a council resolution, set forth the specific amount of the fee, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development fee is imposed, list the specific public improvements to be financed, describe the estimated cost of these facilities, describe the reasonable relationships between this fee and the various types of new development and set forth time for payment. As described in the fee resolution, this development fee shall be paid by each developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or upon creation of any additional runoff to the city's storm drain system. On an annual basis, this fee shall be adjusted by the public works director or designee in accordance with the "Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index" publication.

1. Pay for the city's future construction of storm drainage facilities described in the resolution enacted with this chapter, or to reimburse the city for those described or listed facilities constructed by the city with funds advanced by the city from other sources; or

2. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted as set forth below, to install such listed facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity.

Page 1 of 3 ends

June 19, 2025
Javier Sanchez
Engineering Director
City of Porterville
291 N. Main St.

Porterville, CA 93257
RE: Letter of Request for Reimbursement of Westfield Construction.

Dear Mr. Sanchez,
This letter is to request approval for offsite infrastructure improvements related to Westfield.

The work is being performed at prevailing wage rates.

1. Construction Staking - QK Inc.

This scope includes:
• Project Management & Engineering Support:
• Weekly meetings, RFI responses, and coordination with the City of Porterville • Construction Staking:
• Sewer, storm drain, recycled water, and curb/gutter staking • 13 mobilizations planned across multiple construction phases • Monument Preservation:
• Tie-out, documentation, and resetting of section corners and centerline monuments • Filing of pre- and post-construction corner records
• Re-Staking Allowance:
• Budgeted for potential rework or additional staking needs

2. Special Inspection & Materials Testing - Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This scope covers quality assurance testing and inspection for the Westfield Avenue Reconstruction project. This scope includes:
• Field Testing & Inspection:
• Utility trench backfill
• Subgrade soil for roadway and flatwork
• Aggregate base and asphalt compaction
• Concrete inspection and epoxy anchor testing
• Laboratory Testing:
• Asphalt gradation, binder content, and density
• Soil and aggregate density and suitability
• Concrete compressive strength
• Project Management:
• Report preparation, civil engineer review, and coordination with contractors

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. Grading and Paving – Gill Reeves Company, Inc.

This scope includes:
• Demolition and removal of existing asphalt surfaces
• Placement of new asphalt concrete over aggregate base • Trench and manhole patching

4. Utility Infrastructure – Ruben’s Pipeline, Inc.

This scope includes:
• Installation of storm drain and sewer systems
• Construction of temporary and permanent force mains
• Installation of reclaimed water lines
• Optional jack and bore tie-in
• Shoring and mobilization
The work also includes tie-ins to existing infrastructure, manhole installations, and abandonment of outdated utility lines. Traffic control and permanent patching are to be coordinated with other contractors.

5. Temporary Fence Rental – Knight’s Site Services
This scope includes:
• Installation & Removal, Travel and Rental of Temporary Fence.

We respectfully request the City’s review and approval of these scopes of work and seek reimbursement for the improvements. Please let us know if any additional documentation or clarification is needed. We appreciate your continued support and collaboration on this important infrastructure project.

Total Cost of Work Subject to Reimbursement: $2,922,949.52 ** SJV Homes requests progress payments against the total reimbursement amount 30 days after the work is completed and invoiced.**

Page 3 of 3 ends

Reimbursement Summary
Task Description Fee Type Fee Amount

1.0 Construction Staking LS $145,950.00

2.0 Testing & Inspection LS $67,840.00

3.0 Laboratory Testing LS $11,940.00

4.0 Grading & Paving LS $605,193.76

5.0 Storm Drain LS $271,884.00

6.0 Sewer LS $711,835.00

7.0 Temp Force Main LS $235,133.00

8.0 Perm Force Main LS $277,923.00

9.0 Reclaimed Water LS $266,183.00

10.0 Saw Cut/Demo/Class II Agg Base/Temp AC LS $89,162.00

11.0 Shoring (Trench Boxes, Jacks, Trench Plates) LS $23,500.00

12.0 Temporary Fence LS $5,392.23

13.0 Traffic Control LS $35,000.00

14.0 Mobilization LS $18,550.00

15.0 North of Westfield Grading, Paving, & Demo Credit LS ($118,057.88)

16.0 SJV Homes Management Fee LS $275,521.41
Total Cost of Work Subject to Reimbursement: $2,922,949.52 We look forward to working with you to complete this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Nic Peters at [email protected] or (559) 699-5906.

Thank you for your consideration:
______________________________________ ____________________________________ Nic Peters Javier Sanchez
San Joaquín Valley Homes Engineering Director
5607 Avenida de los Robles
Visalia, CA 93291

Page 1 of 2 ends

October 16, 2025
Javier Sanchez
Engineering Director
City of Porterville
291 N. Main St.

Porterville, CA 93257
RE: LeƩer of Request for Reimbursement of Wesƞield ConstrucƟon - AddiƟonal Work.

Dear Mr. Sanchez,
This leƩer is to request approval for the addiƟonal work requested for offsite infrastructure improvements related to Wesƞield.

The work is being performed at prevailing wage rates.

1. R&R and Concrete – Davis Engineering ConstrucƟon, Inc.

This scope includes:

Total Cost:

South Side Wesƞield: $81,800.00
Westwood: $34,400.00
Work Items (Wesƞield):
 440 LF remove & replace curb and guƩer
 900 SF remove & replace sidewalk
 1 drive approach (28' typ.)
 2 handicap ramps (20' radius)
Work Items (Westwood):
 150 LF curb & guƩer
 1 commercial drive approach with steel & domes
 750 SF sidewalk
 1 handicap ramp (20' radius)

2. Lombardi Wesƞield – AddiƟonal Paving Work – Gill Reeves Company, Inc.

This scope includes:

Total Cost:

Grading & Paving: $237,892.05
School Patch Work: $53,653.20
Work Items:
 MobilizaƟon
 Demo & off-haul exisƟng asphalt concrete
 Demo and grading of curb & guƩer (Silver Maple & Wesƞield)  Patch paving and new asphalt installaƟon (various thicknesses)  Traffic control

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Wesƞield and Westwood AddiƟonal Work – Ruben’s Pipeline, Inc.

This scope includes:

Total Cost: $11,304.00
Work Items:
 Hot tap for 2" water service
 Extend exisƟng water services
 Extend sewer lateral
We respecƞully request the City’s review and approval of these scopes of work and seek reimbursement for the improvements. Please let us know if any addiƟonal documentaƟon or clarificaƟon is needed. We appreciate your conƟnued support and collaboraƟon on this important infrastructure project. ** SJV Homes requests progress payments against the total reimbursement amount 30 days aŌer the work is completed and invoiced.**
Reimbursement Summary
Task Description Fee Type Fee Amount

1.0 R&R South Side Westfield LS $81,800.00

2.0 Westwood C&G, Drive Approach, Sidewalk, H/C Ramp LS $34,400.00

3.0 Silver Maple & Westfield Pave LS $237,892.05

4.0 Patching for School LS $53,653.20

5.0 Water Service / Sewer Lateral Work LS $11,304.00

6.0 SJV Homes Management Fee LS $20,952.46
Total Cost of Work Subject to Reimbursement: $440,001.71 We look forward to working with you to complete this project. If you have any quesƟons or concerns, please feel free to contact Nic Peters at [email protected] or (559) 699-5906.

Thank you for your consideraƟon:
______________________________________ ____________________________________ Nic Peters Javier Sanchez
San Joaquín Valley Homes Engineering Director
5607 Avenida de los Robles
Visalia, CA 93291
Item No. 5.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Distribute a Request for Qualifications for Nitrification/Denitrification Design Services
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: In April 2021, Carollo Engineers completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) for the City of Porterville. The purpose of the RWFS was to evaluate opportunities for recycled water use, identify barriers to implementation, and assess strategies to reduce groundwater demand and support the City’s longterm sustainability goals. One of the primary barriers identified was the limitation on the use of recycled water based on the level of treatment currently provided at the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF).

The City’s effluent presently meets the classification of undisinfected secondary recycled water, which limits its use to restricted agricultural purposes such as crops used for animal feed. New Central Valley nitrate control policies will require more stringent nitrogen limits, including reducing total nitrogen (TN) to no more than 10 milligrams per liter. Meeting these requirements through a traditional treatment expansion would likely require a major upgrade to restore the facility’s original design capacity of 8 million gallons per day, representing a substantial capital investment.

As an alternative to full expansion, the RWFS identified the option of integrating a nitrification/denitrification (NdN) process into the existing WWTF. This approach would reduce effluent TN concentrations below 10 mg/L, support compliance with evolving regulatory requirements, expand recycled water use within the City’s reclamation area, and help reduce nitrogen loading to percolation ponds, potentially improving groundwater conditions over time. This alternative may represent a significantly more costeffective and sustainable path to compliance compared to expanding or reconstructing the WWTF.

To further evaluate this approach, staff is requesting authorization to distribute a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to identify licensed professionals experienced in the design of municipal nitrification/denitrification systems.

The selected consultant will provide design options for integrating an NdN process into the existing WWTF. Qualified firms will submit statements of Item No. 5.
qualifications that will be reviewed and ranked by a selection panel, with the highest-ranking firms invited to participate in interviews.

Following the evaluation process, staff will present the results to the City Council for approval and direction to negotiate a fee with the highest-ranking firm. A service agreement, including the refined scope and fee, will be returned to the City Council for approval pending final review by the City Attorney. This action does not authorize design approval or construction; those actions will return to the City Council under separate consideration once the design options have been fully evaluated.

This project will be funded by the Wastewater Treatment Facility Reserve Fund, which supports planning and capital improvements necessary for regulatory compliance and long-term infrastructure reliability. No General Fund impact is anticipated.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications for nitrification/denitrification design services to be incorporated into the City’s recycled water system; and

2. Direct staff to return with a recommended consultant selection and negotiated service agreement pending final approval by the City Attorney.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Javier Sanchez, Engineering & Project Management Director Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Porterville

RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY
STUDY
FINAL | April 2021

City of Porterville

RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
FINAL | ͮͬͮͭ
Digitally signed by Tracy C. Warriner
Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Date: 2021.04.12 16:45:58-07'00'
Digitally signed by Kristel Baumgardner Kranz
Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Date: 2021.04.13 10:09:09-07'00'

TABLE OF CONTENTS | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | i
Contents
Chapter 1 - Study Area, Land Use and Population, and Statement of Problem and Needs 1-1

1.1 Introduction 1-1

1.2 Hydrologic Features 1-2

1.2.1 Surface Water 1-2

1.2.2 Groundwater Basin 1-2

1.3 Land Use and Population 1-3

1.3.1 Land Use 1-3

1.3.2 Population 1-6

1.4 Statement of Problems and Needs 1-7
Chapter 2 - Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 2-1

2.1 Water Source, Facilities, and Capacity 2-1

2.1.1 Groundwater 2-1

2.1.2 Major Facilities 2-2

2.1.3 Capacity 2-3

2.2 Need for Additional Water Sources 2-4

2.3 Historical and Projected Water Use Trends 2-7

2.3.1 Historical Water Use 2-7

2.3.2 Projected Water Demand 2-9

2.4 Groundwater Management and Recharge 2-9

2.5 Quality of Water Supplies 2-10

2.5.1 Shallow Wells 2-10

2.5.2 Deep Wells 2-10
Chapter 3 - Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities 3-1

3.1 Wastewater Entities and Facilities 3-1

3.1.1 History of the WWTF 3-1

3.1.2 Existing Facilities 3-1

3.2 Wastewater Flows 3-5

3.2.1 Historical Flows 3-5

3.2.2 Maximum Month Peaking Factor 3-7
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | TABLE OF CONTENTS ii | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

3.2.3 Per Capita Flow 3-7

3.2.4 Projected Wastewater Flows 3-8

3.3 Existing Recycled Water Arrangements 3-8
Chapter 4 - Treatment Requirements for Discharge and Reuse 4-1

4.1 Regulatory Structure 4-1

4.2 Porterville’s Waste Discharge Requirements 4-2

4.3 Porterville’s Current Effluent Reclamation Program 4-2

4.4 Overview of Recycled Water Regulations 4-3

4.4.1 Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations 4-4

4.4.2 Recycled Water General Order 4-5

4.4.3 Potable Reuse by Groundwater Replenishment 4-5

4.4.4 Direct Potable Reuse (Raw Water Augmentation) 4-9

4.5 Tulare Lake Basin Plan Regulatory Considerations 4-9

4.5.1 Proposed Tulare Lake Basin (5D) Basin Plan Amendment 4-9

4.6 Summary of Regulations Governing Recycled Water End Uses 4-11

4.7 General Irrigation Use Guidelines 4-11

4.8 Conclusion 4-13
Chapter 5 - Recycled Water Market Opportunities 5-1

5.1 Recycled Water Use Categories 5-1

5.2 Recycled Water Market Identification 5-2

5.2.1 Restricted Agricultural Reuse – City-Owned Reclamation Area 5-2

5.2.2 Unrestricted Agricultural Reuse – Irrigation Districts 5-2

5.2.3 Landscape Irrigation 5-4

5.2.4 Potable Reuse by Groundwater Replenishment – Rejected 5-9

5.2.5 Direct Potable Reuse by Raw Water Augmentation – Rejected 5-10

5.3 Stakeholder Outreach and Support 5-10

5.3.1 Agricultural Irrigation 5-10

5.3.2 Landscape Irrigation 5-10

5.4 Conclusion 5-10
Chapter 6 - Reuse Alternatives Analysis 6-1

6.1 Introduction 6-1

6.2 Project Constraints and Design Assumptions 6-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | iii

6.2.1 Landscape Irrigation Market 6-1

6.2.2 Coordination with Tule River Tribe Casino Project 6-1

6.2.3 Capacity Limitations of Existing Effluent Pump Station and Pipeline 6-2

6.2.4 Alternatives Design Assumptions 6-4

6.3 Treatment Facility Considerations and Alternatives 6-4

6.3.1 Secondary Treatment Alternatives 6-5

6.3.2 CAS/MLE and MBR Noneconomic Comparison 6-8

6.3.3 Tertiary Treatment Alternatives 6-8

6.4 Reuse Alternatives 6-12

6.4.1 Alternative 1: “No Project” Alternative 6-12

6.4.2 Alternative 2: Restricted Irrigation on City Land with Denitrified Undisinfected Secondary Effluent 6-13

6.4.3 Alternative 3: Unrestricted Agricultural Irrigation on City Land with Title 22 Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water 6-15

6.4.4 Alternative 4: Unrestricted Agricultural Irrigation with Neighboring Irrigation District(s) with Title 22 Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water 6-17

6.4.5 Potential Friant Kern Canal Recycled Water Conveyance Option 6-22

6.5 Noneconomic Screening of Alternatives 6-23

6.5.1 Screening of Treatment Technologies 6-23

6.5.2 Screening of Reuse Alternatives 6-24

6.6 Planning Level Cost Estimate 6-31

6.6.1 Scope and Accuracy Range 6-31

6.6.2 Mark-ups and Contingency 6-31

6.6.3 Unit Construction Costs for Recycled Water Pipelines and Pump Stations 6-32

6.6.4 Cost Estimating Approach for Treatment Facilities 6-32

6.6.5 Present Worth Cost Assumptions 6-34

6.6.6 Excluded Costs 6-34

6.7 Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Costs - Reuse Alternatives 2-4, Phase 1 6-34 Chapter 7 - Recommended Project – Implementation Steps and Funding/Financing Options 7-1

7.1 Introduction 7-1

7.2 Funding Source Identification 7-3

7.2.1 Pay-As-You-Go Funding 7-4

7.2.2 Financing Options 7-4
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | TABLE OF CONTENTS iv | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

7.2.3 Federal Funding 7-7

7.2.4 State Funding 7-10

7.2.5 Summary 7-13

7.3 Funding Sources 7-19

7.3.1 Utility Rates, Charges, and Fees 7-19

7.3.2 Capacity Charges 7-19

7.3.3 Development Impact Fees 7-20

7.4 Funding Uses 7-20

7.4.1 Capital Costs 7-20

7.4.2 Operating Costs 7-20

7.5 Funding Plan Options 7-20

7.5.1 Debt Financing 7-20

7.6 Conclusion 7-21
Appendices
Appendix A Kenneth Schmidt's Technical Memorandum on Updated Groundwater Conditions for the City of Porterville
Appendix B Potential Recycled Water Landscape Irrigation Users Appendix C Communication with Agricultural Districts Confirming Recycled Water Interest and Capacity
Appendix D Recycled Water Alternatives Scoring
Appendix E Total Equipment Costs for UV Options
Appendix F O&M Cost Basis for UV
Tables
Table 1.1 Existing Service Area Land Use 1-3
Table 1.2 Historical Sewer Service Area Population 1-6
Table 1.3 Projected Sewer Service Area Population 1-7
Table 2.1 Wells in the City’s Potable Water Supply Network 2-1 Table 2.2 Stormwater Basins and Volumes 2-3
Table 2.3 Historic Water Use 2-7
Table 2.4 Historic Per Capita Water Demand 2-7
Table 2.5 Water Demand Factors 2-8
Table 2.6 Future Demand Projections 2-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | v
Table 2.7 Shallow Well Chemical Analysis Results (1) 2-11 Table 2.8 Deep Well Chemical Analysis Results (1) 2-13
Table 3.1 Historical Annual Average Flow, Max Month Flow, and Max Month Peaking Factor 3-7
Table 3.2 Historical Sewer Service Area Population and Per Capita Flows 3-7 Table 3.3 City of Porterville WWTF Projected Flows 3-8
Table 4.1 Waste Discharge Requirements (R5-2008-034) 4-2 Table 4.2 Approved Non-Potable Uses of Recycled Water 4-4 Table 4.3 Main Differences between Surface and Subsurface Application of Groundwater Replenishment Recycled Water 4-7
Table 4.4 Title 22 Groundwater Reuse Replenishment Project Criteria 4-8 Table 4.5 Applicable Regulations for Porterville Recycled Water Projects 4-11 Table 4.6 Comparison of Porterville Effluent with Irrigation Water Quality Criteria 4-12 Table 5.1 Recycled Water Use Categories 5-1
Table 5.2 Estimated Agricultural Irrigation Demands 5-4 Table 5.3 Identified Recycled Water Users 5-9
Table 5.4 Potential Recycled Water Users by Use 5-11
Table 6.1 Recycled Water Flows – Design Criteria 6-4
Table 6.2 Evaluation of Noneconomic Factors for Secondary Treatment 6-8 Table 6.3 Reclamation Area Land Requirements for Effluent Discharge 6-14 Table 6.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Unrestricted Irrigation with One or More User 6-21
Table 6.5 Screening Criteria, Metrics, and Scoring Ranges for Reuse Alternatives 6-27 Table 6.6 Non-Economic Scoring of Each Reuse Alternative 6-29 Table 6.7 Cost Estimating Class Estimates 6-31
Table 6.8 General Cost Estimating Assumptions 6-32
Table 6.9 Baseline Unit Construction Costs before Markups 6-32 Table 6.10 Key Variables for Present-Worth Costs 6-34
Table 6.11 Summary of Sizing Criteria for Treatment Alternatives in Reuse Alternatives 6-36
Table 6.12 Cost Comparison for Reuse Alternatives – Phase 1 6-37 Table 6.13 Alternative 4b - Cost Summary for Phase 2 6-39 Table 7.1 Recycled Water Project Phases and Design Criteria 7-2 Table 7.2 Recommended Recycled Water Program Costs, Phases 1 and 2 7-2 CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | TABLE OF CONTENTS vi | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Table 7.3 Planned Implementation Schedule 7-3
Table 7.4 Federal Funding Source Summary 7-15
Table 7.5 State Funding Source Summary 7-17
Figures
Figure 1.1 General Vicinity Map 1-1
Figure 1.2 Surface Water and Watersheds 1-2
Figure 1.3 Groundwater Basins 1-3
Figure 1.4 City Land Use Map 1-5
Figure 1.5 Sewer Service Area Population Projection 1-7 Figure 2.1 City’s Potable Water Supply Wells and Recharge Basins 2-5 Figure 3.1 City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility Site Plan 3-2 Figure 3.2 Reclamation Area Relative to the City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility 3-3
Figure 3.3 City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic 3-4
Figure 3.4 Historical Average Daily and 30-Day Average Influent Flows 3-6 Figure 3.5 Historical Average Annual and Average Daily Maximum Month Influent Flows 3-6
Figure 3.6 Wastewater Flows (Historical and Projected based on 2.5 percent Population Growth) 3-8
Figure 3.7 Reclamation Area 3-9
Figure 4.1 City of Porterville Reclamation Area 4-3
Figure 5.1 Surrounding Irrigation Districts 5-3
Figure 5.2 Potential Recycled Water Landscape Irrigation Users 5-7 Figure 6.1 Conceptual Alignment Options for New Effluent Pipeline 6-3 Figure 6.2 CAS/MLE Schematic 6-5
Figure 6.3 Site Impact for CAS/MLE Phase 1 Secondary Treatment 6-6 Figure 6.4 MBR Schematic 6-7
Figure 6.5 Site Impact for MBR Phase 1 Secondary Treatment 6-9 Figure 6.6 Closed-Vessel UV Disinfection (City of Fresno) 6-11 Figure 6.7 Open Channel UV Disinfection (City of Visalia) 6-11 Figure 6.8 Alternative 1 – Restricted Irrigation on City Reclamation Area (“No Project” Alternative) 6-13
TABLE OF CONTENTS | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | vii
Figure 6.9 Alternative 2 – Restricted Irrigation on City Reclamation Area (“NdN” Alternative) 6-15
Figure 6.10 Alternative 3 – Unrestricted Irrigation on City Reclamation Area 6-16 Figure 6.11 Schematic of Facilities Developed for Alternative 3 6-17 Figure 6.12 Alternative 4 – Unrestricted Irrigation to One or More Users with Split Treatment and Distribution 6-18
Figure 6.13 MBR, Split Disinfection, and Separate Effluent Pump Station 6-19 Figure 6.14 MBR and Split Disinfection with Combined Effluent Pump Station 6-19 Figure 6.15 CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Station 6-20 Figure 6.16 CAS Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection with Combined Effluent Pump Station 6-20
Figure 6.17 Preferred Reuse Alternative Site Impact – Phase 1 MBR Tertiary/Disinfection 6-25
Figure 6.18 Ultimate Phase 2 MBR/UV Treatment Facilities 6-35

APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | ix
Abbreviations
% percent
µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter
AAF average annual flow
ADD average day demand
ADF average daily flow
ADMMF average daily maximum month flow
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AGR agricultural supply
AOP advanced oxidation process
BAF biologically active filtration
Basin Plan “Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Third Edition BOD₅ five day biochemical oxygen demand
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.

CCF centrum cubic feet (748 gallons)
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CECs constituents of emerging concern
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Porterville
CVRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability CWAP California Water Action Plan
CWC California Water Code
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DAFT dissolved air flotation thickener
DBP disinfection byproduct
DDW Division of Drinking Water
DIF developmental impact fees
DOF Department of Finance
DWP Drinking Water Program
DWR Department of Water Resources
EC electrical conductivity
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESB engineered storage buffer
F-K Friant-Kern
ft feet
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | TABLE OF CONTENTS x| APRIL 2021 | FINAL
GAC granular activated carbon
GIS geographic information system
GO general obligation
gpcd gallons per capita day
gpd/ac gallons per day per acre
gpm gallons per minute
hp horsepower
ID irrigation district
IND industrial supply
JPA joint powers authority
LAFCO local agency formation commission
MBR membrane bioreactor
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDD maximum day demand
MF microfiltration
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
mg-min/L milligram minutes per liter
MinDD minimum day demand
MinMD minimum month demand
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
MMD maximum month demand
MPN Most Probable Number
MUN municipal and domestic supply
NDMA N-Nitrosodimethylamine
NdN nitrification/denitrification
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NL notification level
NO2-N nitrite nitrogen
NO3-N nitrate nitrogen
NRC National Research Council
NTC Notice to Comply
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
NWRI National Water Research Institute
O&M operations and maintenance
PAYGO pay as you go
PHD peak hour demand
PHF peak hour flow
PID Porterville Irrigation District
APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | xi
ppb parts per billion
PS pump station
psi pounds per square inch
PUD public utilities district
RAS return activated sludge
RO reverse osmosis
RWC recycled water contribution
RWFS Recycled Water Feasibility Study
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAR sodium absorption ratio
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SID Saucelito Irrigation District
SOR surface overflow rate
sq ft square feet
SWD side water depth
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TIN total inorganic nitrogen
TN total nitrogen
TOC total organic carbon
TOrCs trace organic constituents
TPDWD Tea Pot Dome Water District
Tribe Tule River Tribe
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TTP tertiary treatment plant
UF ultrafiltration
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
UV ultraviolet
VFD variable frequency drive
WAS waste activated sludge
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WRF water reclamation facility
WRFP Water Recycling Funding Program
WRM Water Resources Management
WTP water treatment plant
WWTF wastewater treatment facility
μg/L micrograms per liter

CHAPTER 1 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 1-1
Chapter 1

STUDY AREA, LAND USEAND POPULATION,

AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND NEEDS
This Chapter give a brief background on some key characteristics of the City of Porterville (City), describes the City’s need for the Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS), and summarizes the objectives of the RWFS.

1.1 Introduction
The City is located in the Central San Joaquin Valley at the base of the Sierra Nevada Foothills. It is approximately 70 miles southeast of Fresno and 50 miles north of Bakersfield, in the south central portion of Tulare County. The City is intersected by Highway 65 and 190, two major highways within the area. A map showing the location of the City within Tulare County is presented in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 General Vicinity Map
The City, incorporated in 1902, provides water, sewer, and storm drainage service to its customers within the City limits, as well as some small areas outside of the City limits. The City is home to approximately 59,000 residents and its boundaries encompass 18.6 square miles.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 1 1-2 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

1.2 Hydrologic Features

1.2.1 Surface Water
Surface waters in the Porterville area include the Friant-Kern (F-K) Canal, the Tule River, and the Porter Slough. The F-K Canal is a major conveyance facility for the Central Valley Project. It originates in Lake Millerton and runs south approximately four miles west of the City center. The Tule River, one of the principal watercourses in Tulare County, bisects the City into northern and southern portions. The Tule River originates at Lake Success. Discharges of water into the river from Success Dam are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Porter Slough is a natural tributary of the Tule River and flows through the City center. It originates from the Tule River approximately four miles east of the center of the City and returns to the river approximately 17 miles below its point of origin. Porter Slough is an official floodway of the Tule River, and controlled flows are released into Porter Slough for groundwater recharge.

Private ditches form another major water feature in the area. Seven ditch companies divert water from points in and around the City: Pioneer, Campbell-Moreland, Porter Slough, Vandalia, Poplar, Hubbs-Miner, and Woods-Central. In addition to delivering water for irrigation, these ditches also provide extra capacity to carry peak flood flows and urban storm water runoff as well as groundwater recharge from infiltration.

Surface water and watersheds in the vicinity of the City are shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Surface Water and Watersheds

1.2.2 Groundwater Basin
The City is located within the Tule Sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Tulare Lake Hydrological Region). The Kaweah Sub-basin lies immediately north of the City and CHAPTER 1 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 1-3
the Tule Sub-basin. The area is underlain by an unconfined aquifer which receives groundwater recharge from the Sierra Nevada Mountains and seepage from the Tule River and irrigation ditches. Alluvial fans of the Tule River provide high permeability for groundwater replenishment.

The City has traditionally depended on groundwater from the Tule Sub-basin to supply drinking water through a network of 37 potable water supply wells. The Tule Sub-basin has been classified by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as in a critical overdraft condition and a high priority sub-basin.

The groundwater basins in the vicinity of the City are shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Groundwater Basins

1.3 Land Use and Population

1.3.1 Land Use
The land use plan used for this RWFS is based on the City’s 2030 General Plan. Table 1.1 provides a summary, by land use, of the amount of developed and underdeveloped land within the existing service area.

Table 1.1 Existing Service Area Land Use
Land Use Category
Area within the Current Service Area(1),(2) (acres)
Developed Underdeveloped Total
Residential
Rural Residential 13 11 23
Very Low Density Residential 63 5 68
Low Density Residential 2,550 286 2,836
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 1 1-4 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Land Use Category
Area within the Current Service Area(1),(2) (acres)
Developed Underdeveloped Total
Low Medium Density Residential 33 61 94
Medium Density Residential 431 108 539
High Density Residential 198 23 221
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 14 9 23
Retail Centers 183 30 214
Professional Office 77 7 84
General and Service Commercial 211 15 226
Downtown Retail 62 62
Industrial
Industrial 223 20 243
Industrial Park 63 92 156
Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use 62 2 63
Downtown Mixed Use 45 8 53
Other
Public Institutional (Excl. Airport) 380 11 391
Education 367 19 386
Parks and Recreation 238 22 260
Agriculture Rural Conservation 26 0 26
Other (Unknown) 63 3 66
Airport 447 0 447
Total 5,751 731 6,482
Notes:
(1) Land use areas based on an aerial analysis of the City’s current service area. (2) The land use totals in this table exclude the area associated with East Porterville/Porter Vista PUD As shown in Table 1.1, there are approximately 7,288 acres of developed and underdeveloped land within the service area (excluding right-of-ways such as streets, highways, and railroads).

Within the service area, 4,517 acres or 62 percent (percent) are classified as residential, 662 acres (9 percent) are classified as commercial, and 398 acres (5 percent) are associated with industrial.

The remaining mixed use and others make up the remaining 1,711 acres (23 percent).

Figure 1.4 shows the City’s existing land use map.

The Tule River Tribe (Tribe) is interested in developing a casino-resort within a 40-acre site near the Porterville Airport, within the City limits. The proposed casino resort will rely on the City to provide potable water. Untreated sanitary wastewater generated at the casino resort would be conveyed to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) through the City’s collection system. The resort will use recycled water for landscape irrigation. The City and the Tribe are in the process of establishing a joint powers authority (JPA) to own and operate a tertiary treatment plant (TTP) that will withdraw effluent from the City’s secondary effluent pipeline for treatment in the TTP. In addition to irrigating the casino resort grounds, the recycled water will be used on the City’s Sports Park. The potable water demand reduction at the Sports Park will offset the potable water demand of the casino resort.

1.3.2 Population

1.3.2.1 Historical Sewer Service Area Population
Historical population estimates for the City were provided by the City Planning Department as well as the California Department of Finance (DOF). The historical sewer service population was calculated by adding the estimated City population, the estimated population of the Porter Vista Public Utility District, and the estimated population for other sewer connections outside the City limits. The population for additional sewer connections was estimated by multiplying the assumed household size (3.37) by the given number of connections outside the City limits (41).

Table 1.2 shows the estimated historical sewer service population.

Table 1.2 Historical Sewer Service Area Population
Year City Population
Estimates (1), (2)
Porter Vista Public
Utility District
Other
Connections
Sewer Service Area
Population Estimates
2000 37,619 6790 138 44,547
2001 40,650 6790 138 47,578
2002 41,009 6790 138 47,937
2003 41,945 6790 138 48,873
2004 43,150 6790 138 50,078
2005 44,496 6790 138 51,424
2006 45,220 6790 138 52,148
2007 51,467 6790 138 58,395
2008 51,863 6790 138 58,791
2009 52,056 6790 138 58,984
2010 52,960 6790 138 59,888
2011 54,843 6790 138 61,771
2012 55,107 6790 138 62,035
2013 55,490 6790 138 62,418
2014 55,697 6790 138 62,625
2015 55,852 6790 138 62,780
2016 60,070 6790 138 66,998
2017 60,114 6790 138 67,042
2018 60,798 6790 138 67,726
Notes:
(1) City population estimates for the years 2000 through 2016 provided by the City Planning Department (2) City population estimates for the years 2017 and 2018 provided by the California Department of Finance

1.3.2.2 Projected Sewer Service Area Population
Based on feedback from the City, it was determined that a 2.5 percent growth rate would be used to project population growth out from 2019 to 2040. This growth rate is consistent with the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP states that the average annual population growth rate from 2000 to 2015 was 2.5 percent and the City’s population projections are based on the assumption that the growth rate will be the same. The RWFS assumes a growth rate of 2.5 percent per year and assumes that the sewer service area population will match the City growth rate.

CHAPTER 1| RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 1-7
Table 1.3 summarizes the projected population out to the planning year of 2040. This population projection was used to calculate projected future flows and loads.

Table 1.3 Projected Sewer Service Area Population
Year Sewer Service Area Population Projection
(2.5% Annual Growth Rate)
2018 67,726
2019 69,419
2020 71,155
2030 91,084
2035 103,053
2040 116,595
Figure 1.5 shows the historical and projected sewer service area population with an assumed annual growth rate of 2.5 percent.

Figure 1.5 Sewer Service Area Population Projection

1.4 Statement of Problems and Needs
The development of this RWSF was influenced by a number of contributing factors including:
• General Plan Update: In 2008, the City adopted an updated general plan, which created and modified land use pattern with the City and projected the City’s growth out to 2030. • Expanded Urban Development Boundary: In 2014, the City, Tulare County, and the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) agreed upon a new Urban 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Sewer Service Area Population
Year
Sewer ServiceArea Population (Historical &Projected)
Historical Population Estimates
Projected Population (2.5% Growth)
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 1 1-8 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Development Boundary for the City. The Urban Development Boundary established an expanded growth boundary that includes a small Tulare County community of approximately 7,300 residence known as East Porterville. • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA): SGMA provides a framework for the sustainable management of groundwater basins within California. The Act requires that groundwater basins ranked as medium- or high-priority basins establish a Groundwater Sustainability Association for the development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).

The goal of the GSP is to bring the groundwater basin into balance by 2040. The City is located within the Tule Groundwater Basin – a basin defined as a high-priority basin by the Department of Water Resources.
• Surface Water Potential Supplies: The City has identified 2,500 acre feet per year (AFY) of surface water to be developed through partnership agreements with local irrigation districts as a potential reliable water supply for recharge to the groundwater basin. Currently, surface water is underutilized within the City limits and the City has investigated the possibility of treating surface water and delivering it directly to the users. • Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion: Currently the City’s WWTF has a capacity of approximately 8 million gallons per day (mgd) and produces undisinfected secondary wastewater. The average daily wastewater flow for 2018 is 4.35 mgd. Wastewater projections indicate that the WWTF’s capacity would need to be increased to 7.26 mgd in 2032 and 8.84 mgd in 2040 to accommodate the City’s projected population. • Reduced Groundwater Yield from Existing Wells: Due to the City’s aging well infrastructure and five consecutive years of drought, well production has decreased dramatically over the years. A combination of new wells and the rehabilitation of existing wells will be required to support future development.
• Water Reclamation/Recycling: A growing emphasis has been placed on opportunities for the use of recycled water. Currently, the City uses wastewater effluent for restricted irrigation. Effluent flows exceeding crop demands are discharged to percolation ponds in the reclamation area. Other potential uses for recycled water include landscape irrigation.

The City is currently over-drafting their groundwater supply by approximately 1,200 AFY. In addition, projected demands are expected to be approximately 10 mgd greater than existing demands. The City is interested in exploring opportunities to offset potable demands and/or augment supply. Recycled water could be used to offset potable demands by replacing irrigation with potable water with irrigation with non-potable water. Recycled water could also be used for agricultural irrigation in exchange for surface water credits. The primary focus of this RWFS is the reuse potential for the City’s WWTF effluent.

The objective of the RWFS is to determine the feasibility of developing a recycled water system that will help reduce demands on groundwater and support the City’s sustainability goals. It will be used to determine where opportunities exist for recycled water, what barriers exist to implementing reuse, and provide cost/benefit analysis for its development. This RWFS will rely on the information generated and determinations made in conjunction with the evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives being evaluated separately by the City.

CHAPTER 2 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021| 2-1
Chapter 2

WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS AND

FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the quality and quantity of the current water supply available to the City of Porterville (City), summarizes existing facilities used for drinking water supply and distribution, and describes the City’s water supply plans for meeting future water demands.

2.1 Water Source, Facilities, and Capacity

2.1.1 Groundwater
The City provides potable water to its customers within the City limits and to some small areas outside the City limits. The City currently relies 100 percent on groundwater from the Tule Sub-basin for its potable water supply. As described in Chapter 1 of this Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS), water is pumped into the distribution system from a network of 37 potable water supply wells.

Table 2.1 lists the 37 wells along with their locations and pumping capacities based on most recent well pump efficiency tests and input from City staff. As shown in Table 2.1, 31 wells are active and 6 wells are inactive or on standby. In addition to existing wells, the City has planned to add 3 wells.

Table 2.1 Wells in the City’s Potable Water Supply Network Well Name Status Location Pumping Capacity (gpm)
Airport-1 Active 1893 S. Newcomb 348
Airport-2 Active West s/o Scranton 305
City-1A Active 170 E. Putnam Ave. 405
City-3 Active Willow & N. E St. 324
City-4 Inactive Orange/E St. 375
City-6 Active 437 W. Kanai Ave. 484
City-7 Active Orange & Western 176
City-8 Active Walnut & A St. 201
City-10 Active Orange/Western 252
City-11 Active Garden & 4th 285
City-12 Standby 892. W Henderson Ave. 145
City-13 Inactive 191 W. Poplar --
City-15 Active Morton @ G St. 297
City-16 Active 1495 W. Henderson 534
City-17 Active 1341 W. Tomah 577
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 2 2-2 | APRIL 2021 |FINAL
Well Name Status Location Pumping Capacity (gpm)
City-18 Active 1891 W. Henderson 454
City-19 Active Jaye & Date 315
City-20 Active Morton & Newcomb 604
City-21 Active 369 N. Hockett St. 631
City-22 Active Newcomb & Tomah 739
City-23 Active Union & Indiana 359
City-24 Active Olive Ave. w/o Taylor 538
City-25 Active 1594 W. Date Ave. 587
City-26 Active 861 S. Indiana 358
City-27 Active Gibbons & Jaye St 211
City-28 Active F St./Gibbons 150
City-29 Active 2250 W. Henderson 340
City-31 Active 293 S. Mathew 644
City-32 Active 44776 Plant 271
City-33 Active 29648 Plant 516
East
Porterville-5
Active Alta Vista/Springville 75
Lindale-1 Active Tomah /Beverly 240
Lindale-5 Inactive Tomah/Salisbury 495
Lindale-7 Active Thurman/Cobb 347
Lindale-8 Inactive 2107 White Chapel Way 270
Rowland-5 Inactive Newcomb/Forest 110
Rowland-7 Active 2006 W. Olive Ave. 375
CW-34 Planned -- 1,200
CW-35 Planned -- 500
CW-37 Planned -- 600

2.1.2 Major Facilities
The City’s water system has six active water reservoirs totaling 10.15 million gallons (MG). As part of the East Porterville Project, a new 1.2 MG storage tank will be added to the system by the year 2025. There are nine booster pump stations located through the distribution system and approximately 260 miles of pipeline installed. As East Porterville is incorporated into the City’s water distribution system, total pipeline length is estimated at 274 miles.

The water system consists of seven pressure zones: 1) Rocky Hill, 2) Jasmine/Crestview, 3) Corona Heights, 4) East, 5) Scenic Heights, 6) Central, and 7) West. A significant amount of the demands are located in the Central Pressure Zone.

To replenish the groundwater, the City currently has 23 stormwater recharge basins located within City Limits. Table 2.2 lists the stormwater basins along with their approximate volumes.

CHAPTER 2 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021| 2-3
Table 2.2 Stormwater Basins and Volumes
Basin ID Basin Name Volume (AF)
8 Hayes Field 25.8
9 Zalud Park 104
10 Rocky Hill 1 50
12 Lewis Pond 127.3
17 KTIP 70.3
23 Mulberry at Friant Canal 54.4
26 Roby @ Conner 46.7
28 Jay @ Worth 50.6
30 OHV Park 76.1
52 Lewis Property 16
55 NE of 190/65 30.0
06A Veterans 7.8
06B Veterans 45.1
06C Veterans 35.2
CORONA Corona @ Porter Slough 23.4
GH_BASIN Granite Hills 64.2
INDIANA Indiana St 42.6
MATHEW Mathew and Heritage 10.50
ORANGE Orange and Prospect 1.3
ORCHARD_RIDGE Orchard Ridge Subdivision 35.0
SANDRA Sandra St 2.6
VALLEY_OAK Valley Oak Subdivsion 3.4
WESTWOOD Airport Industrial 53.7
Figure 2.1 shows a map of the City’s supply wells, existing stormwater recharge basins, and planned stormwater and surface water recharge basins.

2.1.3 Capacity
The City’s sole source of water is wells located throughout the distribution system. There are 31 active wells for a total capacity of 12,032 gpm. The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicated that groundwater levels have declined an average of 0.75 feet per year, and well yields have decreased substantially. The yielding capacity of the existing wells can be attributed to decreased static water levels due to consecutive drought years.

The City has three planned wells. The planned wells are located on the west side of the City where the groundwater quality is generally higher. The three wells are expected to be operational by spring of 2021, and are estimated to have a capacity of 500 to 1,200 gpm, bringing the total capacity to approximately 14,332 gpm.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 2 2-4 | APRIL 2021 |FINAL

2.2 Need for Additional Water Sources
Due to the City’s aging well infrastructure and consecutive years of drought, well production has decreased dramatically over the years. The City’s current average day demands are approximately 12.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and future average day demands are expected to be 22.8 mgd by 2040 (see section 2.3.2). The City is exploring other water supplies, including use of recycled water to offset demands or augment supplies to meet the projected demands.

An evaluation of the City’s water system to meet future demands is being conducted in a separate study, and preliminary information is provided here.

CHAPTER 2 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021| 2-5
Figure 2.1 City’s Potable Water Supply Wells and Recharge Basins

CHAPTER 2 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021| 2-7

2.3 Historical and Projected Water Use Trends

2.3.1 Historical Water Use
The City’s historical water consumption records from 2000 to 2018 were reviewed to determine the daily, monthly, and seasonal fluctuations as well as peaking factors, typical water use trends, and per capita water demands. These were used as the basis for estimating existing demands.

Table 2.3 summarizes the City’s historical service area population, average day demand (ADD) and maximum month demand (MMD) in mgd, and MMD/ADD peaking factor from 2000 to 2018.

Table 2.3 Historic Water Use
Year Service Area
Population(1)
Average Day
Demand (mgd)
Max Month
Demand (mgd)

MMD/ADD
Peaking Factor
2000 50,594 9.42 20.53 2.39
2005 57,568 10.88 18.36 1.69
2010 64,827 11.06 18.12 1.64
2015 65,702 8.54 11.74 1.37
2018 73,948 9.64 13.38 1.39
Note:
(1) 2005 to 2015 service area population is from Urban Water Management Plan Update, 2017.City Planning Department provided service area population data for 2018.

The City saw a significant drop in domestic water use from 2013 to 2015, which is attributable to water conservation efforts. Since construction on the East Porterville Project began in 2016, 300 residents were connected to the system in 2017, and 450 additional residents were connected in 2018.

2.3.1.1 Per Capita Water Demand
The per capita consumption rate is used for estimating the City’s future water demands. The consumption rate expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) is applied to the projected service area population to yield future water requirements. Table 2.4 summarizes the historical domestic per capita water demand.

Table 2.4 Historic Per Capita Water Demand
Year Service Area
Population (1)
ADD
(mgd)
Per Capita Demand
(gpcd)
2000 50,594 9.42 186
2005 57,568 10.88 189
2010 64,827 11.06 171
2015 65,702 8.54 130
2018 73,948 9.64 130
Note:
(1) 2005 to 2015 service area population is from Urban Water Management Plan Update, 2017.City Planning Department provided service area population data for 2018.

The City’s per capita water demand has ranged from 129 to 221 gpcd, and has been trending downward. The reduction in per capita demand can be attributed to increased conservation. For planning purposes, a per capita demand of 179 gpcd was used for future water demand projections. This value was chosen because it matches the City’s UWMP conservation target for CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 2 2-8 | APRIL 2021 |FINAL
per capita water usage of 179 gpcd for 2020. The average per capita water demand for the years 2010-2014 (pre-drought) was 171 gpcd, and the average per capita water demand for the years 2015-2018 (drought) was 130 gpcd. The average 2015-2018 per capita demands may be artificially low due to state-mandated water conservation, and therefore the City may see a rebound in the per capita water demands as drought conditions continue to ease.

2.3.1.2 Water Demand Factors
A water demand factor (WDF) is the estimated amount of water usage per area by land use type.

These factors are used to estimate the ADD for the potential development areas by multiplying the WDF by acres of each land use category. Table 2.5 shows the WDFs that correspond to the City’s customer classes.

Table 2.5 Water Demand Factors
Land Use Category WDF (gpd/acre)
Residential
Rural Residential 350
Very Low Density Residential 1,300
Low Density Residential 1,900
Low Medium Density Residential 2,300
Medium Density Residential 2,600
High Density Residential 4,000
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 1,700
Retail Centers 2,000
Professional Office 2,900
General and Service Commercial 2,300
Downtown Retail 2,000
Industrial
Industrial 3,300
Industrial Park 2,200
Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use 2,800
Downtown Mixed Use 4,000
Other
Public Institutional (Excl. Airport) 900
Education 2,500
Parks and Recreation 3,200
Agriculture Rural Conservation 0
Other (Unknown) 0
Airport 200
Note:
(1) WDF analysis is based on 2017 observed data.

CHAPTER 2 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021| 2-9

2.3.2 Projected Water Demand
Using the projected population; peaking factors, per capita demand rates, WDFs, and land use designations, the future water demands were forecast. Table 2.6 summarizes existing and future demands.

Table 2.6 Future Demand Projections
Year Projected ADD
(mgd)
Projected MDD (1 )
(mgd)
(Existing) 12.3 24.0
2020 13.9 27.1
2025 15.7 30.6
2030 17.8 34.7
2035 20.1 39.2
2040 22.8 44.5
Buildout 29.4 57.3
Note:
(1) MDD/ADD peaking factor = 1.95; PHD/ADD peaking factor = 2.43

2.4 Groundwater Management and Recharge
The City’s sole water source is groundwater from the Tule Sub-basin. The Tule Sub-basin, along with many other sub-basins in the surrounding area, has been classified by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as in a critical overdraft condition and a high priority sub-basin. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which went into effect on January 1, 2015, requires local water agencies within high-priority groundwater subbasins to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and prepare Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). The goal of the GSP, which must be adopted by January 1, 2020, is to bring the groundwater basin into balance by 2040. The City is a member of the Eastern Tule GSA, which is developing its GSP at this time. The City and its GSA partners will strive to manage their groundwater supply in accordance with the GSA and SGMA requirements. Upon completion of the GSP and associated rules and regulations for implementing the GSP, the City will have a groundwater pumping allocation that is expected to provide a portion of the supply to meet future demands.

The City is evaluating other opportunities for expanding groundwater recharge capacity, among approaches to augmenting the supplies. As mentioned previously, an evaluation of the City’s water system to meet future demands is in progress, and preliminary information is included as follows.

The City has acquired surface water rights from the Pioneer Water Company and Porter Slough Ditch Company that amounts to 483 shares. These shares equate to quantity of water ranging between 1 acre-feet to 2 acre-feet per share, all of which is dependent on the available water allocations for each given year. Groundwater recharging efforts are the current sole use of this surface water supply. In addition, the City has set aside funds within the water budget for the acquisition of additional surface water supplies, when they become available, from local irrigation companies or districts near and surrounding Porterville when available. For over a decade, the City of Porterville has been aggressive in groundwater recharging by acquiring additional surface water supplies, above and beyond the Pioneer Water Company and Porter CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 2 2-10 | APRIL 2021 |FINAL
Slough Ditch supplies. Porterville’s recharging efforts have averaged about 2,175 acre-feet per year between 2007 and 2013.

2.5 Quality of Water Supplies
In spring 2017, chemical analyses including major cations and anions, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), iron, manganese, arsenic, alpha activity, and nitrate-nitrogen were obtains for the City wells. Other inorganic chemical constituents were not significant.

The results are detailed in Kenneth Schmidt’s 2018 Technical Memorandum on Updated Groundwater Conditions for the City of Porterville, included in Appendix A. Overall, all of the water supply wells are in full compliance, and any wells that are out of compliance have been shut down.

2.5.1 Shallow Wells
The results for the City’s shallow wells, sampled in February and March 2017, are listed in Table 2.7.

TDS concentrations ranged from 140 to 330 mg/L. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from 1 to 8.4 mg/L. The highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations (about 7 to 8.4 mg/L) were in Wells C-20 and C-21, both of which have relatively shallow perforations. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and arsenic were below the respective MCLs except for iron in Well L-8 (1.2 mg/L, compared to the recommended MCL of 0.3 mg/L). The manganese concentration in Well L-8 (0.04 mg/L) was just below the recommended MCL of 0.05 mg/L. Alpha activities were less than the MCL of 15 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The highest alpha activities (8.0 to 9.7 pCi/L) were in Wells C-21 and C-26.

2.5.2 Deep Wells
The results for the City’s deep wells, sampled in February and March 2017, are listed in Table 2.8.

TDS concentrations ranged from 160 to 300 mg/L. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from less than 1 to 5.5 mg/L. The highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations (4.1 to 5.5 mg/L) were in Wells C-6, C-10A, C-11, and C-24. Three of these wells (C-6, C-10A, and C-24) have perforations extending up to from 100 to 120 feet in depth. In contrast, Well C-11 does not have perforations this shallow, and the reason for the moderate nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in water from this well is unknown. Iron concentrations were less than the recommended secondary MCL of

0.3 mg/L except for Wells C-12 and C-33, which had from 0.35 to 0.6 mg/l of iron. Manganese and arsenic concentrations were less than their respective MCLs. Alpha activities ranged from 1.9 to

11.7 pCi/L and were less than the MCL of 15 pCi/L. The highest alpha activity was in Well C-6.

CHAPTER 2 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021| 2-11
Table 2.7 Shallow Well Chemical Analysis Results (1)
Constituent (mg/L) C-1 C-4 C-15 C-17 C-20 C-21 C-22 C-26 L-1 L-7 L-8 R-7 R-11 R-12 EP-533 Calcium 34 42 32 42 42 46 47 57 - 38 25 56 27 32 33
Magnesium 16 7 7 6 5 17 7 10 6 6 4 8 4 5 8
Sodium 23 23 17 20 25 24 22 21 - 22 11 22 12 13 23
Potassium - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carbonate <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Bicarbonate 200 200 170 180 180 220 210 220 - 180 100 230 130 130 200 Sulfate 12 20 8 10 18 14 17 17 - 13 21 15 10 9 13
Chloride 15 17 8 12 16 31 19 15 - 12 6 14 8 7 11
Nitrate-N 3.6 4.1 1.6 2.5 8.4 6.8 4.3 4.1 2.7 3.9 1.8 4.3 1.6 1.1 3.4 Fluoride 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 pH 7.2 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 - 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.4 Electrical Conductivity (µmhos/cm
@25°C) 402 406 305 346 411 502 413 449 - 364 238 457 257 273 365 Total Dissolved Solids (@180°C) 220 250 210 200 260 330 240 280 - 220 140 270 170 170 220 Iron <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 1.2 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 Manganese <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 0.04 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 Arsenic (ppb) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 Alpha Activity (pCi/L) - 6.5 - 3.6 6.3 8.0 5.7 9.7 4.9 5.2 2.9 - 2.6 - 3.6 Hexavalent Chromium (ppb) <1 <1 - <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - - Date 3/15/17 5/10/17 3/16/17 3/15/17 5/10/17 3/16/17 5/10/17 3/16/17 2/4/17 3/15/17 5/11/17 3/15/17 5/11/17 3/15/17 5/10/17 Perforated Interval (ft) 120-140 308 O.B. 180-300 100-300 122-379 125-215 95-350 100-295 66-205 96-216 144 O.B. 106-146 216 O.B. 120-230 T.D. 154 Note:
(1) Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates, Groundwater Quality Consultants (September 2018) Technical Memorandum on Updated Groundwater Conditions for City of Porterville. Prepared for Carollo Engineers, Inc., Inc. Walnut Creek, California. Results of sampling conducted February through May 2017.

CHAPTER 2 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021| 2-13
Table 2.8 Deep Well Chemical Analysis Results (1)
Constituent (mg/L) C-3 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-10A C-11 C-12 C-16 C-18 C-19 C-23 C-24 C-25 C-27 C-28 C-29 C-31 C-32 C-33 AP-1 AP-2 Calcium 23 49 36 35 51 30 38 23 34 34 37 44 44 44 35 37 38 - 43 30 36 Magnesium 19 10 6 9 10 19 6 13 6 6 6 6 7 7 5 5 6 - 6 4 8 Sodium 27 22 17 18 25 26 20 26 23 18 15 22 22 19 19 16 16 - 19 29 28 Potassium - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carbonate <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Bicarbonate 200 210 180 180 240 240 200 170 170 170 160 210 200 200 170 170 180 - 180 170 210 Sulfate 11 13 11 12 13 15 13 10 12 7 7 14 11 11 8 10 9 - 10 9 16 Chloride 15 17 11 13 17 23 14 11 14 10 7 16 11 10 8 10 8 - 10 9 16 Nitrate-N 3.9 4.1 1.6 3.2 4.1 5.5 3.2 2.0 2.7 <1 <1 4.1 1.8 1.8 1.4 3.2 1.1 - 1.4 2.0 3.9 Fluoride 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.1 pH 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.0 7.7 7.2 7.8 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.3 - 7.4 7.6 7.7 Electrical Conductivity (µmhos/cm
@25°C) 387 432 324 350 470 474 362 327 337 310 290 392 367 366 314 324 313 - 346 313 398 Total Dissolved Solids (@180°C) 210 260 210 200 300 270 210 160 190 170 160 230 220 220 200 180 170 - 210 200 220 Iron <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.60 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.35 <0.1 <0.1 Manganese <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Arsenic (ppb) 3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 3 <2 Alpha Activity (pCi/L) - 11.7 6.8 3.9 - 2.7 - 1.9 4.5 3.0 2.5 5.9 4.6 4.7 - 3.5 - - 4.8 - 4.3 Hexavalent Chromium (ppb) - <1 - <1 <1 - - - - - <1 - <1 - - - - <1 <1 - - Date 3/15/17 3/15/17 5/10/17 5/10/17 3/16/17 5/10/17 5/11/17 3/15/17 3/15/17 3/15/17 3/16/17 5/10/17 3/16/17 3/15/17 3/15/17 5/10/1 7 3/15/17 3/16/17 3/16/17 3/16/17 5/10/17
Perforated Interval (ft) 207-
535
115-
438
160-
593 79-435 120-
450
250-
506
201-
601
240-
548 70-600 90-520 200-
450
100-
610
100-
440
110-
615
100-
620 80-620 100-
550
240-
760
220-
810
258-
676
270-
720
Note:
(1) Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates, Groundwater Quality Consultants (September 2018) Technical Memorandum on Updated Groundwater Conditions for City of Porterville. Prepared for Carollo Engineers, Inc., Inc. Walnut Creek, California. Results of sampling conducted February through May 2017.

CHAPTER 3 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY |CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 3-1
Chapter 3

WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND

FACILITIES
This chapter discusses current and future wastewater quality and quantity, as well as the existing facilities used to treat the wastewater to secondary levels of treatment. Any existing recycled water agreements currently in affect are also summarized herein.

3.1 Wastewater Entities and Facilities
The City of Porterville (City) owns and operates the City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), which treats wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial dischargers within the City as well as from Porterville State Hospital and the Porter Vista Public Utility District (PVPUD).

3.1.1 History of the WWTF
The City’s WWTF was built in 1954 with a capacity of 1.8 mgd. In June 1971, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region (CVRWQCB) adopted an Interim Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Subbasins, which proposed making the City the sewer agency for the Porterville urban area along State Highway 190, up to and including Porterville State Hospital. An interceptor to transport wastewater from the Porterville State Hospital for treatment at the city WWTF was constructed in 1974.

The 1978 WWTF expansion to 4.0 mgd provided capacity for future growth and for the addition of existing developments which previously depended on individual disposal systems. The 1994 WWTF expansion increased the average day maximum month flow (ADMMF) design capacity from 4 mgd to 8 mgd. Various equipment and SCADA upgrades have been made to the facilities since the 1994 expansion to maintain the condition and reliability of WWTF processes. The most significant project was the replacement of digester gas-fueled engine-driven blowers with new, more efficient electric blowers in 2016. Coupled with this project was the installation of a photovoltaic (PV) system to allow the WWTF to reduce imported electrical demand and power costs.

3.1.2 Existing Facilities
Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the existing treatment facilities site plan, Figure 3.2 shows the reclamation area (described in section 3.3 and detailed in Figure 3.7) in relation to the WWTF, and Figure 3.3 shows a process flow diagram for the liquid and solids streams.

3.1.2.1 Preliminary Treatment
Sewage from the collection system enters the WWTF and passes through bar screens at the headworks. Screenings are compacted in the screw compactor and hauled offsite. Screened wastewater is pumped to the aerated grit chambers where settled grit is removed by a conveyer system and hauled to the landfill. From the grit chambers wastewater is distributed to Plants 1, 2, 3, and 4.

3.1.2.2 Plants 1, 2, 3, and 4
Primary influent from the grit chambers flows to Claraetors 1 and 2 and Primary Clarifiers 3 and

4. Primary sludge and scum are pumped to the anaerobic digesters. Primary effluent from Plants 1 and 2 continues treatment within the Claraetors, and primary effluent from Plants 3 and 4 enters Aeration Basins 3 and 4. Secondary effluent from Secondary Clarifiers 1 and 2 commingles with secondary effluent from Plants 3 and 4 before discharging from the WWTF.

3.1.2.3 Effluent Discharge
Since the effluent is no longer disinfected, the existing chlorine contact basin is no longer used.

However, the final undisinfected secondary effluent still flows through the contact basin to the final effluent discharge point. From the WWTF, the final effluent is conveyed to the reclamation area, which includes approximately 705 acres of farmland and 6 percolation ponds. Effluent is used to irrigate fodder crops or discharged to the percolation ponds.

3.1.2.4 Solids Handling
Four anaerobic digesters stabilize the primary solids as well as the thickened WAS from the DAF thickeners. A screw press is used to dewater digested sludge, and the biosolids are dried further in the drying beds. When the screw press in not in operation (night hours), the digested sludge is pumped directly to the sludge beds for drying. Dried biosolids are applied at agronomic rates onto fields in the reclamation area.

3.2 Wastewater Flows
The flow and load projections summarized in this chapter are based on an analysis of available historical data provided by the City and current flow monitoring conducted in 2017.

3.2.1 Historical Flows
The historical flows used for this report are the influent flows to the WWTF measured from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2018. Figure 3.4 shows average daily flows (ADF) and 30- day averages for 2007 through 2018. ADF is the average flow during a one-day period.

Figure 3.5 shows average annual flows (AAF) and average daily maximum month flows (ADMMF) from 2012 to 2018. AAF is the average of the ADF values during a calendar year, and ADMMF is the largest volume of flow, expressed as a daily average during a continuous 30-day period or a calendar month.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 3 3-6 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Figure 3.4 Historical Average Daily and 30-Day Average Influent Flows Figure 3.5 Historical Average Annual and Average Daily Maximum Month Influent Flows As a results of water conservation measures, the influent flows decreased from 2012 to 2018 and slightly increased in 2017. It was determined that the years 2010 through 2014 accurately represent typical flows to the WWTF because those five years span both wet and dry years and they capture water use in the service area both before and during water conservation measures.

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

5.5 6.0

6.5 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Influent Flow (mgd)
Daily Influent Flow

4.0 4.2

4.4 4.6

4.8 5.0

5.2 5.4
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Influent Flow (mgd)

AAF ADMMF
CHAPTER 3 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY |CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 3-7

3.2.2 Maximum Month Peaking Factor
Table 3.1 presents the AAF, ADMMF, and the maximum month peaking factor from 2007 through 2016 along with the 2010-2014 averages. The average 2010-2014 maximum month peaking factor was used to calculate projected future flows and loads.

Table 3.1 Historical Annual Average Flow, Max Month Flow, and Max Month Peaking Factor Year AAF, mgd ADMMF, mgd ADMMF/AAF Peaking
Factor
2007 4.75 5.19 1.093
2008 4.67 5.04 1.079
2009 4.64 4.94 1.064
2010 4.69 4.89 1.041
2011 4.76 5.06 1.064
2012 4.85 5.30 1.093
2013 4.61 4.99 1.082
2014 4.50 4.66 1.034
2015 4.36 4.52 1.036
2016 4.34 4.50 1.039
2017 4.35 4.58 1.053
2018 4.35 4.46 1.026
2010-2014 4.68 4.98 1.063

3.2.3 Per Capita Flow
Along with population estimates for the Porter Visa Utility District and other surrounding sewer service areas, the City Planning Department’s population numbers from 2007 to 2018 were used to approximate the historical sewer service area population. Table 3.2 shows the sewer service area population and average annual per capita flow in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) along with the 2010-2014 average per capita flow, which was used to calculate projected future flows and loads.

Table 3.2 Historical Sewer Service Area Population and Per Capita Flows Year Sewer Service Area Population
(persons)
Average Annual Per Capita
Flow (gpcd)
2007 58,395 81.3
2008 58,791 79.4
2009 58,984 78.7
2010 59,888 78.3
2011 61,771 77.0
2012 62,035 78.1
2013 62,418 73.9
2014 62,625 71.9
2015 62,780 69.4
2016 66,998 64.7
2017 67,042 64.9
2018 67,726 64.2
2010-2014 61,748 75.8
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 3 3-8 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

3.2.4 Projected Wastewater Flows
Using the average 2010-2014 per capita flow of 75.8 gpcd, the average 2010-2014 maximum month peaking factor of 1.063, and the projected population numbers presented in Section 1.3.2 of this RWFS, projected wastewater flows were estimated.

Table 3.3 shows the flow projections from 2019 through the year 2040. In 2040, AAF values are projected to reach approximately 8.8 mgd, and ADMMF values are projected to reach approximately 9.4 mgd.

Table 3.3 City of Porterville WWTF Projected Flows
Year AAF, mgd ADMMF, mgd
2019 5.26 5.60
2020 5.40 5.74
2025 6.11 6.49
2030 6.91 7.34
2035 7.82 8.31
2040 8.84 9.40
Figure 3.6 shows the historical and projected wastewater flows (both AAF and ADMMF).

Figure 3.6 Wastewater Flows (Historical and Projected based on 2.5 percent Population Growth)

3.3 Existing Recycled Water Arrangements
The City currently discharges undisinfected secondary treated effluent to the City-owned reclamation area located near the Porterville Municipal Airport. The City’s reclamation area contains 705 acres of farmland for restricted irrigation of feed and fodder crops using undisinfected secondary recycled water. The reclamation area also contains 52 acres of percolation ponds which may be used at times when the City is discharging more effluent than is required for crop irrigation. A water balance was performed to ensure that the crop water 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Wastewater Flow (mgd)
Historical AAF Projected AAF
Historical ADMMF Projected ADMMF
CHAPTER 3 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY |CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 3-9
demand and maximum hydrological loading rate onto the percolation ponds can accommodate 100 percent of the effluent discharged from the WWTF.

One farmer, Rick Perigo Roadsiding, leases the farmland in the City’s reclamation area. The farmer is contracted with the City to grow feed and fodder crops in the reclamation area in accordance with state requirements. Typical crops grown are wheat, corn, alfalfa, oats, and sudan grass. The farmer irrigates these crops with the undisinfected secondary recycled water according to the crop water requirement. The farmer land-applies approximately 1,500 tons per year of biosolids from the WWTF onto fields in the reclamation area on a three-year rotation. A nitrogen balance is performed every year as part of the Biosolids General Order pre-application report to ensure that biosolids and effluent are applied at agronomic rates.

Figure 3.7 shows the City reclamation area including the percolations ponds, fields that receive effluent, fields that receive biosolids, fields that receive both effluent and biosolids, and dryfarmed fields.

Figure 3.7 Reclamation Area
The City also currently uses its undisinfected secondary treated effluent onsite at the WWTF for lawn irrigation, seal water, and a few other WWTF processes. No entity, other than the City, has the rights to the undisinfected secondary recycled water.

CHAPTER 4 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 4-1
Chapter 4

TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE

AND REUSE
The City of Porterville (City) is evaluating alternatives to expand their current effluent reuse program. During an evaluation of various water supply portfolio options and the role recycled water can provide in augmenting or offsetting potable water supplies, the City has decided to explore expanded secondary or tertiary uses for recycled water.

Water reuse projects must meet the applicable public health criteria for non-potable and potable water reuse. The applicable regulations and governing authorities depend upon the type of water reuse included in the study, which may include effluent discharge, non-potable reuse, and potable reuse. During the lifetime of the City’s reuse program, recycled water regulations will continue to evolve, particularly when addressing potable reuse. This chapter summarizes the most recent regulatory requirements and additional water quality requirements as they may apply to the City’s future water reuse projects.

4.1 Regulatory Structure
The California Water Code (CWC) establishes water districts and water boards (State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB, and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, RWQCB) and grants them the power to permit and approve recycled water programs. The guidelines for permitting and implementing recycled water programs, including potable reuse projects, are found in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 (Title 22), Section 60301.

Regulatory authority for projects using recycled water falls to the Division of Drinking Water (DDW), within the SWRCB, and the RWQCB. The SWRCB establishes general policies governing the permitting of recycled water projects consistent with its role of protecting water quality and sustaining water supplies. The SWRCB also exercises general oversight over recycled water projects including review of RWQCB permitting practices. The DDW is responsible for overseeing the State’s Drinking Water Program (DWP) which includes a number of programs that ensure protection of public health and drinking water supplies. (Prior to 2014, the DWP was under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). This responsibility was transferred to the SWRCB to consolidate water quality programs and regulations to more efficiently and effectively protect water quality and the public health.) The DDW is also charged with developing uniform water recycling criteria.

The RWQCB is charged with protection of surface and groundwater resources and with the issuance of permits that implement DDW recommendations. Although RWQCBs have permitting and ongoing oversight authority of recycled water projects, they rely on the expertise of the DDW for guidance in the establishment of permit conditions needed to protect human health and surface and groundwater resources. The RWQCB permits incorporate DDW requirements and recommendations.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 4 4-2 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

4.2 Porterville’s Waste Discharge Requirements
The City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) operates under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. R5-2008-034, issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The WDR prescribes requirements for treatment and sets discharge limitations for flow and pollutants. The WDR includes water recycling specifications to allow the WWTF to implement water recycling on the City’s reclamation area.

Table 4.1 lists the effluent limitations for the discharge.

Table 4.1 Waste Discharge Requirements (R5-2008-034)
Constituent Units Monthly Average Maximum
Flow mgd (5) 6.9 (1) --
BOD₅ (2) mg/L (5) 40 80
TSS (3) mg/L 40 80
Chloride mg/L 175
EC (4) µmhos/cm (5) -- Source water + 500 or
1,000 µmhos/cm, whichever is less
Notes:
(1) WDR limitation was 5.3 mgd. Increased to 6.9 mgd per the 2009 Effluent Discharge Capacity Report, submitted to the RWQCB in accordance with WDR Provision H.13.
(2) Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5-day, 20° C
(3) Total Suspended Solids
(4) Annual flow weighted average effluent electrical conductivity, compared to the 12-month flow-weighted moving average of the source water EC
(5) Abbreviations: EC = electrical conductivity, mgd = million gallons per day, mg/L = milligrams per liter, µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter
In addition to effluent limitations, the WDR contains groundwater limitations applicable to the groundwater affected by the discharge from the WWTF. The groundwater limitations are stated below.

The release of waste constituents from any treatment or storage component associated with the discharge shall not cause or contribute to groundwater:
a. Containing constituent concentrations in excess of the concentrations specified below or natural background quality, whichever is greater:
(i) Nitrate as nitrogen of 10 mg/L.
(ii) Electrical Conductivity of 900 µmhos/cm.
(iii) Total Coliform Organisms of 2.2 MPN/100 mL.
(iv) For constituents identified in Title 22, the MCLs quantified therein.
b. Containing taste or odor-producing constituents, toxic substances, or any other constituents in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

4.3 Porterville’s Current Effluent Reclamation Program
The WWTF produces undisinfected secondary effluent, which is discharged to the City’s reclamation area for irrigation and percolation in accordance with the WDR. The land is owned by the City. The City contracts with a grower to farm the fields of the reclamation area with fodder crops, which are allowed to be grown on fields irrigated with undisinfected secondary effluent and land applied with biosolids from the WWTF. In addition, the contract stipulates that CHAPTER 4 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 4-3
the grower must apply effluent and biosolids at agronomic rates in order to prevent overloading of nitrogen to the reclamation area.

Figure 4.1 shows the reclamation area, which encompasses approximately 705 acres of irrigable land. Note that Field 16 is no longer included in the reclamation area, and 705 is the sum of acres without Field 16. Of the 705 acres, approximately 630 acres are available for effluent irrigation and 52 acres are used for percolation. Effluent is discharged to the percolation ponds during the non-irrigation season or in months when the flows exceed irrigation demands. In addition, the reclamation area includes roughly 75 acres adjacent to the airport which are dry-farmed. These fields cannot be irrigated due to airport restrictions. Biosolids are also applied to 658 acres, including the dry-farmed parcels.

Crops grown in the effluent irrigation area are limited to fodder, fiber, and seed crops not eaten by humans, or for grazing of non-milking cattle in accordance with Title22. Crops typically grown are alfalfa, sudan grass, oats, and corn.

Figure 4.1 City of Porterville Reclamation Area

4.4 Overview of Recycled Water Regulations
The City is evaluating options to expand recycled water program to include landscape irrigation and agricultural irrigation to neighboring irrigation districts. Landscape irrigation and unrestricted agricultural irrigation will require an increased level of treatment to Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water standards. For restricted agricultural irrigation, the level of CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 4 4-4 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
treatment will be increased to undisinfected secondary recycled water with nitrification/denitrification (NdN).

Recycled water can be utilized for non-potable and potable uses. Non-potable uses considered in this Recycled Water Feasibility Study include agricultural irrigation (restricted or unrestricted) and urban irrigation (landscape).

4.4.1 Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations
The primary regulation governing recycled water use is published in Title 22. The level of treatment required depends on the end use, mainly in regards to the amount and type of public exposure. Four types of non-potable reuse are determined by the treatment process and water quality criteria, including total coliform, bacteria, and turbidity levels. The categories depend on the level of treatment and potential for public contact.

4.4.1.1 Nonpotable Reuse Treatment Categories
Table 4.2 summarizes the approved uses of recycled water for irrigation, based on treatment level and total coliforms standards.

Table 4.2 Approved Non-Potable Uses of Recycled Water
Treatment Level Approved Uses
Total Coliform
Standard
(median)
Title 22 Disinfected Tertiary
Recycled Water
Spray Irrigation of Food Crops

2.2 MPN/100 mL
(4) Landscape Irrigation (1)
Non-restricted Recreational Impoundment
Title 22 Disinfected
Secondary – 2.2 Recycled
Water
Surface Irrigation of Food Crops

2.2 MPN/100 mL
Restricted Recreational Impoundment
Title 22 Disinfected
Secondary – 23 Recycled
Water
Pasture for Milking Animals
Landscape Irrigation 23 MPN/100 mL (2)
Landscape Impoundment
Undisinfected Secondary
Recycled Water
Surface Irrigation of Orchards and Vineyards (3)
N/A
Fodder, Fiber, Seed Crops
Notes:
(1) Includes unrestricted access golf courses, parks, playgrounds, school yards, and other landscaped areas with similar access.
(2) Includes restricted access golf courses, cemeteries, freeway landscapes, and landscapes with similar public access. (3) Although allowed by Title 22 provided no fruit is harvested that has come in contact with irrigating water or the ground, the recommended minimum treatment level is Disinfected Secondary 2.2, per January 8, 2003 memo to the California RWQCB from Gary Yamamoto, Chief Technical Programs Branch, DDW and Environmental Management, and James M.

Waddell, Chief Food and Drug Branch, Division of Food, Drug, and Radiation Safety. (4) Abbreviations: MPN = most probably number, mL = milliliters Currently, Porterville’s effluent meets the category of undisinfected secondary recycled water. In order for the City to use their effluent for unrestricted agricultural spray irrigation of food crops or landscape irrigation, the City's WWTF would need to be upgraded to meet the requirements for Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water, which is the highest level of treatment defined by the State and allows for unrestricted reuse in virtually all recycled water applications. Domestic CHAPTER 4 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 4-5
wastewater requires biological (secondary) treatment, filtration, and disinfection to Title 22 effluent limits before it can be considered tertiary recycled water.

In Title 22 tertiary disinfected recycled water, filtration through granular media must produce a daily average turbidity not exceeding 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), a 95th percentile turbidity not exceeding 5 NTU, and a turbidity never exceeding 10 NTU. Colloidal and finely divided suspended matter must be “destabilized and agglomerated upstream from a filter by the addition of suitable floc forming chemical.” The filtration rate cannot exceed 5 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sq ft). Floc-forming chemicals must be added continuously, or automatically when the influent turbidity is greater than 5 NTU. Membrane filtration facilities must produce a 95th percentile turbidity of 0.2 NTU and never exceed 0.5 NTU.

Chlorine disinfection facilities must provide a CT value (the product of chlorine residual and modal contact time) of 450 milligram-minutes per liter (mg-min/L) with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes based on peak dry weather flow. The City used to chlorinate their effluent, but this practice was discontinued in the early 2000s due to concerns for impact of chloride on the groundwater in the area.

Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is a common alternative to chlorine disinfection and is becoming more prevalent. The UV system must be approved by the State as providing a 5-log virus removal efficiency in combination with the filtration process. In addition, the median concentration of total coliform bacteria in the Title 22 disinfected tertiary effluent cannot exceed

2.2 most probable number (MPN) per 100 milliliters, and no single sample can exceed 23 MPN per 100 milliliters.

4.4.2 Recycled Water General Order
The SWRCB adopted a General Order (WQ 2016-0068-DDW) on June 7, 2016 to streamline permitting for recycled water. Coverage under this General Order is limited to treated municipal wastewater for non-potable uses. It does not apply to the use of recycled water for groundwater recharge or the disposal of treated wastewater by means of percolation ponds. The General Order establishes standard conditions for the use of recycled water, relieving producers, distributors, and users of recycled water from the sometimes lengthy permit approval process and providing them with certainty around the requirements that they will be expected to meet.

If the City implements new reuse programs for landscape irrigation or agricultural irrigation, a new recycled water permit would be required. This would be accomplished through the General Order permitting process conducted in conjunction with the separate permitting process for the new treatment facilities.

4.4.3 Potable Reuse by Groundwater Replenishment
One way of recycling effluent is through groundwater replenishment. Groundwater replenishment can be accomplished through surface spreading in basins or subsurface injection, both of which are regulated under Title 22, Articles 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.

Surface application is typically achieved through groundwater recharge basins. Subsurface injection is the addition of water to the groundwater other than through surface application. It typically involves direct connection to the water table and injection via a well.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 4 4-6 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
The level of treatment required for groundwater replenishment is advanced treatment added to a tertiary, denitrified recycled water. Some of the requirements to achieve groundwater replenishment are detailed below.

4.4.3.1 Total Organic Carbon Control
For groundwater replenishment of recycled water to a drinking water aquifer, DDW requires that the recycled water have low-level total organic carbon (TOC). For projects that utilize microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet light/advanced oxidation processes (UV/AOP), 100 percent injection (no dilution) may be permitted as long as the TOC is maintained at or below 0.5 mg/L. Such a low TOC is readily accomplished with functioning RO membranes.

4.4.3.2 Pathogenic Microorganism Control
DDW requires that potable reuse projects for groundwater recharge provide a combined level of treatment resulting in 12-log virus reduction, 10-log Giardia reduction, and 10-log Cryptosporidium reduction from raw wastewater (12/10/10-log removal). No single process can receive more than 6-log reduction credit. DDW also states that at least three processes must provide at least 1-log reduction. Beyond those three key processes, processes which provide <1 log reduction can be included within the analysis. The treatment process for subsurface application is required to include RO, UV/AOP, at least three separate barriers earning 1-log of removal credit each, and a minimum of two months of subsurface travel time from the time of injection to the time of extraction for use.

When properly coupled, these individual treatment processes are protective of public health for groundwater replenishment projects. Because current analytical techniques are unable to detect pathogens at the extremely low level that is indicative of public health protection (as determined in NWRI [2013]), conservative estimations of pathogen log removal performance through various process trains must be used. Addition of the log removal credits for each process train allows for a confident prediction of final effluent quality that is protective of public health.

Per DDW (2014), utilities employing groundwater injection are granted 1-log virus removal credit per month of subsurface travel time, but are currently not granted credit for Giardia or Cryptosporidium removal. Recent work by the WateReuse Research Foundation, however, has documented the subsurface die-off rate of Cryptosporidium at 0.025 to 0.072-log reduction per day, with a mean of 0.039-log reduction per day (Drewes et al., 2014). Peng et al. (2008) reported 85 to 268 days of time for a 1-log die-off of Cryptosporidium in sterile water at 4º Celsius (ºC). As a result of these referenced works, virus credit and protozoa log reduction credits can be applied to meet log reduction requirements. In order to evaluate the subsurface travel time and calculate subsurface pathogen removal credits, a hydrogeological analysis must be performed.

4.4.3.3 Regulated and Unregulated Contaminants
The DDW regulations include limits for chemical constituents, e.g., maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), notification levels (NLs), and other constituents specified by DDW, and monitoring/removal requirements for constituents of emerging concern (CECs). These chemical constituents, including disinfection byproducts (DBPs), industrial chemicals, pesticides, metals, and other classes known to be detrimental to human health above certain concentrations, are regulated in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) through MCLs. Any wastewater effluent that is proposed for water CHAPTER 4 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 4-7
supply augmentation should, therefore, meet all of these standards. A number of research studies have found that secondary or tertiary effluents meet most, if not all, MCLs without further treatment (Trussell et al., 2013). The fact that MCLs are met does not mean that additional treatment is not warranted for chemical constituents such as that provided by advanced treatment trains. The National Research Council (NRC) (2012) demonstrated that from a risk standpoint, engineered potable water reuse projects create a better water quality and less risk (for pathogens and pollutants) compared to conventional drinking water supplies.

In addition to the chemical (and radiological) constituents explicitly regulated through MCLs, a number of unregulated trace organic constituents (TOrCs) can also be found in wastewater, including pharmaceuticals, ingredients in personal care products, consumer chemicals, coatings (e.g., perfluorinated compounds), flame retardants, and others, some of which have endocrine disrupting, carcinogenic, and/or other potentially harmful health effects if found at sufficiently high concentrations (Salveson et al., 2010; Trussell et al., 2015). Extensive research has been conducted on the attenuation of these constituents through conventional WWTFs and their further breakdown during advanced water treatment (Baronti et al., 2000; Lovins et al., 2002; Schäfer et al., 2005; Sedlak et al., 2006; Steinle-Darling et al., 2010; Linden et al., 2012; Salveson et al., 2010; Snyder et al., 2012; and many others).

4.4.3.4 Monitoring and Response Retention Time
Over time, detection of trace pollutants in the monitoring wells and failures in equipment performance may occur. Depending upon the issue, the City may handle the issue internally, or, in the event of a regulatory exceedance, the City must provide the appropriate notification to DDW and RWQCB staff. These meetings and discussions will determine if the produced water remains protective of public health or if some form of mitigation is required.

4.4.3.5 Summary of Groundwater Replenishment Regulations for Potable Reuse Table 4.3 outlines some of the more relevant distinctions between surface application and subsurface application of groundwater replenishment. Detailed information regarding the regulatory requirements for both groundwater replenishment applications can be obtained from the relevant sections of the Title 22 regulations.

Table 4.3 Main Differences between Surface and Subsurface Application of Groundwater Replenishment Recycled Water
Regulation
Citation Surface Subsurface
60320.108(b) and
60320.201
Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment process
not specifically required
All recycled water must be
treated with RO with a
minimum rejection of NaCl of

99.0 percent.
60320.110(a)(3)(C) Additional nitrogen compound monitoring to determine potential MCL exceedances ---
60320.114(c)
Fewer restrictions for diluent water if it has
historically been used to recharge the
basin. Turbidity, color, and odor Secondary
MCLs need not be met for diluent water
---
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 4 4-8 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Regulation
Citation Surface Subsurface
60320.116(c, d, e)
Initial recycled wastewater contribution
(RWC) typically shall not exceed 0.2 (can be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis).

Increases to the RWC can be requested no
more than once per year with submission of
an updated engineering report, Operation
Optimization Plan, and evidence of
historical compliance.

RWC may be up to 1.0, as
determined by Department
review of engineering report,
TOC concentration, among
others.
60320.118(f, g, h)
and 60320.201
Requires a study every 5 years to determine
the occurrence of indicator compounds in
the recycled water. At least three indicator
compounds shall be monitored quarterly
and shown to be reduced by at least 90
percent.

At least 9 indicator compounds
shall be monitored with
various log reduction
requirements.

Alternatively, demonstrate
oxidation providing at least

0.5-log reduction of
1, 4-dioxane.
60320.130(c)
TOC limit may be increased after ten
consecutive years of operation and barring
additional requirements
---
Any groundwater replenishment project must meet regulated drinking water standards – primary and secondary MCLs. In California, additional standards are imposed as they pertain to pathogens, AOP requirements to remove trace CECs, and a few other constituents, are shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Title 22 Groundwater Reuse Replenishment Project Criteria Parameter Criteria
Pathogenic Microorganism Control
Enteric virus 12 - log reduction(1)
Giardia cysts 10 - log reduction
Cryptosporidium oocysts 10 - log reduction
TOC
Maximum 0.25 mg/L in 95 percent of samples within first 20 weeks (2), Maximum 0.5 mg/L 20-week running
average and average of the last four samples
Indicator compounds Various log reduction requirements (3) (4) NDMA 10 ng/L (5) NL
Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 mg/L
Notes
(1) 1-log is 90 percent reduction, 2-log is 99 percent reduction, 3-log is 99.9 percent reduction, etc. (2) Only applies to subsurface application
(3) The type of indicator compounds and amount of log reduction is different for surface and subsurface application and varies by project.
(4) Other indicator compounds can be substituted for 1, 4-dioxane with approval from DDW. (5) ng/L = nanograms per liter
CHAPTER 4 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 4-9

4.4.4 Direct Potable Reuse (Raw Water Augmentation)
Direct potable reuse (DPR) is the incorporation of advanced treated water into the water supply system of a community without the use of an environmental buffer such as a groundwater aquifer for storage after purification. DPR substitutes an engineered storage buffer (ESB) for an environmental buffer between the treatment and distribution steps. DPR presents performance advantages compared to groundwater replenishment, as a groundwater basin may in select cases have high salts and/or legacy contaminants, which then require retreatment. In terms of operations and cost, it has the advantage of much simplified delivery to customers, removing the need for long pipelines and injection and extraction wells. It does require more robust monitoring and treatment systems, providing additional layers of conservatism.

While DPR is an important potential future option for California water purveyors, it is not yet regulated in California, though both Texas and New Mexico have regulated projects. Within California, the state legislature directed DDW to develop a framework for regulating DPR. The second edition of the document “A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California” was issued in August 2019. In the framework, DDW has scheduled the development of regulations by the end of 2023.

Another work on DPR is the Framework for Direct Potable Reuse (NWRI, 2015), which is a national effort by seven treatment and health experts, completed by the National Water Research Institute, WateReuse, Water Environment Federation, American Water Works Association, and peer reviewed by the US EPA. The Framework details the step-by-step process for successful implementation of DPR.

4.5 Tulare Lake Basin Plan Regulatory Considerations
The “Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Third Edition (revised May 2018) (Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, contains implementation plans and policies for protecting all waters of the Basin, and incorporates reference plans and policies of the SWRCB mentioned above.

The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses of the groundwater near the City’s WWTF as municipal and domestic supply (MUN), industrial supply (IND), and agricultural supply (AGR).

The Basin Plan identifies the greatest long-term problem facing the entire Tulare Lake Basin as the increase in groundwater salinity, which has accelerated due to the intensive use of soil and water resources by irrigated agriculture. The Basin Plan recognizes that degradation is unavoidable until there is a long-term solution to the salt imbalance. Until then, the Basin Plan establishes several salt management requirements, including:
a. The maximum EC in the effluent discharged to land shall not exceed the EC of the source water supply plus 500 µmhos/cm. When the supply water is from more than one source, the EC shall be calculated as the weighted average of all sources. b. Discharges to areas that may recharge to good quality groundwater shall not exceed an EC of 1,000 µmhos/cm, a chloride concentration of 175 mg/L, or a boron concentration of 1.0 mg/L.

4.5.1 Proposed Tulare Lake Basin (5D) Basin Plan Amendment The RWQCB adopted Basin Plan amendments that incorporate new programs for addressing ongoing salt and nitrate accumulation in the Central Valley at its May 31, 2018 Board Meeting.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 4 4-10 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
These programs, once they become effective in 2019, could change how the RWQCB permits discharges of salt and nitrate.

The stakeholder-led Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV- SALTS) initiative has been coordinating efforts to implement new salt and nitrate management strategies for dischargers.

The RWQCB anticipates that the CV-SALTS initiative will result in regulatory changes that will be implemented through conditional prohibitions and modifications to many WDRs region-wide, including the WDRs that regulate discharges from the City of Porterville. The RWQCB expects dischargers that may be affected by new salt and nitrate management policies to coordinate with the CV-SALTS initiative. The Nitrate Control Program is prioritized to first address health risks associated with drinking water that exceeds the primary MCL for nitrate (10 mg/L as N).

Priority Groundwater Basins/Sub-basins have been identified based on ambient groundwater nitrate conditions, and timelines have been established for implementation of the Nitrate Control Program in these prioritized basins and sub-basins.

Basins/sub-basins identified as Priority 1 and 2 have the most serious ambient water quality concerns for nitrate and the most aggressive timelines for compliance. Porterville is located in Priority Zone 1. The City can expect to receive a notice from the RWQCB to comply within one year after the effective date of the program. Treatment requirements considered in Chapter 6 consider the anticipated Nitrate Control Program and the need to implement nitrogen removal in the next WWTF upgrade.

The Salinity Control Program is a long term plan for salt management that will be implemented in three phases, each over 10 to 15 years. The program involves an interim permitting approach for dischargers with actions that may include:
• Continued implementation of existing pollution prevention, watershed, and salt reduction plans.
• Continued maintenance of current salinity discharge levels. • Enforced compliance with Interim Permit Limits.
• Implementation of new salinity management practices or source control activities. • Monitoring of salinity discharge activities where required. • Participation in Phase 1 (Prioritization and Optimization Study), which will facilitate development of a long-term strategy for addressing salinity accumulation in the Central Valley.

All permitted dischargers will need to comply with the program, by selecting one of two pathways to compliance in Phase 1. These are:
• Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach, utilizes the existing regulatory structure and focuses on source control, conservative salinity limits, limited use of groundwater assimilative capacity and/or compliance time schedules. • Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach, is an alternative approach to compliance through implementation of specific requirements, rather than application of conservative limits. Under Phase I, permittees must support facilitation and completion of the Prioritization and Optimization Study through financial contributions and stakeholder activities.

CHAPTER 4 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 4-11
Dischargers can expect to receive a Notice to Comply (NTC) from the RWQCB within one year of the effective date of the Basin Plan Amendments. Within 6 months of receiving the NTC, permittees must notify the RWQCB of their decision to be permitted under the Conservative Approach or the Alternative Approach.

4.6 Summary of Regulations Governing Recycled Water End Uses With the many potential beneficial uses identified by the City of Porterville, a variety of regulations could apply to their future program. Table 4.5 summarizes the regulations and potential additional treatment applicable for each end use.

Table 4.5 Applicable Regulations for Porterville Recycled Water Projects End Use Potential Applicable
Regulation
Additional Treatment
Requirements Beyond
Undisinfected Secondary
Restricted Agricultural Reuse
(Undisinfected Secondary)
Title 22 Non-potable Reuse
Tulare Lake Basin - Basin Plan
Amendment
Nitrogen Removal
Unrestricted Agricultural
Irrigation
Title 22 Non-potable Reuse
Tulare Lake Basin - Basin Plan
Amendment
Nitrogen Removal
Filtration/Disinfection (1)
Landscape Irrigation
Title 22 Non-potable Reuse
Tulare Lake Basin - Basin Plan
Amendment
Nitrogen Removal
Filtration/Disinfection
Potable Reuse by Groundwater
Replenishment (surface
spreading)
Title 22 Groundwater
Replenishment Reuse Project
Tulare Lake Basin - Basin Plan
Amendment
Nitrogen Removal,
Filtration, Ozone/BAF,
GAC, UV, Cl2 (3)
Potable Reuse by Groundwater
Replenishment (injection)
Title 22 Groundwater
Replenishment Reuse Project
Tulare Lake Basin - Basin Plan
Amendment
Nitrogen Removal,
Filtration, UF (or
Ozone/BAF), RO, UV/AOP
(2)
Direct Potable Reuse (Raw Water
Augmentation) Regulations Pending
Nitrogen Removal,
Filtration, Ozone/BAF,
UF,RO, UV/AOP, Cl2 +
ESB (3)
Notes:
(1) Filtration would not be needed for MBR system.
(2) UF needed for conventional activated sludge system. Ozone BAF needed for MBR system. (3) Abbreviations: BAF = biologically active filtration, GAC = granular activated carbon, CL2 = chlorine gas, ESB = environmental storage buffer

4.7 General Irrigation Use Guidelines
Water quality guidelines for general landscape irrigation are based on practical limits for using different types of irrigation approaches as well as the tolerance of various plants for specific constituents found in irrigation water. Table 4.6 includes a comparison of constituent guidelines/criteria and the City of Porterville recycled water quality.

The constituents that can impact use of recycled water for general landscape irrigation primarily include minerals and nutrients. In general, comparison of most constituents suggests that there may be slight restrictions in the use of City of Porterville effluent for general landscape irrigation.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 4 4-12 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
The SAR level and hardness concentrations indicate that there could be severe restrictions for landscape irrigation use. However, existing use of the City of Porterville effluent for landscape irrigation suggests that the water quality is sufficient for this type of use.

In addition, there are operational techniques for the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation that can improve and sustain a specific use. The successful long-term use of irrigation water depends on rainfall, leaching, soil drainage, irrigation water management, salt tolerance of plants, soil management practices, as well as water quality. Since salinity problems may eventually develop from the use of any water, the following guidelines are given, should they be needed, to assist water users to better manage salinity:
• Irrigate more frequently to maintain an adequate soil water supply. • Select plants that are tolerant of an existing or potential salinity level. • Routinely use extra water to satisfy the leaching requirements and to drive salts below the root zone.
• If possible, direct the spray pattern of sprinklers away from foliage. To reduce foliar absorption, try not to water during periods of high temperature and low humidity or during windy periods. Change time of irrigation to early morning, late afternoon, or night.
• Maintain good downward water percolation by using deep tillage or artificial drainage to prevent the development of a perched water table.
• Salinity may be easier to control under sprinkler and drip irrigation than under surface irrigation. However, sprinkler and drip irrigation may not be adapted to all qualities of water and all conditions of soil, climate, or plants.

Table 4.6 Comparison of Porterville Effluent with Irrigation Water Quality Criteria Parameter Units
Established Criteria
Degree of Use Restriction (1) (2)
Porterville
Effluent
(Median
None Slight Severe Value)
Salinity
Electrical Conductance µmhos/cm <700 700-3000 >3000 803 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L <450 450-2000 >2000 448 Permeability
SAR (3) = 0 - 3 and EC 700 700-200 <200
SAR = 3.43,
EC = 803
= 3 - 6 and EC ≤1200 1200-300 <300
= 6 - 12 and EC ≤1900 1900-500 <500
= 12 - 20 and EC ≤2900 2900-1900 <1900
= 20 - 40 and EC ≤5000 5000-2900 <2900
Sodium
Root Absorption SAR <3 3-9 >9 3.43
Foliar Absorption mg/L <70 >70 - 91
Chloride
Root Absorption mg/L <140 140-355 >365 82
CHAPTER 4 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 4-13
Parameter Units
Established Criteria
Degree of Use Restriction (1) (2)
Porterville
Effluent
(Median
None Slight Severe Value)
Foliar Absorption mg/L <100 >100 - 82
Boron mg/L <0.7 0.7-3.0 >3.0 0.24
pH S.U. 6.5-8.4 (normal range) 7.33
Ammonia (NH4-N) mg/L (see total N values below) 9.4
Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/L (see total N values below) 5.6
Nitrite (NO2-N) mg/L (see total N values below) 1.1
Total Nitrogen mg/L <5 5-30 >30 18
Notes:
(1) Adapted from University of California Committee of Consultants (1974) and Water Quality for Agriculture (Ayers and Westcot 1985).
(2) Definition of the "Degree of Use Restriction" terms:

None = Reclaimed water can be used similar to the best available irrigation water.

Slight = Some additional management will be required above that with the best available irrigation water in terms of leaching salts from the root zone and/or choice of plants.

Severe = Typically cannot be used due to limitations imposed by the specific parameters. (3) SAR = Sodium absorption ratio. SAR = Na / ((Ca + Mg)/2) ½ where ion units are milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L)

4.8 Conclusion
The SWRCB, RWQCB, and DDW have various powers and authorities with regards to permitting, approval, oversite, and governance of recycled water program in California. The City’s current reclamation program (undisinfected secondary effluent used for restricted agricultural irrigation and percolation) is governed by Title 22 and the City’s WDRs, which specifies discharge limits on flow and pollutants to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters.

Title 22, the primary regulation government recycled water use, specifies treatment requirements, water quality requirements, and approved end uses for four different levels of recycled water: 1) Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water, 2) Disinfected Secondary 2.2 Recycled Water, 3) Disinfected Secondary 23 Recycled Water, and 4) Undisinfected Secondary Recycled Water. The City’s WWTF would need upgrades to achieve the first three levels of recycled water.

The Recycled Water General Order includes guidelines for user-end permitting for non-potable recycled water uses. Water quality criteria exist for landscape irrigation with recycled water, primarily focusing on minerals and nutrients.

Groundwater replenishment and direct potable reuse both required advanced treatment.

Requirements for groundwater replenishment include TOC control, pathogenic microorganism control, limits on chemical and radiological constituents, and monitoring and response retention time requirements. Regulations for direct potable reuse have not yet been adopted.

The Basin Plan is in place to protect water in the Tulare Lake Basin. The City can expect future modifications to the WDRs after the Basin Plan Amendment becomes effective in 2019. Both the Nitrate Control Program and Salinity Control Program will have impacts for the City.

CHAPTER 5 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 |5-1
Chapter 5

RECYCLED WATER MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
The primary objective of this Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) is to identify and analyze opportunities for supplying recycled water in and around the City. Expansion and/or diversification of the City’s current recycled water system would enable the City to offset potable water uses, thereby enhancing the sustainability of the water supply. This chapter summarizes the process of identifying and quantifying uses for recycled water and customer outreach efforts.

5.1 Recycled Water Use Categories
The City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) currently produces undisinfected secondary recycled water that is used for restricted irrigation on land within the City-owned reclamation area. Treatment requirements for expanded uses of the recycled water are summarized in Chapter 4.

This chapter focuses primarily on surrounding irrigation districts and the City’s current recycled water reclamation area. A secondary focus is on properties identified as potential landscape irrigation users and small agricultural users within or near the city limits. Within these areas, the City identified five beneficial use categories for recycled water. Two beneficial use categories were considered and rejected during planning, but they are summarized in this chapter.

Table 5.1 summarizes these recycled water beneficial use categories.

Table 5.1 Recycled Water Use Categories
Reuse Category Definition / Description
Restricted Agricultural
Reuse (Undisinfected
Secondary Recycled Water)
City’s current program. Undisinfected secondary recycled water is discharged to City-owned agricultural property for the irrigation of fodder crops and percolation.

Unrestricted Agricultural
Irrigation (Disinfected
Tertiary Recycled Water)
The WWTF would be upgraded to produce disinfected tertiary recycled water. The water could be used to irrigate the City’s reclamation area or supplied to irrigation districts close to the City.

Landscape Irrigation
(Disinfected Tertiary
Recycled Water)
Disinfected tertiary recycled water would be supplied to landscape irrigation users. Properties identified for recycled water landscape irrigation are located near the WWTF or recycled water distribution pipelines.

Potable Reuse by
Groundwater
Replenishment
Recycled water meeting Title 22 requirements for advanced treatment beyond disinfected tertiary standards would be used for groundwater recharge by surface spreading in recharge basins. This alternative was rejected in the analysis of alternatives for the City’s water supply portfolio.

Direct Potable Reuse (Raw
Water Augmentation)
Potable reuse by raw water augmentation of the City’s drinking water supply would be achieved by comingling highly purified recycled water with surface water in a proposed surface water treatment plant (WTP). This alternative was rejected in the analysis of alternatives for the City’s water supply portfolio.

CHAPTER 5 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE 5-2 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

5.2 Recycled Water Market Identification
Potential recycled water users were identified through discussions with City personnel, a review of water usage records, and the use of Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping.

Acceptable uses for urban landscape irrigation include properties with large irrigation areas such as school yards, parks, cemeteries, freeways, and golf courses.

5.2.1 Restricted Agricultural Reuse – City-Owned Reclamation Area The City’s reclamation area contains 705 acres of farmland for restricted irrigation using undisinfected secondary recycled water. The reclamation area also contains 52 acres of percolation ponds which may be used at times when the City is discharging more effluent than is required for crop irrigation.

5.2.2 Unrestricted Agricultural Reuse – Irrigation Districts Three irrigation districts near the City have been identified as candidates to receive disinfected tertiary recycled water from the City for unrestricted agricultural use. These are Porterville Irrigation District (PID), Saucelito Irrigation District (SID), and Tea Pot Dome Water District (TPDWD). The concept involves the City providing recycled water to an irrigation district (or districts) for possible water exchange of the recycled water for surface water. Figure 5.1 shows the three irrigation districts in relation to the city limits, the WWTF, and the existing secondary effluent pipeline.

5.2.2.1 Porterville Irrigation District (PID)
PID is located immediately west of the City and encompasses approximately 17,000 acres of land. According to PID’s 2012 Agricultural Water Management Plan, about 12,700 of the approximately 13,500 total irrigated acres were cropped, while about 880 acres remained idle or fallow. PID uses approximately 19,860 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water supply from surface water sources. Six turnout locations bring water into PID’s distribution system, which includes roughly 13 miles of unlined canal and 7 miles of pipeline.

5.2.2.2 Saucelito Irrigation District (SID)
SID is located southwest of the City and encompasses approximately 19,700 acres of land.

According to SID’s 2013 Agricultural Water Management Plan, there are approximately 20,100 total irrigated acres (including double cropping). SID uses approximately 29,730 AFY of water supply from surface water sources. Four turnout locations bring water into SID’s distribution system, which includes roughly 56 miles of pipeline.

5.2.2.3 Tea Pot Dome Water District (TPDWD)
TPDWD is located immediately south of the City and encompasses approximately 3,300 acres of land. According to TPDWD’s 2011 Agricultural Water Management Plan, effectively all of the nearly 3,300 acres in TPDWD are irrigable (with the exception of roads, structures, and canals).

TPDWD uses approximately 6,130 AFY of water supply from surface water sources. One turnout location brings water into TPDWD’s distribution system, which includes roughly 20 miles of pipeline.

5.2.2.4 Potential for Irrigation Districts to Take Recycled Water The projected average annual flow of disinfected tertiary recycled water from the upgraded WWTF is 8.84 mgd (or 9,902 AFY) in 2040. The 2040 average monthly projected flow from the WWTF is 825 AF. To determine PID, SID, and TPDWD’s potential to accommodate the projected flows, crop water demands were reviewed for each irrigation district. Table 5.2 lists monthly potential recycled water demand for each of the three irrigation districts.

Table 5.2 Estimated Agricultural Irrigation Demands
Month WWTF
Production (AF)
PID
(Calculated) (AF)
SID
(Calculated) (AF)
TPDWD
(Calculated) (AF)
January 825 1,370 2,040 420
February 825 3,120 4,670 960
March 825 5,910 8,840 1,820
April 825 9,880 14,790 3,050
May 825 29,750 44,530 9,180
June 825 42,380 63,440 13,080
July 825 54,150 81,060 16,710
August 825 37,530 56,180 11,580
September 825 40,600 60,780 12,530
October 825 9,140 13,680 2,820
November 825 2,440 3,650 750
December 825 2,070 3,100 640
Total 9,900 19,860 29,730 6,130
Note:
(1) 2040 projected WWTF recycled water production.

On a month by month basis, PID and SID, each on its own, would be able to accept all of the projected recycled water flow. Agricultural irrigation demand in each of these two irrigation districts, alone, would create enough capacity to accept recycled water without making use of recharge basins.

TPDWD’s irrigation demand would only be able to accept the projected flow for nine months per year. Additional capacity would be needed to accommodate 75 AF of recycled water in November, 185 AF of recycled water in December, and 405 AF of recycled water in January. The district has confirmed that between irrigation demand, recharge capabilities, and other water management programs, it has the capability in place to make use of the full amount of recycled water.

5.2.3 Landscape Irrigation
Several properties in the City were identified as having the potential to receive disinfected tertiary recycled water from the City for landscape irrigation. The City provided water use data for the years 2013 and 2017. This data included water usage for the top 100 water users, for Porterville Unified and Burton School Districts, for city parks and green spaces, and for Caltrans.

CHAPTER 5 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 5-5
Properties farther than one mile from either the WWTF or the current effluent pipeline, properties with no discernible green space, and private residential properties were eliminated from consideration and not found to be feasible at this time. After this screening process, 18 properties remained as having potential to be recycled water users.

Figure 5.2 shows these 18 properties in relation to the WWTF and to the tertiary pipelines to PID, SID, and TPDWD. Preliminary pipeline alignments for tertiary recycled water are developed in Chapter 6.

Table 5.3 summarizes the identified recycled water users, their potential demand for recycled water, and the estimated linear feet of pipeline needed to bring recycled water to each supply connection. Appendix B includes a more detailed list of potential recycled water landscape irrigation users considered during the market analysis.

Overall, the market for irrigation users outside of the irrigation districts is very small and is not considered the first priority for recycled water delivery. However, if the tertiary recycled water pipelines are constructed to deliver water to PID and/or SID and TPDWD, users in the vicinity of these new pipelines would be considered for tertiary recycled water for irrigation.

CHAPTER 5 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 5-7
Figure 5.2 Potential Recycled Water Landscape Irrigation Users

CHAPTER 5 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 5-9
Table 5.3 Identified Recycled Water Users
Property Number of
Connections
Total Recycled
Water Demand
(AFY)
Estimated Length
of Pipeline
Connection (ft)
Monache High School (1) 3 56.03 5,438 (6)
Veterans Park (1) 5 32.47 0 (6)
Oak Grove Elementary School (1) 1 2.82 3,388 (6)
City of Porterville (2) (4) 1 2.28 3,144 (7)
Sierra Hills Retirement Site 1 9.70 912 (7)
William R Buckley Elementary (1) 1 10.28 3,703 (7)
Burton Middle School (1) 1 5.08 0 (7)
Caltrans (3) 3 9.07 9,621 (8)
Prospect Education Center School (1) 1 1.45 201 (8)
West Putnam Elementary School (1) 1 6.82 2,013
Burton Elementary School (1) 2 6.01 1,765 (9)
Jim Maples Academy (1) 2 24.10 0 (9)
Summit Charter Collegiate Academy (1) 1 24.15 2,302 (9) Porterville Church of the Nazarene (2) 1 6.99 (5) 5403 (10) Porterville Veterans Memorial (2) 1 1.24 0 (10)
Summit Charter Academy (1) 1 11.15 0 (10)
Henrietta Gaither (2) 1 7.44 (5) TBD
Tulare County Junior Livestock Show (2) 1 7.51 TBD
Total 224.58 37,890
Notes:
(1) Data source is 2013 and 2017 parks and schools’ water use data provided by the City. (2) Data source is top 100 water users from 2013 and 2017 provided by the City. (3) Data source is 2013 and 2017 Caltrans water use data provided by the City. (4) Landscaped area along Porter Slough. 2017 data provided by the City. (5) Recycled water demand for this property has not been confirmed by the City. Number may represent total water use for both domestic and irrigation uses as listed in the water use report. (6) Pipeline to connect Veterans Park and Monache High School is the same pipeline. Total length is 5,438 feet. Pipeline length to Oak Grove Elementary School off of the Veterans Park/Monache High School pipeline is 3,399 feet. (7) Pipeline to Sierra Hills, William R Buckley Elementary, and Burton Middle School share a pipeline with the connection to the City of Porterville. Pipeline length to Sierra Hills from the shared pipeline is 912 feet. Pipeline to the shared connection for William R Buckley Elementary and Burton Middle School is 3,703 feet past the City of Porterville connection.
(8) Pipe connection length includes Caltrans connections along Highway 65 at both Henderson and Olive. Total length is 9,621 feet. Pipeline length to Prospect Education Center off of the Caltrans pipeline is 201 feet. (9) Pipeline to connect Burton Elementary School and Jim Maples Academy is the same pipeline. Total length is 1,765 feet.

Pipeline length to Summit Charter Collegiate Academy off of the Burton Elementary School/Jim Maples Academy pipeline is 2,302 feet.
(10) Pipeline length to Porterville Veterans Memorial, Porterville Church of the Nazarene, and Summit Charter Academy is shared. Total length is 5,403 feet.

5.2.4 Potable Reuse by Groundwater Replenishment – Rejected Groundwater replenishment using recycled water to replenish the City’s aquifer by either surface spreading or groundwater injection was considered in this evaluation. For surface spreading, the WWTF would need to be upgraded to provide advanced treatment requirements beyond the CHAPTER 5 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE 5-10 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse. Advanced treatment is required for pathogen removal as well as to meet stringent total organic carbon (TOC) concentration limits, and a reliable source of surface water is needed to provide significant dilution requirements (typically 4+1). For groundwater injection, full advanced treatment including reverse osmosis (RO) and advanced oxidation would be required. A high-level screening analysis of the alternatives was conducted and this alternative was rejected. The high cost for treatment for either groundwater replenishment method and the need for RO concentrate disposal were the key considerations in rejecting this potential beneficial use.

5.2.5 Direct Potable Reuse by Raw Water Augmentation – Rejected This potable reuse alternative was considered in this evaluation as an opportunity to augment the City’s water supply by blending recycled water treated to “full advanced treatment” standards with surface water for treatment in a new WTP. Full advanced treatment requires treatment beyond what is needed for groundwater replenishment, and also includes RO. A high-level screening analysis of the alternatives was conducted and this alternative was rejected.

The high cost for treatment and the need for RO concentrate disposal were the key considerations in rejecting this potential beneficial use.

5.3 Stakeholder Outreach and Support

5.3.1 Agricultural Irrigation
The City has initiated outreach to the three agricultural districts being considered as potential candidates for receiving the recycled water for unrestricted use (see Section 5.2.2). The districts are PID, TPDWD, and SID. As stated in Section 5.2.2, all three irrigation districts have confirmed that they are interested in the recycled water. Each irrigation district has confirmed, individually, that it has the year-round capacity to take all of the WWTF’s projected annual production of recycled water (9,000 AFY).

Emails from the general managers of the irrigations districts confirming their commitments to utilize the recycled water are provided in Appendix C.

The City continues to communicate with representatives from the irrigation districts, to work toward developing partnerships, and to negotiate of terms of potential interagency agreements.

5.3.2 Landscape Irrigation
The City has communicated with the City Parks Department about using the recycled water on city parks near the proposed recycled water distribution pipeline. The City has also had initial communications with some schools located near the alignment. Outreach to landscape irrigators will continue during the public outreach efforts to finalize the recycled water program.

As stated in Section 5.2, the market for landscape irrigation is very small and not a priority for recycled water delivery, but interested users in the vicinity of the new pipelines will be provided with recycled water.

5.4 Conclusion
Potential users of recycled water identified through the market analysis are listed in Table 5.4.

Potential projects involving these users are developed in the alternatives analysis (chapter 6).

CHAPTER 5 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 5-11
Stakeholder outreach has begun and three agricultural districts have expressed their interest in the recycled water. The City will continue outreach discussions and meetings with the agricultural districts and landscape users.

Table 5.4 Potential Recycled Water Users by Use
Beneficial Use Potential Recycled
Water User Description
Restricted
Agricultural
Irrigation
City of Porterville
WWTF
Continuing the practice of irrigating the City’s
farmland with undisinfected secondary effluent. The
reclamation area has capacity to take all recycled
water flows through the 2040 planning year.

Unrestricted
Agricultural
Irrigation
City of Porterville
WWTF
Irrigating with Title 22 disinfected tertiary effluent.

All users have the capacity to take all recycled water
PID, SID, and TPDWD flows through the 2040 planning year.

Landscape
Irrigation
18 potential users in
the vicinity of the
WWTF and effluent
pipeline (listed in Table

5.3)
Irrigating with Title 22 disinfected tertiary effluent.

Landscape irrigation demand is small compared with
unrestricted agricultural irrigation demand. This
would only be considered for implementation for
sites that are in close proximity to the tertiary
recycled water pipeline.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-1
Chapter 6

REUSE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

6.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the alternatives considered to meet the project objectives. The City is interested in identifying opportunities to use recycled water to offset potable uses or exchange with agricultural irrigation districts in the area for surface water. The objective of the study is to determine the feasibility of implementing a recycled water system that will help reduce demands on groundwater through offsetting potable demands and augmenting water supply.

The overarching goal of a recycled water system would be to support the City’s sustainability goals, which are currently in development.

6.2 Project Constraints and Design Assumptions

6.2.1 Landscape Irrigation Market
The market assessment (Chapter 5) determined that water demands for landscape irrigation are very small compared to agricultural demands. Therefore, for planning purposes, landscape irrigation is not included in the alternatives analysis. It is assumed, however, that landscape irrigation would be implemented where it makes sense near distribution pipelines carrying Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water. In addition, the City is exploring other options for implementing landscape irrigation with recycled water as opportunities arise with implementation of other public works projects. While the landscape demands are relatively small, replacing irrigation with potable water with irrigation with recycled water would offset the potable demand.

6.2.2 Coordination with Tule River Tribe Casino Project The Tule River Tribe is planning to develop a casino resort within a 40 acre site that it owns near the Porterville Airport and the City’s reclamation area. The project involves using Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water for landscape irrigation within the casino resort and at the City’s Sports Complex. A tertiary treatment plant (TTP) would be built on a parcel of City property within the reclamation area and near the casino resort. The City would deliver undisinfected secondary effluent from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) via the City’s effluent distribution pipeline to the TTP, where it would be treated to Title 22 standards.

It is assumed the TTP would be sized to treat 0.31 million gallons per day (mgd) of undisinfected secondary effluent. For all alternatives evaluated in this RWFS, this capacity is nominal compared to the projected flows (7.7 mgd and 9.4 mgd). Therefore, the 0.31 mgd is not subtracted from design criteria or planning assumptions for treatment or use of the recycled water.

The casino project does, however, affect planning considerations for future tertiary pipelines and siting options for tertiary treatment facilities for the City’s recycled deliveries. These considerations are addressed in the alternatives evaluated later in this chapter. For example, the CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-2 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
casino project will require the use of 40 acres currently occupied by Fields 5N and 5S in the City’s reclamation area. For planning purposes, these 40 acres are removed from the reclamation area and excluded from future calculations of effluent and biosolids loading capacity onto City land.

6.2.3 Capacity Limitations of Existing Effluent Pump Station and Pipeline The existing effluent pipeline that delivers secondary effluent to the City’s reclamation area has a capacity of 10.5 mgd. The pump station has a firm capacity of 8.6 mgd. It has been determined that the pump station should be expanded to provide a firm capacity of 10.5 mgd to maximize use of the pipeline. Also, since peak flows are already over 9 mgd, a second effluent pump station and pipeline are needed soon to handle near-term and long-term projected flows.

For this RWFS, all alternatives (except the no-project alternative) include construction of a second effluent pump station and pipeline. Figure 6.1 displays the conceptual options for the alignment of a second pipeline. One option is to build a parallel pipeline along the same route as the current effluent pipeline. The second option is to extend the pipeline from the WWTF to the west, approximately 2.5 miles, to deliver recycled water to landscape users in the vicinity and farmers within the Porterville Irrigation District (PID). Not only does the second option for the pipeline provide the capacity needed for future flows, it also provides the City the opportunity to broaden the market of recycled water users beyond the current and potential reuse areas south of the City.

6.2.4 Alternatives Design Assumptions
Recycled water treatment facilities are sized to meet the average daily maximum month flows (ADMMF) and peak hour flows (PHF). Sizing of pipelines and pump stations depends on demands developed for each alternative. Irrigation land areas are sized to meet average annual daily flows (AADF) and ADMMF to satisfy seasonal crop demands.

For agricultural tertiary alternatives, the City’s existing percolation ponds at the reclamation area would be available for effluent discharge during the non-irrigation season. The ponds would also be available to divert peak flows or off-spec recycled water from the tertiary facilities. This convenience allows the City to avoid constructing storage facilities and minimize the sizing of tertiary facilities. The percolation ponds are limited to a hydraulic loading rate of 150 AFY (Carollo Engineers, Inc., 2009).

Two storage basins at the WWTF are available to store effluent if the effluent pump station is temporarily inoperable. The storage basins have a total estimated capacity of about 8.5 million gallons.

Conceptual-level pipeline alignments to deliver recycled water to irrigation districts and planning-level costs for the alignments were developed. The distribution pipelines provide one alignment and stop at one main entry point at each district’s boundary. The preliminary alignments may change during implementation of the selected project.

It is assumed that facilities needed to pump, convey, or store recycled water within any irrigation district taking the water would be the responsibility of the irrigation district.

As stated in Chapter 3, the projected flows considered in the alternatives are shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Recycled Water Flows – Design Criteria
Phase AADF (mgd) ADMMF (mgd) PHF (mgd)
1 7.26 7.71 14.22
2 8.84 9.40 17.25

6.3 Treatment Facility Considerations and Alternatives
The WWTF is an activated sludge plant and currently produces undisinfected secondary effluent.

The WWTF was initially built in 1954 and has been expanded several times over the decades. A description of the WWTF is provided in Chapter 4. The WWTF has an ADMMF treatment capacity of 8.0 mgd.

An evaluation of the treatment capacity, given current flows and loadings, and a condition assessment of the WWTF is currently underway in a separate study.

Two drivers for evaluating treatment alternatives in this RWFS are the anticipated regulatory changes and the goals to expand the beneficial uses of the recycled water to support the City’s water sustainability goals that are in development.

Chapter 4 of the RWFS summarizes new Central Valley nitrate control policies that are being established through a Basin Plan Amendment in 2019. The new policies will require the WWTF to nitrify and denitrify the wastewater to remove total nitrogen (TN) down to a concentration not exceeding 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). These changing permit requirements will decrease the CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-5
capacity of the existing WWTF, requiring an upgrade and expansion to meet the original design capacity of 8 mgd.

Both secondary and tertiary treatment alternatives are evaluated. Secondary treatment allows restricted irrigation (Chapter 3), while Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water can be used for unrestricted uses and expands the market opportunities (Chapter 5).

6.3.1 Secondary Treatment Alternatives
Two secondary treatment alternatives were evaluated to provide capacity to meet the anticipated TN limits: conventional activated sludge (CAS) and membrane bioreactor (MBR).

This section summarizes the expansion requirements for the primary and secondary treatment processes for both alternatives based on the condition and capacity requirements for primary and secondary treatment.

6.3.1.1 CAS
Nitrification and denitrification can be provided in a CAS process by using the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) configuration. The MLE process consists of anoxic and aerobic zones as shown in Figure 6.2. Wastewater is pumped from the primary effluent channel to the anoxic stage and continues to the aerobic stage before being sent to the clarifiers. Nitrified effluent from the aerobic stage which is low in ammonia (NH3) and rich in nitrate (NO3) is recycled back to the anoxic stage for denitrification where it is converted to nitrogen gas (N2). The RAS is returned to the anoxic zone to maintain biomass in the system.

Figure 6.2 CAS/MLE Schematic
To meet the Phase 1 design flows and loads, one additional primary clarifier would be required along with three additional aeration basin/secondary clarifier trains similar in configuration to existing Trains 3 and 4. A new primary effluent flow splitting structure would be needed to split flow from primary clarifiers 3 through 5 to Aeration Basins 3 through 7. The first three zones (totaling 17.3 percent (%) of the total basin volume) of each aeration basin would be operated as anoxic zones, and mixed liquor rich in NO3 would be returned to the anoxic zone at a rate of approximately three times the influent flow. To allow for the existing trains to operate in an MLE configuration, modifications to the existing aeration basins to allow for the addition of an anoxic zone and mixed liquor return would be required. For Claraetor 1, mixers would be added to the first and second zones to allow for this basin to have an 18.4 percent anoxic zone. In Claraetor 2, mixers would be added to the first zone to allow for a 10.4 percent anoxic zone. For Aeration Basins 3 and 4, mixers would be added to the first three zones. In addition to the planned new CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-6 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
facilities, various condition improvements have been identified for the existing primary clarifiers, aeration basins, and secondary clarifiers would be required.

Figure 6.3 shows the site impact of the CAS alternative for Phase 1.

To meet the Phase 2 design flows and loads, one additional aeration basin and secondary clarifier would be required.

Figure 6.3 Site Impact for CAS/MLE Phase 1 Secondary Treatment

6.3.1.2 MBR
MBRs are a combination of activated sludge reactors and membrane facilities. Figure 6.4 shows an example of an MBR process schematic. Membrane systems are pressure driven solids-separation processes, which use membranes with extremely small pores to remove pollutants. Typically, a vacuum is applied to a header pipe connected to the membranes, which draws the treated effluent through the membranes and into the pump. These systems can be used to replace clarifiers and filtration in the activated sludge process. Without the limitations set by solids flux in secondary clarification, the mixed liquor can be more concentrated (up to 10,000 mg/L) than with conventional activated sludge, which reduces the size of the activated sludge process. MBRs produce a high quality effluent that is superior to the effluent from both final clarification and tertiary filtration.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-7
Figure 6.4 MBR Schematic
Due to the small pore size of the membrane, the primary effluent would need to pass through fine screens (one millimeter [mm] opening) prior to the aeration tanks. Membrane systems typically have a higher operation and maintenance cost than a traditional activated sludge system due to higher power requirements (from the higher aeration and pumping demands), the higher chemical costs (due to the need for periodic membrane cleanings), and the need for periodic membrane replacement (every six to ten years).

To meet the Phase 1 design flows and loads, Trains 2, 3, and 4 would be operated as MBRs, and Train 1 would not be used. To allow for this operation, Secondary Clarifiers 2, 3, and 4 would be demolished, and an MBR would be built. As with the CAS alternative, to allow for the existing trains to operate in an MLE configuration, modifications to the existing aeration basins would be required. For Claraetor 2, mixers would be added to the first zone to allow for a 10.4 percent anoxic zone. For Aeration Basins 3 and 4, mixers would be added to the first three zones to allow for a 17.4 percent anoxic zone. In addition to the planned new facilities, the condition improvements needed for existing Trains 2, 3 and 4 would be required.

Figure 6.5 shows the site impact of the MBR alternative for Phase 1 flows and loads.

To meet the Phase 2 design flows and loads, Train 1 would be converted to an MBR by demolishing Secondary Clarifier 1 and building a small MBR. As with the CAS alternative, to allow for Claraetor 1 to operate in an MLE configuration, mixers would need to be added to Zones 1 and 2, thereby creating an 18.4 percent anoxic zone. In addition, to the planned new facilities, the condition improvements discussed in Section 6.2 for existing Train 1 would be required.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-8 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

6.3.2 CAS/MLE and MBR Noneconomic Comparison
Table 6.2 lists a summary of noneconomic considerations for CAS/MLE and MBR alternatives.

See Section 6.4 for the economic comparisons for the treatment options and all reuse alternatives are presented in this chapter.

Table 6.2 Evaluation of Noneconomic Factors for Secondary Treatment Parameter CAS with MLE MBR
Safety 3 2
Meets Permit 3 3
Ease of operation and maintenance (O&M) 3 2
Constructability 2 3
Reliability 3 3
Nitrogen Removal 3 3
In-plant hydraulics 1 2
Site footprint – Phases 1 and 2 1 3
Odor 2 3
Total (unweighted) 21 24
Note:
(1) Criteria Scale: 1 (Least Favorable) to 3 (Most Favorable)

6.3.3 Tertiary Treatment Alternatives
Identification of tertiary treatment options that can be added onto the preferred secondary treatment process is needed to address the future facility objectives and Title 22 requirements described in Chapter 4. Tertiary treatment for the CAS/MLE secondary process consists of filtration followed by disinfection. Since the MBR alternative already includes a filtration step, only disinfection is required for this alternative. A preliminary screening of two filtration alternatives and two disinfection alternatives was conducted. One technology was carried through for each process in the development of reuse alternatives.

6.3.3.1 Filtration
Filtration is only considered for the CAS secondary treatment process. For the MBR secondary treatment process, filtration is not required. The MBR effluent can be fed directly into the disinfection process.

Two filtration processes were considered; namely, cloth media disk filters and granular media filters. The filtered effluent quality produced by either filtration technology would meet the requirements for Title 22 unrestricted reuse-quality effluent.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-9
Figure 6.5 Site Impact for MBR Phase 1 Secondary Treatment Cloth Media Disk Filters
Cloth media disk filters remove solids by sedimentation as well as filtration. The heavier solids settle out before reaching the filter cloth, and an intermittent sludge pump removes the settled solids from the bottom of the tank. As secondary effluent flows through the filters, solids accumulate on and within the depth of the filter cloth forming a mat across the surface. As the mat forms, head loss through the cloth increases, causing the liquid level in the tank to rise.

Automatic filter backwash typically begins based on liquid level. Flow is reversed which removes the majority of particles accumulated on the surface of the filter cloth. Depending on the filter media type, automated cleaning can also be achieved through high-pressure spray wash or chemical cleaning.

Advantages of the cloth media disk filter are the small footprint, minimal energy and pumping requirement, and minimal operator attention. A disadvantage of the cloth media disk filter is the potential for media clogging and scaling, affecting operational run time as well as O&M time and labor.

Granular Media Filters
Granular media filters include conventional single and multimedia filters, deep-bed filters, and continuous backwash filters. Conventional single and multimedia filters typically utilize sand or anthracite media and have a media depth of two to four feet. Deep-bed filters use larger-sized media, usually anthracite, and have a depth of four to eight feet of media. In continuous backwash filters, the water flows upward through a three to six foot deep sand bed.

In addition to improved water quality, an advantage of the continuous backwash filter is that there is no need to construct backwash water holding basins, waste backwash water holding CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-10 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
basins, or backwash pumps since the media is continuously backwashed. This can significantly reduce the filter construction cost and leads to increased ease of operation. With this type of filter, the media is continuously cleaned by recycling the sand internally through an airlift pipe and sand washer, which reduces operator attention required. A disadvantage of the continuous backwash filter is higher power cost due to the continuous operation of an air compressor.

Recommendation
Granular media filters were selected as the basis for estimating costs. During preliminary design, both filtration technologies should be evaluated in more detail.

6.3.3.2 Disinfection
The disinfection technologies considered for this project are chlorination and ultraviolet (UV) light. Both are reliable disinfection process that can safely follow the filtration process and meet Title 22 unrestricted reuse requirements.

Chlorination
Wastewater chlorination was utilized at the WWTF for many years. Chlorination was achieved using chlorine gas and a chlorine contact basin. Chlorination was discontinued in the early 2000s due to concerns for elevated groundwater concentrations of chloride from effluent percolation and irrigation at the City’s reclamation facility. This concern to protect the groundwater from degradation in accordance with the State’s Antidegradation Policy is still relevant today.

Other disadvantages to chlorination include:

1. The process adds salinity to the effluent, which is not desirable considering the pending Salinity Control Plan in the Basin Plan Amendment;

2. Farmer concerns for potential toxicity to crops;

3. Public health concerns for potential formation of disinfection byproducts;

4. Safety of workers handling and working around chlorine gas or chlorine chemicals;

5. Environmental safety for trucking and hauling of chlorine gas or chlorine chemicals to the City.

For these reasons, chlorination was not considered further.

UV Disinfection
UV disinfection is a physical process rather than a chemical process. This is advantageous because no chemicals are used to disinfect the water. There are no disinfection byproducts, and there is no increase in salinity that could negatively impact the quality of the recycled water or groundwater. Disadvantages include higher power usage than chlorine disinfection and increased O&M costs due to bulb replacement and cleaning. Safety considerations associated with UV disinfection include operator exposure to UV light and the potential for mercury release from lamp bulbs if damaged.

Two configurations of UV disinfection (closed-vessel and open channel) were considered. The cities of Clovis and Fresno have closed-channel UV systems while the City of Visalia has an open channel UV system. Figure 6.6 shows a picture of Fresno’s closed-vessel system, and Figure 6.7 shows a figure of Visalia’s open channel system.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-11
Figure 6.6 Closed-Vessel UV Disinfection (City of Fresno) Figure 6.7 Open Channel UV Disinfection (City of Visalia) CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-12 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
UV design criteria are based primarily on UV transmittance (UVT) and UV dose. UVT is a measure of the quantity of UV light transmittable through wastewater, which could be reduced by color, turbidity, certain metals, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and other factors. UV dose is determined for each target organism, bacteria and/or virus in the case of wastewater disinfection, according to Title 22 regulations. Because UVT data for future filtered secondary effluent is not available, an assumption of 55 percent UVT for post-media filtration was made based on the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) guidelines. If membrane filtration is used, a design UVT of 65 percent could be used per NWRI 2012 guidelines.

Equipment reliability must be considered when designing a UV system. The systems must provide full redundancy (duty + 1 standby) for PHF.

The reuse alternatives in this chapter consider several sizing options for the UV disinfection and locations either at the main WWTF or at a remote site near the reclamation area. For the installations at the main WWTF, the system can be installed within the existing chlorine contact basin (CCB), which would save on the site footprint and eliminate the need to demolish the CCB.

The existing influent box to the CCB would be reused as the inlet basin (or stilling basin) that leads into the UV channels. The serpentine channels would be repurposed to serve as the UV channels.

Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling should be performed to verify that an even flow distribution to each UV channel is achieved during peak flow conditions. Also CFD should be used to determine the placement of components with the UV channels so that approach velocities are uniform and within adequate tolerances to eliminate hydraulic impacts on reactor performance.

The CCB depth is an issue (shallower than typical CCBs), but the recommended CFD approach should allow for proper hydraulics into and out of the UV system. There is ample room in the length of the CCB to accommodate all of the UV options considered for the WWTF.

6.3.3.3 Recommendation
It is recommended to implement UV disinfection. The system can be installed in the existing CCB at the main WWTF. This conserves space and eliminates the need to demolish the CCBs.

6.4 Reuse Alternatives
A summary of each recycled water alternative is described in the following sections. Treatment technology and reuse alternatives screenings are discussed in Section 6.5. A screening matrix, also included in Section 6.5, was used to evaluate and rank all of the alternatives.

6.4.1 Alternative 1: “No Project” Alternative
This alternative involves continuing the City’s current program of irrigating undisinfected secondary effluent on the City’s reclamation land using a contract farmer. Because no treatment upgrades would be needed at the WWTF and no changes would be made to the City’s effluent and biosolids reclamation program, this would be the lowest cost alternative.

Alternative 1 does not address requirements in the Central Valley Salinity Coalition (CV-SALTS) Nitrate Control Program (established in the 2018 Basin Plan) to upgrade the WWTF for nitrogen removal. (See Chapter 4 for details on the Nitrate Control Program).

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-13
Alternative 1 would be limited to the use of the current effluent pipeline to deliver effluent to the reclamation area. As noted in Section 6.2.3, the pipeline does not have enough capacity to deliver future flows to the site. Lastly, although it is not expected that the City would need additional farmland to accommodate projected effluent flows, it would need to increase the volume of effluent going to the percolation ponds in order to accommodate future flows through 2040. It is also anticipated that additional farmland would be needed to handle future biosolids production through 2040.

This alternative is not viable for the long term due to permit compliance and lack of sufficient pipeline capacity to carry future flows to the site. It is ultimately rejected in the screening analysis (Section 6.5) and was therefore rejected.

Figure 6.8 shows the City’s reclamation area and secondary effluent discharge pipe that represent Alternative 1. Fields 5N and 5S, comprising 40 acres, are removed from the reclamation area in this RWFS for planning purposes to accommodate the casino project.

Figure 6.8 Alternative 1 – Restricted Irrigation on City Reclamation Area (“No Project” Alternative)

6.4.2 Alternative 2: Restricted Irrigation on City Land with Denitrified Undisinfected Secondary Effluent
This alternative involves upgrading the WWTF to add a nitrification/denitrification (NdN) process and irrigating the City’s reclamation area with denitrified undisinfected secondary effluent. With this alternative, the City would continue using a contract farmer with leases re-established every CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-14 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
five years. Because it is a long-established program by the City, this alternative would not require an implementation program.

Alternative 2 addresses the requirements in the CV-SALTS Nitrate Control Program and would also bring the effluent TN to below 10 mg/L. Discharging lower TN effluent to the percolation ponds may help dilute the groundwater nitrogen plume over time.

This alternative would require construction of the second effluent pipeline to provide capacity to deliver the recycled water through the year 2040 (see Section 6.2.3). This alternative would not expand opportunities for the beneficial use of the recycled water. In addition, it would not provide any exchange opportunities with agricultural irrigation districts.

Figure 6.9 shows the City’s reclamation area and the two secondary effluent pipelines that would be required for implementation of Alternative 2.

Although it is not expected that the City would need additional farmland for effluent irrigation, the City would have to increase the volume of effluent going to the percolation ponds in order to accommodate future flows through 2040. It is also anticipated that additional farmland would be needed to handle future biosolids production through 2040.

Table 6.3 shows the anticipated land requirements for the reclamation area at projected flows and increase in percolated volumes. A complete water and nitrogen balance would be needed in order to confirm the land area needed for both project phases (ADMMFs of 7.71 mgd and

9.40 mgd).

Table 6.3 Reclamation Area Land Requirements for Effluent Discharge Phase
Wastewater Flows Farmland
Required
for
Irrigation
(acres) (1)
Additional
Farmland
Needed for
Biosolids
(acres) (1)
Estimated
Percolated
Volume
(AFY)
Hydraulic
Loading Rate
to Ponds
(ft/yr)
AADF
(mgd)
ADMMF
(mgd)
Current 4.35 4.52 880 - 1,863 36
2032 7.26 7.71 840 119 3,640 70
2040 8.84 9.40 840 184 5,408 104
Note:
(1) Acreage is a preliminary estimate. Acreage would need to be confirmed with a water/nitrogen balance.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-15
Figure 6.9 Alternative 2 – Restricted Irrigation on City Reclamation Area (“NdN” Alternative)

6.4.3 Alternative 3: Unrestricted Agricultural Irrigation on City Land with Title 22 Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water
This reuse alternative differs from Alternative 2 in that it utilizes Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water instead of denitrified undisinfected secondary effluent.

This alternative would involve upgrading the WWTF for secondary/NdN, and constructing a new TTP near the reclamation area and irrigating the City’s reclamation area with Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water. With this alternative, the City would continue using a contract farmer with leases re-established every five years. Because irrigating with Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water has fewer restrictions for public health compared with irrigating with undisinfected secondary effluent, the cropping options available with Alternative 3 are expanded to include food crops compared with Alternative 2. With a change to Title 22 unrestricted use, the land application of biosolids would no longer be allowed in the reclamation area, and another means of disposal would be required.

The water demands for food crops may be less overall than the current fodder crops, which means that more land and/or increasing the percolation volume may be required to accommodate all of the future flows through 2040. Discharging denitrified recycled water to the percolation ponds may help dilute the groundwater nitrogen plume over time.

This alternative would not expand opportunities for the beneficial use of Title 22 recycled water.

However, the City would receive credit against pumping for percolated water and irrigation return flows In addition, it would not contribute to water supply either by offsetting potable water usage or providing any exchange opportunities.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-16 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Figure 6.10 shows the City’s reclamation area and secondary effluent discharge pipe as it would appear in Alternative 3. The tertiary facilities would be located near the reclamation area. This project would accommodate the proposed Tule River Tribe Casino, which plans to take 0.3 mgd of secondary effluent from the pipeline and treat it to Title 22 tertiary standards for recycling (see Chapter 1).

A second effluent pump station and pipeline from the WWTF would be needed to help convey future flows to the TTP. In addition, a new tertiary pipeline would need to be built to convey Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water to the fields. The existing effluent pipeline downstream of the TTP would need to be dedicated as a backup pipeline to carry off spec or peak flows to the percolation ponds.

Figure 6.11 shows a schematic of the facilities developed for Alternative 3. Facilities at the WWTF would be upgraded for NdN. The existing pump station would be expanded to 10.5 mgd, and a second pump station would be built for 7 mgd. The second pipeline would be sized to deliver 7 mgd.

Figure 6.10 Alternative 3 – Unrestricted Irrigation on City Reclamation Area CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-17
Figure 6.11 Schematic of Facilities Developed for Alternative 3

6.4.4 Alternative 4: Unrestricted Agricultural Irrigation with Neighboring Irrigation District(s) with Title 22 Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water This alternative involves the City providing Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water to one or more neighboring irrigation districts (IDs or districts) for possible water exchanges of recycled water for surface water. Three irrigation districts are considered as possible partners: Porterville Irrigation District (PID), Saucelito Irrigation District (SID), and Teapot Dome Water District (TPDWD). The recycled water would be used for agricultural irrigation within the exchange partner’s boundaries, and the surface water would be used to recharge the City’s groundwater.

An exchange agreement would provide for a reliable source of Title 22 water for an irrigation district suitable for irrigating all crops without restriction. In return, the City would be provided with a source of surface water that would be used to recharge the City’s groundwater basin or potentially feed a surface water treatment plant. It is assumed that the exchange rate would be 1:1, meaning that the City would receive surface water at an equal quantity of recycled water delivered to the participating district(s).

The City would produce and deliver recycled water to the district(s), and the district(s) would be responsible for distributing the water to district farmers and maintaining the rules and regulations for the farmers to comply. Permitting would be covered under the State Water Board’s General Order for Irrigation with Recycled Water.

As noted in the market assessment (Chapter 5), each of the three districts has capacity to take all of the recycled water produced by the City. Ultimately, the City could deliver to one or more CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-18 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
districts. This RWFS does not provide a recommendation on a specific district. The City would pursue the alternative and work with the ID(s) to develop the project and negotiate the exchange agreement. The development of an exchange agreement (or agreements) and all terms and conditions is beyond the scope of the RWFS.

Figure 6.12 shows the map of the three irrigation districts and the initial concept for treating and delivering recycled water to the districts. Pipelines are sized with the assumption that all recycled water produced would be delivered to any one of the IDs alone.

It is assumed the City’s reclamation area would no longer be used for year-round effluent irrigation. The land could continue to be farmed and used for biosolids reuse using groundwater for irrigation supply. The land could also be another back-up site for irrigating off-spec tertiary water that would meet secondary treatment standards. If the City does not want to maintain the farmland as a reclamation area, the City would need to start sending biosolids to a permitted offsite biosolids land application facility.

Four sub-alternatives were developed to consider different approaches to sizing the Title 22 tertiary treatment facilities and the pipeline alignments. All sub-alternatives require the construction of a second pipeline and split conveyance of flows to both the existing and the new pipeline in order to accommodate future flows. The options are shown in schematic diagrams provided in Figures 6.13 through Figure 6.16, and are discussed in the following sections. In all sub-alternatives, the primary user of the recycled water would be PID. Lesser flows would be delivered to IDs in the southerly reuse areas (SID/TPDWD).

Figure 6.12 Alternative 4 – Unrestricted Irrigation to One or More Users with Split Treatment and Distribution
CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-19
Figure 6.13 MBR, Split Disinfection, and Separate Effluent Pump Station Figure 6.14 MBR and Split Disinfection with Combined Effluent Pump Station CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-20 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Figure 6.15 CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Station Figure 6.16 CAS Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection with Combined Effluent Pump Station CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-21
The concepts assume that the ID(s) would provide all conveyance and storage facilities within their boundaries. The City would only provide conveyance to one connection/meter point with the selected district. Table 6.4 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of implementing unrestricted irrigation with an agricultural district.

Table 6.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Unrestricted Irrigation with One or More User Advantages Disadvantages
Could provide up to 9,000 AFY reliable new water
supply to City (assumes 1:1 exchange). Irrigation
districts can use all RW produced.

Time to develop project and negotiate an
agreement with one or more irrigation
districts.

Maximizes beneficial use of the recycled water
onto greater land area. Reduces reliance on City’s
percolation ponds.

Requires partnering with agricultural
district(s) for the exchange of surface water.

Partnering with more than one district
increases complexity and time to develop.

Flexibility regarding recycled water diversification
and opportunities to change arrangements in the
future.

Partnering with SID or TPDWD would require
additional pipeline facilities to extend
deliveries past the City’s reclamation area
(added cost over delivery to PID).

Eliminates need to manage the contract farmer in
the current program of effluent irrigation on the
City’s permitted reclamation site. Minimizes City
oversight for recycled water use.

Opportunity for landscape irrigation near tertiary
distribution pipelines.

6.4.4.1 Alternative 4a: MBR Treatment Facility, Split Disinfection, and Separate Effluent Pump Stations
In this alternative, the WWTF would be upgraded to NdN with MBR technology (Figure 6.13).

The primary user of the recycled water would be PID. The membrane permeate from the MBR would be split into two flows to go to separate disinfection facilities. Up to 10 mgd would be disinfected with UV on site and pumped to PID through a new 10 mgd pump station and pipeline. Flows above 10 mgd would be routed to the existing pump station and sent via the existing pipeline to the reclamation area ponds or to the remote treatment facility. A remote 5 mgd UV disinfection plant would be constructed near the reclamation area to treat flows for delivery to SID, TPDWD, and to the separate treatment plant for the Casino (0.3 mgd). Both UV plants would be open channel configurations.

Together, the two pump stations and pipelines can convey 20.5 mgd. This is higher than the required 17.3 mgd, but provides flexibility and redundancy to send peak flows either way, depending on circumstances. The separate pump stations must stay separate because they handle different water quality. Effluent Pump Station 1 (EPS 1) pumps undisinfected MBR effluent, and EPS 2 pumps Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water. The configuration provides one-way reliability. If EPS 2 is down, flows can be diverted to the existing pipeline for conveyance to the southerly use areas.

In addition to the above, the on-site emergency storage ponds provide about 8.5 million gallons of storage for off-spec water or for flow diversion in case either pump station is temporarily shut down.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-22 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

6.4.4.2 Alternative 4b: MBR Treatment Facility, Split Disinfection, and Combined Effluent Pump Stations
This alternative differs from 4a in that the UV treatment at the main WWTF would be positioned downstream of the new EPS 2 as is shown in Figure 6.14. This would allow more flexibility to operate the two pump stations as one combined pump station and could provide two-way reliability in case one pump station is out of service.

The UV system at the main WWTF would be a closed-vessel technology, which is well suited for downstream of the pump station, since a second pump station downstream of UV can be avoided. The UV system at the remote plant would be open channel configuration. All other aspects of the alternative are the same as Alternative 4a.

6.4.4.3 Alternative 4c: CAS/MLE Treatment Facility, Split Disinfection, and Separate Effluent Pump Stations
This alternative is similar to 4a in that it involves implementation of CAS/MLE instead of MBR at the main WWTF to denitrify the wastewater (Figure 6.15). The alternative would require installation of media filters ahead of the UV disinfection system. Up to 10 mgd would be filtered and disinfected with UV on site and pumped to PID through a new 10 mgd pump station and pipeline. Flows above 10 mgd would be diverted to the existing pump station and sent via the existing pipeline to the reclamation area ponds or to the remote treatment facility. A remote 5 mgd filtration/UV disinfection plant would be constructed near the reclamation area to treat flows for delivery to SID, TPDWD, or the City’s farmland, and to the separate treatment plant for the Casino (0.3 mgd). Both UV plants would be open channel configurations.

All other aspects regarding the pump station concepts, capacity, and reliability features are the same as Alternative 4a.

6.4.4.4 Alternative 4d: CAS with Centralized Tertiary Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Station
This alternative is similar to 4b and is depicted in Figure 6.16. All wastewater would be treated at the main WWTF and discharged to a combined pump station (existing EPS 1 and new EPS 2), which would provide the advantages of pump station reliability mentioned previously. With CAS/MLE, the main WWTF would include media filtration and UV disinfection, and all water leaving the site would be Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water. This alternative assumes the current 6-inch diameter sludge line would be converted to deliver undisinfected secondary effluent from the WWTF to the Casino for their tertiary facility.

This alternative differs from the others in that it lacks reliability of 4a – 4c to divert off-spec peak flows down the south pipeline for delivery to the percolation ponds.

6.4.5 Potential Friant Kern Canal Recycled Water Conveyance Option One option for future consideration as a potential conveyance method for Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water is the use of the F-K Canal. This option would involve discharging Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water into the F-K Canal, where it would be blended with surface water. Through an exchange agreement with one or more irrigation districts, the partnering district(s) would be supplied with the blended water from the canal, equivalent to the quantity of recycled water discharged. The partnering irrigation district would provide the City with surface water in exchange, as described in Section 6.4.4.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-23
The advantages of this option are that it would position the City for future opportunities (new users) or changing conditions that cannot be anticipated at this time. This option provides the advantage of a single discharge point to the F-K Canal, and the City could exchange water with any interested irrigation district that uses the canal. It would also avoid the need for a second distribution pipeline or second remote UV facility.

It is not known if the Bureau of Reclamation would allow discharge of recycled water into the F-K Canal system, however they have allowed recycled water to be discharged in the Delta Mendota Canal. Not enough is known about the viability of this option at this time to determine whether or not it is feasible, so it was not considered further in this RWFS. It is included here, however, as an option for possible future consideration.

6.5 Noneconomic Screening of Alternatives
Noneconomic screenings of treatment and reuse alternatives were conducted to identify the preferred alternatives on a qualitative basis.

6.5.1 Screening of Treatment Technologies
The screening of treatment technologies was presented previously. The results are summarized below.

6.5.1.1 Secondary Treatment
Based on non-economic factors, the preferred secondary treatment technology is the MBR technology. A detailed evaluation of the MBR and CAS/MLE treatment alternatives has been conducted for the WWTF evaluation, which is being developed separately.. . Based on this evaluation, the MBR and CAS/MLE treatment technologies were compared in this RWFS using nine criteria, listed below:
• Safety.
• Meets permit requirements.
• Ease of O&M.
• Constructability.
• Reliability.
• Nitrogen removal.
• In-plant hydraulics.
• Site footprint – Phases 1 and 2.
• Odor.

Section 6.3.2 of this RWFS summarizes the scores of the nine criteria; MBR’s total score (24) was greater than that of CAS/MLE (21).

6.5.1.2 Disinfection
Two disinfection technologies were considered and screened. These were UV and chlorination. A noneconomic evaluation of disinfection technologies was provided in Section 6.3.3.2. Due to several disadvantages to chlorination (salinity impacts, potential for crop toxicity, safety, potential formation of disinfection byproducts), UV is selected as the preferred disinfection technology.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-24 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

6.5.2 Screening of Reuse Alternatives
A screening analysis of the reuse alternatives was conducted to identify the preferred reuse alternative, based on noneconomic criteria/parameters. For each alternative, a score was assigned to each criterion (equal weighting). The scores were totaled to determine the highest ranked alternative. The criteria are:
• Treatment Reliability/ Flexibility.
• Conveyance Reliability/ Flexibility/ Redundancy.
• Consistency with City's Water Sustainability Goals.
• Higher Beneficial Use of Recycled Water.
• Potential Environmental Issues.
• Regulatory.
• Legal & Institutional.
• Time to Implement.
• Reuse Flexibility/ Adaptability.

The criteria are presented in Table 6.5, which includes the primary considerations associated with each criterion, the scoring range, and the type of metric appropriate for each criterion. The first criterion (treatment reliability/flexibility) incorporates the secondary screening conducted (Section 6.5.1.1), so that this screening analysis addresses both treatment and reuse.

Each alternative was scored against each of the nine criteria. By scoring the alternatives based on a single criterion at a time, the relative attainment of that criterion formed the basis for the comparisons among the alternatives and their ultimate rankings. The results, as summarized in Table 6.6, include the scores for each alternative for each criterion and the resulting rank. In addition, the rationale for each score is presented in a more detailed matrix in Appendix D.

6.5.2.1 Screening Results and Preferred Alternative
The unrestricted agricultural reuse alternatives (4a through 4b) outranked Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

The most highly ranked alternative is 4b, Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations. The second-ranked alternative is 4a, MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations.

Alternative 4b is preferred over 4a because it involves the MBR technology, which has a smaller footprint, more ease of O&M, and more ease of future expansion; and because it involves a combined pump station, which increases the reliability and redundancy of water delivery.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-25
Figure 6.17 presents the site layout for the Phase 1 MBR/UV treatment facilities for the preferred Alternative 4b.

Figure 6.17 Preferred Reuse Alternative Site Impact – Phase 1 MBR Tertiary/Disinfection .

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-27
Table 6.5 Screening Criteria, Metrics, and Scoring Ranges for Reuse Alternatives Criteria
Scoring Range
Score Suggested
Metric Considerations (0-1) (2-3) (4-5)
Treatment Reliability/ Flexibility Low Reliability/
Flexibility
Medium Reliability/
Flexibility
High Reliability/
Flexibility 0-5 Relative
comparison
Safety, ease of O&M, constructability, ease of future expansion, reliability, in-plant hydraulics, site footprint, odor, nitrogen removal. MBR ranks higher in a separate evaluation (see Table 6.2).

Conveyance Reliability/ Flexibility/ Redundancy Low Reliability/ Flexibility
Medium Reliability/
Flexibility
High Reliability/
Flexibility 0-5 Relative comparison Site footprint, process flexibility, pump station and pipeline reliability and redundancy.

Consistency with City's Water Sustainability Goals Low Consistency Medium Consistency High Consistency 0-5 Relative
comparison
Considers agricultural irrigation of recycled water in exchange for surface water rights, landscape irrigation, and restricted irrigation..

Higher Beneficial Use of Recycled Water Low Beneficial
Use
Medium Beneficial
Use High Beneficial Use 0-5 Relative comparison
Based on beneficial use of effluent, with secondary effluent irrigation being low agricultural irrigation being high
Potential Environmental Issues Low Potential Medium Potential High Potential 0-5 Qualitative Based on little or no issues vs. significant issues and potential CEQA delays.

Regulatory High Potential for
Hurdles
Medium Potential
for Hurdles
Little to No Potential
for Hurdles 0-5 Qualitative Readily permitable vs. significant regulatory challenges.

Legal & Institutional High Potential for
Hurdles
Medium Potential
for Hurdles
Little to No Potential
for Hurdles 0-5 Qualitative
Based on whether or not, or the extent to which, the City has the authority to implement the practice regardless of feasibility or cost. Legal efforts required for implementation, such as efforts to establish institutional & interagency governance/management structures.

Time to Implement Most Time to
Implement
Medium Time to
Implement
Least Time to
Implement 0-5 Qualitative Relative comparison between alternatives.

Reuse Flexibility/ Adaptability Low Flexibility Medium Flexibility High Flexibility 0-5 Qualitative Flexibility to adapt or change program over time w/o leaving stranded assets. Flexibility to adjust or change quantities of recycled water delivered, number of recycled water users, and locations

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-29
Table 6.6 Non-Economic Scoring of Each Reuse Alternative Alternative
Ranking Criteria
Treatment Total Score Rank
Reliability/
Flexibility
Conveyance
Reliability/
Flexibility/
Redundancy
Consistency
with City's
Water
Sustainatiblity
Goals
Higher
Beneficial Use
of Recycled
Water
Potential
Environmental
Issues
Regulatory Legal &
Institutional
Time to
Implement
Reuse
Flexibility/
Adaptability
1 - No Project 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 5 0 16 9th
2a - Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 5 3 0 1 3 4 5 3 1 25 7th 2b - Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3 3 0 1 3 4 5 3 1 23 8th 3a - Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 5 3 0 3 3 4 5 3 2 28 5th 3b - Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3 3 0 3 3 4 5 3 2 26 6th 4a - Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 5 4 5 5 2 2 3 3 5 34 2nd 4b - Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 5 35 1st 4c - Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump Stations 3 4 5 5 2 2 3 3 5 32 4th 4d - Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent Pump Stations
3 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 5 33 3rd

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-31

6.6 Planning Level Cost Estimate
Planning level cost estimates for each recycled water alternative are presented in this section.

The assumptions regarding cost estimates are discussed below.

6.6.1 Scope and Accuracy Range
The cost estimates presented in this study have been prepared for feasibility study purposes and for guidance in project evaluation and implementation. These estimates are based on current perceptions of conditions at the project location. These estimates reflect Carollo’s professional opinion of costs at this time and are subject to change as project details are further defined.

Carollo has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment; nor services provided by others, contractor’s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding, or market conditions, practices, or bidding strategies. The actual costs of a project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors such as preliminary alignment generation, detailed utility surveys, and environmental and local considerations. Carollo cannot, and does not, warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary for the costs presented as shown.

Capital costs for this study are based on the March 2019, 20 Cities Engineering News Record Construction Code Index (ENR CCI) of 11,228. Future adjustments of cost estimates presented in this report can be estimated by increasing the estimated capital cost by the ratio of the future 20 Cities ENR CCI to 11,228.

The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International defines five different cost estimate classifications intended to align the estimating process and accuracy with the status of the project design. These classes and their definitions are summarized in Table 6.7.

The costs developed in this study shall be considered Class 5 estimates.

Table 6.7 Cost Estimating Class Estimates
Class Class Definition Status of
Design
Accuracy Range
Low Side High Side
5 Rough Order-of-Magnitude
Planning Estimate N/A -20% to -50% + 30% to +100%
4 Detailed Planning Level Estimate 1% to 5 % -15% to -30% +20% to +50% 3 Project Budget Estimate 10% to 40% -10% to -20% +10% to +30% 2 Detailed Project Control Estimate 30% to 70% -5% to -15% +5% to +20% 1 Bid Check Estimate 80% to 100% -3% to -10% +3% to +15% Note:
(1) Percentages are based on the construction cost value and not on an incremental subtotal after each percentage category.

6.6.2 Mark-ups and Contingency
For the development of the project costs, a construction and estimating contingency and other markups will be applied as shown in Table 6.8. The markups are intended to account for costs of engineering, design, administration, and legal efforts associated with implementing the project.

A sales tax of 9.25 percent was applied to 50 percent of the total direct cost subtotals. It should CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-32 | APRIL 2021 |FINAL
be noted that contingency and other markups are applied incrementally; that is, the percentage for each component is applied to the previous subtotal.

Table 6.8 General Cost Estimating Assumptions
Description Estimated Cost Percent of Direct
Construction Cost
Direct Construction Cost (includes
Contractor General Conditions @ 10%) “A” 100 %
Estimating Contingency +30% of “A” 30%
Subtotal: “B: 130 %
Contractor Overhead and Profit +15% of “B” 15%
Subtotal: “C” 149 %
Sales Tax on 50% of Construction Cost +9.25% of 50% of “C” 4.6% Total Construction Cost: “D” 156%
Change Order Cost +3% of “D” 3%
Engineering, Legal, Administration,
Construction Management (2) +20% of “D” 20 %
Total Project Cost: “E” 192%

6.6.3 Unit Construction Costs for Recycled Water Pipelines and Pump Stations The construction cost estimates for recycled water pipelines and pump stations are based on the unit construction costs listed in Table 6.7. Construction costs for pipelines include pipe material (C900 PVC), valves, appurtenances, excavation, installation, bedding material, backfill material, transport, and paving where applicable. Pipeline costs are provided in units of cost per linear foot (LF) of pipe. Because the alignments are preliminary at this stage and will need to be verified during preliminary design, costs associated with easements and land acquisitions are not provided.

Table 6.9 Baseline Unit Construction Costs before Markups Category Unit Construction Cost Unit
Pipelines
20-inch diameter $395 $ / LF
24-inch diameter $450 $ / LF
30-inch diameter $475 $ / LF
Pump Stations
100HP – 500 HP $3000 $/HP
Recycled water pump stations were assumed to have vertical turbine pumps. Costs were estimated using a regression model of past pump station projects, that relates total horsepower with pump station cost.

6.6.4 Cost Estimating Approach for Treatment Facilities Construction costs presented in this report are based on preliminary process evaluation and planning level considerations in the WWTF evaluation which is being developed separately Construction costs for secondary and tertiary facilities are based on past construction costs of CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-33
similar facilities at other locations, unit costs, estimating guides, and other supporting information.

6.6.4.1 UV System Costs
Equipment costs are based on one UV manufacturer’s proposal, Xylem’s WEDECO Duron, from a similar Carollo project from earlier in 2019. The costs for the different options were based on the ratio of the number of lamps and channels in a system. Costs include all necessary reactor components, auxiliary equipment, spare parts and start-up and commissioning services. The construction costs also include a canopy over the entire system, providing for a more operator friendly environment.

A comparison of the total equipment cost of the different UV options is in Appendix E. The estimated construction costs include adding a roof structure for the UV equipment, structural/mechanical modifications to the existing CCB, electrical, and instrumentation modifications.

The O&M cost basis and key factors for the net present worth evaluation are shown in Appendix F. The replacement costs for the individual components were provided by the manufacturer. The O&M cost analysis is based on the average flow rate, the average UVT, an electricity rate of $0.10/kWh, and a labor rate of $150/hour. Key components include replacement costs for lamps, ballasts, quartz sleeves, UV intensity sensors, cleaning system wipers, etc.

6.6.4.2 Treatment Facility Power Costs
The WWTF has two sources of electrical power; Southern California Edison (SCE) and an on-site solar photovoltaic system that is owned and operated by Sol Systems, Inc. During the period of March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019, the City purchased 1,655,108 kWh of energy from SCE, at an average cost per kWh of $0.1215. The average cost per kWh of energy purchased from SCE was calculated by dividing the total annual SCE expenditure (e.g. the sum of SCE monthly invoices) by the total annual amount of energy purchased from SCE. As such, the average cost per kWh of energy purchased from SCE includes delivery charges for both energy and demand, generation charges for energy, and taxes.

Over the same period (March 1, 2018 – February 28, 2019), the City also purchased 2,093,019 kWh of energy from Sol Systems, Inc. at an average cost per kWh of $0.0825, which is the energy rate set by the Solar PV Power Purchase Agreement between the City and Sol Systems.

Using the total amount of energy purchased from SCE and Sol Systems between March 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019, and the associated average cost per kWh for each, the weighted average energy cost for the WWTF is calculated to be $0.0997/kWh, which is based on 44.2 percent of the annual WWTF energy being sourced from SCE and 55.8 percent being sourced from Sol Systems’ solar PV facility. For this present worth analysis, the City’s present energy cost of $0.1/kWh is used.

As future energy demands of the WWTF increase, it should be noted that the weighted average energy cost will likely increase because any additional energy required to operate the WWTF would have to be sourced from SCE due to the fact that the Sol Systems’ solar PV facility has a fixed capacity.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-34 | APRIL 2021 |FINAL
For example, if the WWTF annual energy demand were to increase by 10 percent to 4,122,940 kWh, the 10 percent additional energy (374,813 kWh) would have to be purchased at the SCE average energy rate of $0.1215/kWh, which would increase the WWTF overall weighted average energy cost to $0.1017/kWh. Also note that the WWTF overall weighted average energy cost will increase over time as a result of inflation in the SCE energy rate and escalation of the Sol Systems energy rate (if the Sol Systems PPA includes a rate escalation provision).

6.6.5 Present Worth Cost Assumptions
Present worth costs estimate the project cost over a given study period, considering the total project cost, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, expressed in present or annual value terms. The key variables that are used to calculate the present worth cost are the duration, and net discount rate (which combines the inflation and raw discount rate). The following assumptions are listed in Table 6.10.

Table 6.10 Key Variables for Present-Worth Costs
Variable Value
Project Duration 20 years
Net Discount Rate 3%
Labor Rate $150/hour
Electrical Power $0.1/kWh

6.6.6 Excluded Costs
The following costs were not included in the cost estimates for the alternatives:
• Land acquisition to accommodate future biosolids reuse at the City’s reclamation area. • Biosolids hauling to off-site permitted land application facility. • Easements and land acquisition for pipelines.
• Costs to deliver recycled water to potential landscape irrigation customers. • Costs to distribute Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water throughout the reclamation area (Alternative 3).
• Environmental documentation to address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
• Costs related to the TTP for the casino project.

6.7 Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Costs - Reuse Alternatives 2-4, Phase 1 Project costs were developed by considering the various treatment alternatives for secondary/ NdN and disinfected tertiary treatment, and conveyance pipelines needed to deliver the water to the use areas.

Table 6.11 summarizes the various sizing criteria for the treatment facilities developed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. These include the treatment upgrade for nitrogen removal, which is common to all alternatives, and various options and capacities for tertiary treatment. Costs for the alternatives are based on these assumptions.

Table 6.12 summarizes the construction, project, and present worth costs for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for Phase 1 project. The table shows that for the City’s current program of sending undisinfected secondary effluent to irrigate the fodder crops on the City’s reclamation site, the CAS option is a less expensive option to upgrade the process to meet future nitrogen limits.

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-35
However, for the production of tertiary disinfected recycled water, the MBR alternatives are less expensive than their CAS counterparts. This is primarily due to the CAS alternatives requiring an additional filtration step along with more expensive UV disinfection.

Based on the noneconomic screening results summarized in Section 6.5, the City’s preferred alternative is Alternative 4b (Unrestricted Reuse with neighboring irrigation districts, using MBR/UV technologies with combined effluent pump station). Alternative 4b is the lowest cost option of Alternatives 4a through 4d.

To expand the WWTF to meet Phase 2 flows, additional facilities will be needed (see Section 6.3.1.2 for summary of new facilities). Table 6.13 summarizes the construction, project, and present worth costs for Alternative 4b, Phase 2.

Figure 6.18 displays the WWTF site with construction of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 facilities. All new facilities can be constructed within the current site boundary.

Figure 6.18 Ultimate Phase 2 MBR/UV Treatment Facilities CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 6 6-36 | APRIL 2021 | REVISED DRAFT
Table 6.11 Summary of Sizing Criteria for Treatment Alternatives in Reuse Alternatives Alternative Secondary Treatment WWTF Main Facility Tertiary / UV Disinfection Treatment WWTF Main Facility
Tertiary / UV Disinfection Treatment
Remote Plant
Process ADMMF PHF Process ADMMF PHF Process ADMMF PHF
Phase 1
Alt 2a MBR 7.7 14.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
Alt 2b CAS 7.7 14.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
Alt 3a MBR 7.7 14.2 -- -- -- UV 7.7 7.7
Alt 3b CAS 7.7 14.2 -- -- -- Filtration/UV 7.7 7.7
Alt 4a MBR 7.7 14.2 UV 5.3 10 UV 2.65 5.0
Alt 4b MBR 7.7 14.2 UV 5.3 10 UV 2.65 5.0
Alt 4c CAS 7.7 14.2 Filtration/UV 5.3 10 Filtration/UV 2.65 5.0 Alt 4d CAS 7.7 14.2 Filtration/UV 7.7 14.2 -- -- --
Phase 2
Alt 2a MBR 9.4 17.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Alt 2b CAS 9.4 17.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Alt 3a MBR 9.4 17.3 -- -- -- UV 9.4 9.4
Alt 3b CAS 9.4 17.3 -- -- -- Filtration/UV 9.4 9.4
Alt 4a MBR 9.4 17.3 UV 6.9 10 UV 2.65 5
Alt 4b MBR 9.4 17.3 UV 6.9 10 UV 2.65 5
Alt 4c CAS 9.4 17.3 Filtration/UV 6.9 10 Filtration/UV 2.65 5 Alt 4d CAS 9.4 17.3 Filtration/UV 9.4 17 -- -- --
Notes:
(1) Capacity of new effluent pipeline = 10 mgd. PHFs > 10 mgd divert to on-site ponds or south pipeline (to perc ponds). (2) Peak flows to on-site pond or split between the two effluent pipelines (combined capacity = 20.5 mgd).

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-37
Table 6.12 Cost Comparison for Reuse Alternatives – Phase 1 Costs
Restricted Reuse Unrestricted Reuse on City
Land Unrestricted Reuse with Neighboring Irrigation Districts 2a: MBR 2b: CAS 3a: MBR 3b: CAS 4a: MBR split
EPS
4b: MBR
combined
EPS
4c: MBR split
EPS
4d: MBR
combined
EPS
Preliminary Treatment
R&R Preliminary Treatment $580,000 $580,000 $580,000 $580,000 $580,000 $580,000 $580,000 $580,000 New Influent Pump Station $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 Primary/Secondary
R&R Claraetor 1 $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 $441,006 R&R PC/Aeration Basin 2-4 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 R&R Secondary Clarifier 1-4 $1,570,000 $1,570,000 $1,570,000 $1,570,000 Demolition Secondary Clarifier 2-4 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 BNR upgrades to Aeration Basin 1 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 BNR upgrades to Aeration Basin 2-4 $560,000 $380,000 $560,000 $380,000 $560,000 $560,000 $380,000 $380,000 New Primary Clarifier $1,870,000 $1,870,000 $1,870,000 $1,870,000 $1,865,316 New Aeration Basin $5,530,000 $5,530,000 $5,530,000 $5,530,000 $5,531,332 New Secondary Clarifier $3,020,000 $3,020,000 $3,020,000 $3,020,000 $3,018,305 MBR System $11,300,000 $11,300,000 $11,300,000 $11,300,000 Fine Screening $3,670,000 $3,670,000 $3,670,000 $3,670,000 Media Filtration
Remote Media Filtration (7.7 mgd) $6,050,000
Remote Media Filtration (5 mgd) $2,550,000
Main Plant Media Filtration (10 mgd) $4,830,000
Main Plant Media Filtration (17 mgd $6,050,000
UV Main Plant / UV Remote Plant
Remote Plant (7.7 mgd, UVT = 65%) $1,080,000
Remote Plant (7.7 mgd, UVT = 55%) $2,680,000
Main Plant (14/17 mgd, UVT = 55%) $4,280,000
Remote Plant (5 mgd, UVT = 65%) $1,370,000 $1,370,000
Main Plant (10 mgd, UVT = 65%) $1,970,000
Main Plant CV (10 mgd, UVT=65%) $1,360,000
Remote Plant (5 mgd, UVT = 55%) $1,970,000
Main Plant (10 mgd, UVT = 55%) $3,440,000
Solids Treatment
R&R DAF Thickening $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 Digester heating $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 New Anaerobic Digesters $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 New Screw Press $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 Misc R&R $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 Subtotal Project Element Costs $21,040,000 $17,650,000 $22,120,000 $26,370,000 $24,380,000 $23,770,000 $30,440,000 $27,970,000 Yard Piping $1,050,000 $880,000 $1,110,000 $1,320,000 $1,220,000 $1,190,000 $1,520,000 $1,400,000 Misc Site work $420,000 $350,000 $440,000 $530,000 $490,000 $480,000 $610,000 $560,000 General Conditions $2,100,000 $1,770,000 $2,210,000 $2,640,000 $2,440,000 $2,380,000 $3,040,000 $2,800,000 Electrical Works $6,310,000 $5,300,000 $6,640,000 $7,910,000 $7,310,000 $7,130,000 $9,130,000 $8,390,000 Subtotal WWTP Direct Costs $30,920,000 $25,950,000 $32,520,000 $38,770,000 $35,830,000 $34,950,000 $44,740,000 $41,120,000 Effluent pipeline and pump station
R&R existing pump station $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Fourth pump and manhole $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 To PID (12,900 LF, 30in daim) $6,130,000 $6,130,000 $6,130,000 $6,130,000 10 mgd PS $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000
To SID/TDWD (14,676 LF, 20" diam) $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 5 mgd PS $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
To City Reclamation (32,100 LF 24"
diam) $14,450,000 $14,450,000 $14,450,000 $14,450,000
7 mgd PS $1,130,000 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 $1,130,000
Subtotal Direct Costs $47,240,000 $42,270,000 $48,840,000 $55,090,000 $49,860,000 $48,970,000 $58,770,000 $55,150,000 Contingency $14,170,000 $12,680,000 $14,650,000 $16,530,000 $14,960,000 $14,690,000 $17,630,000 $16,540,000 Subtotal $61,420,000 $54,950,000 $63,490,000 $71,610,000 $64,820,000 $63,660,000 $76,400,000 $71,690,000 Contractor Overhead &
Profit $9,210,000 $8,240,000 $9,520,000 $10,740,000 $9,720,000 $9,550,000 $11,460,000 $10,750,000 Subtotal $70,630,000 $63,190,000 $73,010,000 $82,350,000 $74,540,000 $73,210,000 $87,860,000 $82,440,000 Sales Tax (on half) $3,270,000 $2,920,000 $3,380,000 $3,810,000 $3,450,000 $3,390,000 $4,060,000 $3,810,000 Total Construction Cost $73,900,000 $66,110,000 $76,390,000 $86,160,000 $77,990,000 $76,600,000 $91,920,000 $86,260,000 Change Order Cost $3,690,000 $3,310,000 $3,820,000 $4,310,000 $3,900,000 $3,830,000 $4,600,000 $4,310,000 Engineering, Legal, Admin. $18,470,000 $16,530,000 $19,100,000 $21,540,000 $19,500,000 $19,150,000 $22,980,000 $21,560,000 Total Project Cost $96,070,000 $85,940,000 $99,300,000 $112,010,000 $101,380,000 $99,580,000 $119,490,000 $112,130,000 O&M Costs, ($/yr)
Labor Cost $1,370,000 $1,330,000 $1,430,000 $1,470,000 $1,430,000 $1,430,000 $1,470,000 $1,470,000 Power Cost $370,000 $190,000 $460,000 $280,000 $460,000 $460,000 $280,000 $280,000 Chemical Cost $30,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000
Consumables Cost $190,000 $330,000 $140,000 $330,000 $330,000 $140,000 $140,000 Total Annual O&M Cost ($/yr) $1,960,000 $1,520,000 $2,250,000 $1,890,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $1,890,000 $1,890,000 NPV (20 years, 3% discount) $125,250,000 $108,520,000 $132,710,000 $140,080,000 $134,790,000 $132,980,000 $147,570,000 $140,210,000

CHAPTER 6 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 6-39
Table 6.13 Alternative 4b - Cost Summary for Phase 2
Costs 4b: Unrestricted Reuse with Neighboring Irrigation Districts: MBR combined EPS
Primary/Secondary
R&R Claerator 1 $240,000
Demolition Secondary Clarifier 1 $440,000
BNR upgrades to Aeration Basin 1 $185,396
MBR System $1,950,000
Solids Treatment
DAF Thickening $600,000
New Anaerobic Digester $880,000
Subtotal Project Element Costs $4,300,000
Yard Piping 5% $220,000
Misc Sitework 2% $90,000
General Conditions 10% $430,000
Electrical Works 30% $1,290,000
Subtotal WWTP Direct Costs $6,330,000
Contingency 30% $1,900,000
Subtotal $8,220,000
Contractor Overhead & Profit 15% $1,230,000
Subtotal $9,460,000
Sales Tax (on half) 4.6% $440,000
Total Construction Cost $9,890,000
Change Order Cost 5% $490,000
Engineering, Legal, Admin. 25% $2,470,000
Total Project Cost $12,860,000
O&M Costs, ($/yr)(1)
Labor Cost $1,640,000
Power Cost $560,000
Chemical Cost $30,000
Consumables Cost $250,000
Total Annual O&M Cost ($/yr) $2,490,000
NPV (20 years, 3% discount) $49,910,000
Note:
(1) O&M costs are for the full Phase 2 flow (including the portion treated by the facilities constructed in Phase 1).

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-1
Chapter 7
RECOMMENDED PROJECT – IMPLEMENTATION

STEPS AND FUNDING/FINANCING OPTIONS

7.1 Introduction
The adequate funding of capital and operational costs is a primary consideration when implementing a capital program that would expand facilities and infrastructure. This chapter describes potential funding opportunities and financing mechanisms for the costs associated with the recommended recycled water program, including an overview of current applicable grants and loan opportunities.

In the course of this discussion, the term “funding” refers to the method of collecting money to pay for a project or capital program—essentially any revenue source available to the City, such as user rates and charges, bond proceeds, or reserve funds. In contrast, the term “financing” refers to the collection of outside revenue sources, namely grants and loans.

As stated in Chapter 6, the recommended project is Alternative 4b. The project consists of upgrading the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) to produce Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water. The WWTF will be converted to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology with ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection. The effluent pump station will be expanded and new effluent pipelines will be built to convey the recycled water to agricultural lands for unrestricted use.

The recycled water will be distributed to one or more neighboring irrigation districts (IDs or districts) for possible water exchanges of recycled water for surface water. Three irrigation districts are considered as possible partners: Porterville Irrigation District (PID), Saucelito Irrigation District (SID), and Teapot Dome Water District (TPDWD).

The recycled water would be used for agricultural irrigation within the exchange partner’s boundaries. An exchange agreement would provide for a reliable source of Title 22 water for an irrigation district suitable for irrigating all crops without restriction. In return, the City would be provided with a reliable source of surface water that would be used to recharge the City’s groundwater basin or potentially feed a surface water treatment plant.

At this point in the program development, the districts have all expressed interest in the recycled water and a capability to take the water. The City’s next step is to pursue negotiations and enter into an agreement(s). It is assumed that the exchange rate would be 1:1, meaning that the City would receive surface water at the same quantity of recycled water delivered to the participating district(s). This is consistent with the assumptions developed in the Water Supply Alternatives Analysis (Chapter 6 of the Integrated Master Plan).

Recycled water will also be provided to landscape irrigators in the vicinity of the WWTF and the recycled water pipelines. Compared to agricultural irrigation, the market for landscape irrigation is very small and not a first priority for recycled water delivery.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-2 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
The two phases of the recommended program will be built to serve projected wastewater flows through the year 2040. The project phases and treatment capacities are shown in Table 7.1. The estimated project costs for each phase are summarized in Table 7.2 Table 7.1 Recycled Water Project Phases and Design Criteria Phase AADF (mgd) ADMMF (mgd) PHF (mgd)
1 7.26 7.71 14.22
2 8.84 9.40 17.25
Table 7.2 Recommended Recycled Water Program Costs, Phases 1 and 2 Description Recommended Project
Costs Phase 1 (1)
Recommended Project
Costs Phase 2 (1)
Treatment $54,700,000 $9,900,000
Pump stations and pipelines to irrigation
Districts $21,900,000 --
Total Capital Costs $76,600,000 $9,900,000
Project Cost Soft Costs(2) $23,000,000 $3,000,000
Total Project Cost $99,600,000 $12,900,000
Annualized Project Cost, $/year(3) $3,560,000 $460,0006) O&M Costs, $/year(4) $2,250,000 $240,000(6)
R&R Costs, $/year(5) $490,000 $63,300(6)
Total Annual Costs, $/year $6,300,000 $763,300
Notes:
(1) ENRCCI = 11228
(2) Includes Engineering, Legal, Administration and Change Orders (30 percent of Capital Cost). (3) Discounted at 3 percent over a 20 year period.
(4) Includes annual costs for energy, chemical use, equipment maintenance, and labor. (5) Includes allowance for repair and rehabilitation assumed to be equal to 1 percent of the direct cost before contingency, contractor overhead and profit and sales tax.
(6) Yearly costs shown are just for the Phase 2 portion. Total yearly costs post construction of Phase 2 would be the sum of the Phase 1 and 2 yearly costs. Implementation Plan
The City will need to address the following project components in implementing the recycled water project (listed in no specific order):
• Design the recommended alternative.
• Receive firm commitments from at least one agricultural district to use recycled water and negotiate terms of the exchange agreement and exchange rate. • Obtain permits and clearances from applicable regulatory divisions within the Central Valley Water Board (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Division of Drinking Water). • Coordinate and obtain easements, rights of way, and any permits that may be required by the County for work along the pipeline alignments and/or crossing under canals. • Conduct environmental process (CEQA, CEQA Plus and/or NEPA if required) and develop compliance documents, and certify the CEQA document, covering the construction and implementation of the project, including the exchange agreement. For SRF funding, the SWRCB requires that the CEQA/CEQA-Plus certification be completed within 5 years of the SWRCB environmental review and the biological assessment will need to be updated to be within 1 year of environmental review.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-3
• Investigate and pursue funding sources, including grants and loans applicable to the project.
• Preparation of a cost-of-service rate study and adoption of new sewer rates, including public notification per Prop 218 process
• Adopt a resolution for recycled water use.

An implementation schedule is outlined in Table 7.3 for Phase 1. Phase 2 will not occur until approximately the year 2032 (or later, if flows increase at a slower rate than projected, so it is not included in the schedule.

Table 7.3 Planned Implementation Schedule
Item Description Start Year End Year
Phase 1 – 7.7.mgd ADMMF
Planning 2020 2020
Design 2020 2021
Construction 2021 2023
Phase 2 – 9.4 mgd ADMMF Unscheduled Unscheduled

7.2 Funding Source Identification
There are two types of costs associated with the recommended program: capital costs required to plan, design, and build the facilities and infrastructure elements; and operational costs required to maintain, operate, and repair those facilities and infrastructure elements.

Capital costs are funded through a variety of sources that range from traditional funding options such as internal user charges and bond financing, to non-traditional funding sources such as grants, loans, and market based programs. The sections that follow outline the mechanisms available to recover both capital and O&M costs.

The main instruments available for funding the capital costs include:
• Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) financing — upfront collection of project costs from existing and new users for future capital improvement projects. It is common for utilities to fund major capital expansions through other methods, particularly bond financing, to avoid the burden that PAYGO’s high upfront cash requirement places on rate or reserve funds. • Debt financing — acquisition of funds through borrowing mechanisms. • Grants and loans — alternate sources of funds from public agencies at no or minimal interest cost. Examples include federal, state, and local programs that provide funding at zero interest for projects that meet select criteria. • Market based programs — refers to financing through funds obtained from tax credits, purchase agreements, voluntary programs, and trading and offset programs.

Operating revenues remaining after operating expenses and debt service obligations have been met can be a significant source of funding for capital expenses today or placed in reserves for future projects. Financing methods such as grants and loans can be combined with rate and reserve funding to develop a complete funding plan. It is recommended that operational costs be fully funded through user rates and other recurring annual sources of revenue, and that these are not funded through debt.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-4 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

7.2.1 Pay-As-You-Go Funding
Pay-as-you-go (or PAYGO) financing involves periodic collection of capital charges or assessments from customers within the utility’s jurisdiction for funding future capital improvements. These revenues are accumulated in a capital reserve fund and are used for capital projects in future years. Pay-as-you-go financing could be used to finance 100 percent or only a portion of a given project, depending on a number of factors.

Overall, total costs are substantially lower when employing a PAYGO financing approach due to the avoidance of interest payments incurred from bond funding, along with the associated transaction costs (e.g., legal fees, underwriters’ discounts, etc.). However, it is often challenging to employ this funding approach for large new or replacement projects, due to the high amount of capital that is needed on-hand in reserves, or from rate-based cash flow. If the program is reserve funded, the agency must already have sufficient cash-on-hand designated for such a project. If the program is rate funded, it could significantly increase the agency’s rates and fees if the program represents a sizeable increase in capital needs.

7.2.2 Financing Options

7.2.2.1 Debt Financing
There are several options for debt financing of reclaimed water projects, ranging from the issuance of short- or long-term bonds.

Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds are historically the principal method of incurring long-term debt. This method of debt obligation requires specific non-tax revenues such as user charges, facility income, and other funds, pledged to guarantee repayment. There is often no legal limitation on the amount of authorized revenue bonds that may be issued, but from a practical standpoint, the size of the issue must be limited to an amount where annual interest and principal payments are well within the revenues available for debt service on the bonds. Revenue bond covenants generally include coverage provisions, which require that revenue from fees minus operating expenses be greater than debt service costs.

Certificates of Participation
Certificates of participation provide long-term financing through a lease agreement that does not require voter approval. The legislative body of the issuing agency is required to approve the lease arrangement by a resolution. The lessee (the City) would be required to make payments typically from revenues derived from the operation of the facilities. The amount financed may include reserves and capitalized interest for the period that facilities will be under construction.

Within the State of California, most municipal utility bonds are issued in the form of certificates of participation rather than traditional revenue bonds.

General Obligation Bonds
General obligation (GO) bonds are municipal securities secured by the issuer’s pledge of its full faith, credit, and taxing power. GO bonds are backed by the general taxing authority of local governments and are often repaid using utility revenues when issued in support of a sewer or water enterprise fund. In the event that GO bonds are issued for this project, the agency must have the necessary taxing capacity to issue the bonds.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-5
Assessment District Bonds
Financing by this method involves initiating assessment proceedings. Assessment proceedings are documents in “Assessment Acts” and “Bond Acts.” An assessment act specifies a procedure for the formation of a district (boundaries), the ordering, and making of an acquisition or improvement, and the levy and confirmation of an assessment secured by liens on land. A bond act provides the procedure for issuance of bonds to represent liens resulting from proceedings taken under an assessment act. Procedural acts include the Municipal Improvements Acts of 1911 and 1913. The commonly used bond acts are the 1911 Act and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The most prevalent procedure is a combination of the 1913 Improvement Act with the 1915 Bond Act. Charges for debt service can be included as a special assessment on the annual property tax bill. The procedure necessary to establish an assessment district may vary depending on the acts under which it is established and the District size.

7.2.2.2 State Grants and Loans
Federal, State and local grant and loan funding sources are available for the planning, design and construction of recycled water projects. Grants and low interest loans funding programs, which are highly competitive, typically target specific types of project and/or have specific objectives that a project must achieve and often require projects to meet as many objectives as possible, including:
• Regional partnerships.
• Integrated project benefits.
• Water conservation.
• Renewable energy improvements.

In particular for a recycled water project to qualify for one of California’s state funding programs, a project must meet the following objectives and requirements:
• Demonstrate consistency with the California Water Action Plan (CWAP). • Help meet the State Recycled Water Policy objectives. • Protect groundwater resources.
• Demonstrate regional cooperation and partnerships with partners and stakeholders such as Cal Water.

The City of Porterville’s projects meets many of these objectives and/or requirements – it provides for a more sustainable, recycled water source while reducing demands on the groundwater basin; helps the City address drought related impacts; provides a reliable water source in lieu of groundwater; includes the installation of energy efficient systems; and protects the region’s groundwater resources.

In addition, the City of Porterville is a disadvantaged community (DAC. In addition to serving the City, the project serves other DACs located within the service area, including the community of East Porterville.

7.2.2.3 Overview of Low Interest Loans and Grants
With Federal and State budget constraints and an overall increased interest in grants and low interest loan programs, sources of low interest loan financing and grant funding are more limited and/or more competitive to secure. Despite the competitive nature of alternate funding, CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-6 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
available Federal, State and Local funding sources should be considered as a potential funding mechanism to help reduce the overall costs of the project to the City.

The larger funding programs [e.g. Water Innovation Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA), State of California’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), and California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank)] provide some of the best opportunities to obtain larger sources of funding. While programs such as the Bureau of Reclamation’s Drought Resiliency Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, and Water and Energy Efficiency programs provide relatively large sources of grant funding. Smaller grants and loans can also be pursued as they are helpful in building relationships with funding agencies and reducing the financial burden on the City. In addition, grant and low interest loan funding helps to demonstrate that the City is doing their fiduciary responsibility to ratepayers by seeking alternative sources of funding.

While grant programs have the obvious advantage over loans in that they do not require repayment, there are numerous factors that should be considered in the pursuit of grant funding, including:
• Project Specific. Most grants target a specific type of project or purpose. In order for a project to be competitive, it needs to meet the intent of the program. • Established Application Timelines. Application timing is critical for most grant and loan programs. While some funding agencies accept applications on a rolling basis, others have prescribed submission dates. Typically grant programs release funding announcements once a year with a 45-60 day window to apply, while some vary year to year pending appropriations. Low interest loan programs traditionally are on a rolling basis, however the EPA’s WIFIA program releases its funding announcement once a year. Grant tracking is critical to align an agency for a funding program. • Project Readiness. Typically for funding agencies, the proposed grant or loan applications require demonstration of the ability to construct, operate, and maintain the project without grant funding. An assessment of project document readiness is important to ensure the appropriate level of documentation (e.g. engineering, environmental, and financial) is available to support the grant application. • Funding Restrictions. Limited programs allow for the retroactive funding of design and construction work, and some programs will only fund activities that are conducted post selection for award or even require entering into an agreement prior to starting work activities.
• Application Timing. In general, agencies should plan on submitting a loan application 6 to 12 months in advance of when funding is needed.
• Does not cover the full cost of the project. Most grant programs do not cover the full cost of the project, requiring the sponsoring agency to provide a minimum cost share ranging from 25 to 75 percent (in-kind donations are applicable matches). Often there is also a minimum funding requirement.
• Grant award or funding authorization is NOT a promise of grant reimbursement:
- Most grants are reimbursements and not cash up front. This requires that a source of funding be available for the construction of the project. - Grant reimbursements are subject to annual budget and appropriations process and thus disbursement of grant funds on schedule is not guaranteed.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-7
- It may take several years after project completion to receive reimbursements, especially in difficult economic times.
- Federal grants typically require investment of additional resources to obtain lobbying support.

Both Federal and State low interest loans and grant programs are competitive and the application process can be time-consuming and costly. More so, as grant funds are limited and highly competitive; require a challenging qualification process; are not typically a long-term funding solution; and may expire after a specified time, an assessment of the appropriateness of pursuing a specific grant should be conducted to verify the investment is worthwhile. Some agencies secure loan financing for the entire project and in parallel pursue appropriate grants where the entity will be competitive.

Potential Federal and State funding programs to evaluate further for the City of Porterville’s recycled water project include:
• Environmental Protection Agency – Water Innovation Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) (loan).
• United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Title XVI Program (grant). • United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Drought Resiliency Program (grant). • USBR Energy and Water Program (grant).
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Programs (typically for communities <10,000 or <20,000) (grants and loans).
• U.S. Department of Commerce - Economic Development Administration (grant). • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) (loan).
• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Recycling Funding Program (loan and grant).
• SWRCB Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program (grant). • SWRCB Proposition 68 Groundwater Treatment and Remediation Grant Program (grant).
• California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank – Infrastructure State Revolving Loan (I-Bank) SRF Program (loan).
• Department of Water Resources (DWR) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Proposition 1 Implementation Grants Program (Proposition 1) (grant). • DWR Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grants Program (grant).

7.2.3 Federal Funding
There are several highly competitive Federal grant and loan programs that provide financial resources that maybe viable opportunities to pursue for the Project.

7.2.3.1 EPA - Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act The EPA's WIFIA established in 2017 provides a new financing mechanism for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. WIFIA provides low interest rate financing for the CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-8 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
planning/design and or construction of large dollar-value water and wastewater projects. Eligible projects include:
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and DWSRF eligible projects. • Projects for enhanced energy efficiency at drinking water, wastewater and recycled water facilities.
• Brackish or seawater desalination project, an aquifer recharge project, water recycling project.
• Acquisition of property if it is integral to the project or will mitigate the environmental impact of a project.
• Bundled State Revolving Fund (SRF) projects submitted under one application by an SRF program.
• A combination of projects secured by a common security pledge.

Projects must cost no less than $20 million (or $5 million for small community projects) or an entity may bundle a group of projects together totaling a minimum of $20 million. The program provides a maximum loan not exceeding 49 percent of the project costs. The interest rate is equal to the US Treasury rate of a similar maturity plus a point. The loan term is for 35 years, with the option to defer repayment by 5 years. Unlike the SRF program, the WIFIA program has an “application fee” which ranges on average from $300,000-$500,000) which reconciles the cost associated with processing the loan.

The WIFIA application process is a two-step process, agencies are asked to submit a Letter of Interest which is reviewed by the EPA and evaluated based on the program priorities and on a set of scoring criteria. The EPA will invite selected project applicants to submit a formal application package. It is with the formal application that the applicants are requested to provide an initial application fee of $100,000 and upon entering a financing agreement borrowers are asked to reimburse the EPA for processing costs.

7.2.3.2 United States Bureau of Reclamation – Title XVI Program The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation administers funds for recycled water feasibility, demonstration, and construction projects through the Water Reclamation and Reuse Program authorized by the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Title XVI) and its amendments. The program provides as much as 25 percent of construction costs with a maximum of $20 million. To meet eligibility requirements a project must have a feasibility study, comply with environmental regulations, and demonstrate the ability to pay the remainder of the construction costs. Projects are authorized by Congress and recommended in the President’s annual budget request by the Bureau of Reclamation. Congress then appropriates funds and the Bureau ranks and prioritizes projects and disburses the money on a competitive grant basis each year. Prioritized projects are those that postpone the development of new water supplies, reduce diversions from natural watercourses, and reduce demand on federal water supply facilities, or that have a regional or watershed perspective.

7.2.3.3 United States Bureau of Reclamation - Drought Resiliency Program The USBR administers to grant programs under the Drought Resiliency Program:
• Drought Contingency Planning: Provides grant funds for the development of Drought Management Plan or for an agency to update an existing drought plan with grant awards of up to $200,000.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-9
• Drought Resiliency Projects: USBR provides funding for the implementation of projects that build long-term resiliency to drought and reduce the need for emergency response actions that are identified in a Drought Management Plan. Projects eligible for funding should address at least one the following: serve to increase the reliability of water supply; improve water management; implement systems to facilitate voluntary water sales, transfers, or exchanges; and provide benefits for the environment are eligible.

Types of projects include moving pipelines, small recycling, storage reservoir construction, and projects that increase flexibility in drought. The Drought Resiliency Grants provide as much as 25 percent of construction costs with a maximum of $300,000 for projects completed in two years and $750,000 for projects that are completed in three years. $20 million. To meet eligibility requirements a project must have a drought management plan, comply with environmental regulations, and demonstrate the ability to pay the remainder of the construction costs.

7.2.3.4 United States Bureau of Reclamation - WaterSMART Small-Scale Water Efficiency Projects
Under the WaterSMART grants program, this program provides dedicated source of funding to fund small on the ground implementation projects to support water planning. USBR anticipates making $2 million available in Federal funding available in 2019. The total project cost should be capped at $150,000 and grant funding will include a 50/50 cost share with the total Federal funding limit of $75,000. Projects need to be completed within 2 years of grant award.

7.2.3.5 United States Bureau of Reclamation - WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Through the WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants program, USBR provides a 50/50 cost share funding to irrigation and water districts, Tribes, States, and other entities with water or power delivery authority. Eligible projects include projects that result in quantifiable and sustained water savings, increase renewable energy use and improve energy savings, and support broader water quality sustainability benefits. Projects that benefit endangered and threatened species, support water sustainability benefits, or implement activities to address climate related impacts on water may apply. Projects are selected through a competitive process and the focus is on projects that can be completed within 24 months that will help sustainable water supplies in the western United States. There are two funding limits for the program:
$300,000 (typically for projects completed within a year; and up to $1,000,000 (for projects to be completed in 3 years). The total earmarked for this program in FY 2019 was $34 million.

7.2.3.6 United States Department of Commerce – Economic Development Administration – Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance Programs The Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants for public works projects provide grant funding for public works projects, including wastewater and stormwater projects that promote economic development. The EDA through its Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance Program will provide support assistance with up to 50 percent in matching funds (up to $3 million) based on the number of permanent jobs created by the implementation of the proposed project. For every full time job created, the EDA will provide $10,000 in EDA assistance. In order to apply a community, County or region must have a current Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies plan. The City will be required to provide an economic impact statement demonstrating the anticipated growth associated with the project implementation as part of the application process. All construction projects are CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-10 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
expected to be completed within 5 years from the date of award. In 2018, public works project awards ranged from $600,000 to $3,000,000, with an average award of $1.4 million. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis.

7.2.3.7 United States Department of Agriculture - Water & Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program
The USDA provides funding directed at low-income and or small water/wastewater utilities.

USDA provides Predevelopment Planning Grants which assists low-income communities with initial planning and development of applications for USDA Rural Development Water and Waste Disposal direct loan/grant and loan guarantee programs. Program requirements include:
1) Population must be less than 10,000 people; and 2) Median household income below the poverty line or less than 80 percent of the statewide non-metropolitan median household income. Maximum grant amount of $30,000 or 75 percent of the predevelopment planning costs. 25 percent cost share from applicant or third-party sources. USDA also have several other programs providing direct loans and grants for communities to develop water and waste systems in rural areas – however most are targeted at communities of less than 10,000 people.

7.2.4 State Funding
Several state funding sources, including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Department of Water Resources (DWR), may have funding programs that may be appropriate to pursue for the project – from the drinking water, recycled water and groundwater perspectives. Depending on the program, funding may be used to pay for planning, pilot studies, design, as well as construction. Due to the high demand on these funding programs, all programs are competitive and some may have fully allocated funding by the time the City is ready to apply and/or initiate construction.

7.2.4.1 State Water Resources Control Board – Clean Water State Revolving Fund The SWRCB, Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program offers low interest financing. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires CWSRF programs to direct a portion of their capitalization grant toward projects that address green infrastructure, water efficiency, energy efficiency, or other environmentally innovative activities through a Green Project Reserve (GPR) fund.

The CWSRF program provides funding for both planning and construction activities via:
• Planning loans can be used to assist public agencies with completing planning studies for recycled water projects.
• Construction loans include allowances for design, legal tasks, construction management, engineering services during construction, program management, land acquisition, value engineering, and construction. Construction loan funding requires the completion of environmental documentation (CEQA plus).
• Loan principal forgiveness may also be available from the Green Project Reserve (GPR) program (pending availability of GPR funding). GPR projects must address water or energy efficiency, mitigate stormwater runoff, or encourage sustainable project planning, design, and construction. GPR projects must fit into one of the following categories: Green Infrastructure, Water Efficiency, Energy Efficiency, and Environmentally Innovative Activities. The maximum GPR project's loan forgiveness CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-11
limit for recycled water projects is 50 percent for construction costs with a maximum $2.5 million cap.
• Planning and construction grants are provided by the SWRCB to communities that are identified as Small Disadvantaged (serving up to 6,600 people and with a median household income of less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI) or Expanded Small Disadvantaged Communities (serving less than 20,000 people). The program provides for up to $500,000 in principal forgiveness for planning and up to $5,000,000 in principal forgiveness for construction. In addition, the loan repayment period maybe extended to 40 years or the life of the system.

The CWSRF program provides construction financing for up to 100 percent of the eligible construction funding with a 30-year loan term. The CWSRF loan repayment does not begin until one year following completion of the eligible project. The CWSRF interest rate is set at one-half of the state general obligation (G.O.) bond rate and has recently averaged around 1.8 percent.

Furthermore, repayment does not begin until one year following completion of the eligible project. Projects receiving SRF funding must comply with all federal requirements (including CEQA Plus, American Iron and Steel, Davis Bacon, Disbarment, DBE, reporting, etc.).

Due to the over-subscription of the CWSRF Program, the SWRCB updated its CWSRF Intended Use Plan which has implemented changes to the application review and evaluation process in an effort to provide consistency in its selection process and better manage the increased demand for funds effective as of the 2019/2020 fiscal year loan funding cycle. The major changes include:
• Establishing a funding target based on a sustainable financing level supported by an updated capacity analysis.
• Developing a “Fundable List” of applications, and limiting eligibility during the fiscal year to applications on the Fundable List with the exception of Severely Disadvantaged Communities and Disadvantaged Communities.
• Using a priority scoring system for project selection. This score consists of three components: primary score, secondary score, and readiness score. • Offering partial funding to large projects.
• Reimbursing constructions costs incurred prior to approval of financing under limited conditions.

Applicants must submit its CWSRF Application Package (consisting of a General, Financial, Technical and Environmental packages and supporting documentation) by December 31st to be considered for financing during the upcoming fiscal year. Projects are evaluated and scored based on established scoring criteria and must receive a priority score above the established threshold score (which changes each year) for inclusion in the next FY’s fundable list. The threshold score and FY 2019/2020 Fundable List was a score of 13 out of 16 points.

7.2.4.2 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Recycling Funding Program The Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP), which is administered by the SWRCB under its CWSRF program, offers grants and loans for planning (including research, feasibility studies, environmental review) and construction (treatment facilities, distribution systems, and storage) of recycled water projects. The WRFP is required to develop a set of guidelines (2015) that capital projects must meet in order to qualify to apply and receive funds. The SWRCB is currently in the process of amending the WRFP guidelines which will help better integrate the program with CWSRF Policy/procedures, help cleanup/simplify the program requirements, and provide a CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-12 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
priority for processing recycled water applications. The new adopted guidelines are anticipated in October 2019.

The program is financed through Propositions 1 (2014 Water Bond), Proposition 13 (2000 Water Bond), Proposition 68, and the CWSRF. The recent passage of Proposition 68 will allocate $80 million to the WRFP and it is anticipated that upon appropriation of the funds 50 percent will be allocated for grants and 40 percent for loans for water recycling construction projects, and $2 million will be allocated for planning grants. The proposed recycled water program would be eligible for construction funding including grants and loans from Proposition 68, Proposition 1, CWSRF financing, or combinations of funding sources.

Construction grants, which include allowances for design, legal tasks, construction management, engineering services during construction, and construction, are currently dispersed through Proposition 68 and there is a limited amount of construction grants available.

Construction loans are dispersed through Proposition 13 and the CWSRF. WRFP grant funds will be awarded as applicants are ready to proceed to a financing agreement until all WRFP grant funds are committed.

In order to apply for WRFP financing, an agency will need to complete and submit the CWSRF application package including required attachments plus a Feasibility Study and Urban Water Management Plan that is filed with the DWR. The SWRCB will review the application package and assess eligibility and project priority per the CWSRF delineated process. If selected for WRFP financing, upon receipt and review of the project’s final plans and specifications, the SWRCB will issue the project performance standards. Upon agreement of the performance standards and selection of a contractor, the parties will enter into a funding agreement.

7.2.4.3 State Water Resources Control Board – Proposition 1 Groundwater Implementation Grants
Proposition 1 was approved by California voters in November 2014 and allocates a total of $7.5 billion to water projects and programs as part of a statewide water plan for California. There are six main funding areas:
• Regional Water Reliability.
• Water Storage Capacity.
• Water Recycling.
• Groundwater Sustainability.
• Safe Drinking Water.
• Watersheds and Flood Management.

The Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program provides planning and implementation grants to prevent and cleanup contamination of groundwater that serves or has served as a source of drinking water. The program is financed through Propositions 1 which provided $900 million for a Groundwater Sustainability Program. Round 2 solicitations for this program closed in fall 2018 and preliminary awards are anticipated to be announced in early 2019.

7.2.4.4 State Water Resources Control Board - Proposition 68 Groundwater Treatment and Remediation Grant Program
Proposition 68 was passed by voters in June 2018. The SWRCB will administer $80 million for grants for treatment and remediation activities that prevent or reduce the contamination of CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-13
groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water. The draft program guidelines, including eligible projects and program requirements, is anticipated in fall 2019.

7.2.4.5 Department of Water Resources - Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation Grant Program
Grants are available for projects that support IRWM Plans and are related to water supply reliability, groundwater recharge, water quality enhancement etc. In transitioning from Proposition 50 funding to Proposition 84 funding, the DWR altered several of the standards used to evaluate regions, including governance requirements, acknowledgement of water conflicts, and potential climate change requirements. To facilitate this change, DWR has allowed regions with standing IRWM plans to also receive funds under Proposition 84 to comply with the new standards and to develop new projects. Projects seeking funding through this grant process generally submit a project summary to the respective local IRWM management group to review and assess the merits of a project and its ability to fulfill the intent of the IRWM plan. Once approved through this process, a project may be included in the region’s implementation grant application. The City may consider joining its local IRWM management group to evaluate the merits of the project and its ability to support the intent of the local IRWM plan, therefore potentially opening up opportunities to apply for IRWM grant funding. The Proposition 1 Round 1 Implementation Grants funding announcement was released in the summer 2019.

7.2.4.6 Department of Water Resources - Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant Program Funded by Proposition 1, the program provides grants for projects that develop and implement sustainable groundwater planning and projects. At this time, in April 2018, DWR announced final awards to 78 grant applications in the amount of $85.8 million. Eligible applicants are Groundwater Sustainable Agencies (GSA), member agencies of GSA or member of an approved alternate to a GSP. Projects must support groundwater sustainability planning and management within medium and high priority basins and should assist in the development and implementation of a GSP in reaching sustainability. The program requires a 25 percent local cost share including federal funds, local funding or in-kind services. DWR released the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Program Planning Grants Proposal Solicitation Package (Round 3) in September 2019.

7.2.4.7 California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank – Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF)
The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) Infrastructure SRF (ISRF) Program provides financing to public agencies and nonprofit corporations sponsored by public agencies for a wide variety of infrastructure and economic development projects. Funding is provided via three programs including the ISRF Direct Loan Program, CLEEN Center Direct Financing, and the Statewide Energy Efficiency Program. ISRF Program funding is available in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $25 million, with terms for the useful life of the project up to a maximum of 30 years. Eligible projects include parks and recreational facilities, public safety facilities, sewage/solid waste collection, treatment and disposal and water projects (drainage, supply, flood control, treatment and distribution).

7.2.5 Summary
Federal and State low interest loan and grant funding sources are available for recycled water projects. Due to the increased demand on funding programs, grants and low interest loans are CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-14 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
highly competitive. Critical to the success of pursuing funding is the tracking of potential funding opportunities, fit of the project to the funding program priorities, readiness of project documentation and to apply and project implementation. With the current over-subscription of the State’s CWSRF program, key to scoring the most amount of point possible will be the document readiness (technical and environmental) and the submittal of the CWSRF package by December 31st for the SWRCB DFA’s review and scoring for next year’s funding cycle. Critical is also the need to submit a package as soon as possible in order to pursue available WRFP grants.

In addition, the City should evaluate the merits of pursuing a WIFIA loan for the project. In parallel, identified grants should be tracked, evaluated and pursued based on probability of success.

Tables 7.4 and 7.5 provide a summary of federal and state funding sources, respectively, that may provide potential opportunities for the City’s recycled water project.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-15
Table 7.4 Federal Funding Source Summary
Program Agency Type Description
Water Infrastructure
Finance and
Innovation Act
(WIFIA)
EPA Loan
Financing mechanism for water and wastewater infrastructure projects which provides low interest rate financing for large dollar-value water and wastewater projects. Projects must cost no less than $20 million or $5 million for small community projects (25,000 of fewer) (projects can be combined and submitted as a group of projects) with the maximum amount of the loan not exceeding 49 percent of the project costs. Maximum loan term is 35 years (including 5 year repayment deferment). Interest rate is equal to the US Treasury rat of a similar maturity. Funds can be used to cover planning/design (retroactive) and construction activities. Application fees apply (average $300,000-$700,000 pending reviews and legal negotiations). FY 2018 lending capacity was $5.5 billion. The Funding Opportunity Announcement for FY 2019 was released on April 5th and Letters of Interest are due July 5th, 2019.

Title XVI/WIIN
Water Reclamation
and Reuse
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
Eligible projects include recycled water feasibility, demonstration, and construction projects.

The program provides as much as 25 percent of construction costs with a maximum grant limit of $20 million. To meet eligibility requirements a project must have Congressional Authorization, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) approved feasibility study, comply with environmental regulations (National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]), and demonstrate the ability to pay the remainder of the construction costs.

Drought
Contingency
Planning
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
Provides grant funding up to $200,000 to support agencies with the development of a Drought Management Plan or to update an existing Drought Management Plan. Grant funding requires a 50/50 cost share.

Drought Resiliency
Projects
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
Funding is for implementation projects building long-term resiliency to drought and reduce the need for emergency response actions that are identified in a Drought Contingency Plan. Projects eligible for funding should address at least one the following: serve to increase the reliability of water supply; improve water management; implement systems to facilitate voluntary water sales, transfers, or exchanges; and provide benefits for the environment are eligible. Types of projects include moving pipelines, small recycling, storage reservoir construction, and projects that increase flexibility in drought. Two Funding: Group 1 $300,000 (complete in 2 years); Group 2 $750,000 (complete in 3 years).

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE 7-16 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Program Agency Type Description
WaterSMART SmallScale Water
Efficiency Projects
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
Eligible projects include small on the ground implementation projects (such as canal lining, SCADA, flumes, flow metering, turf irrigation) to support water planning. USBR made $2 million in Federal funding available for this new grant category. Projects must be supported by an existing water management/conservation plan or identified through previous planning efforts. The total project cost to be capped at $150,000, with a 50 percent cost share which results in a total Federal funding limit of $75,000.

WaterSMART Water
and Energy
Efficiency Grants
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
Eligible projects include projects that result in quantifiable and sustained water savings, increase renewable energy use and improve energy savings, and support broader water quality sustainability benefits. Projects that benefit endangered and threatened species, support water sustainability benefits, or implement activities to address climate related impacts on water may apply. Requires a 50 percent cost share. Two funding limits: $300,000 (typically for projects completed within a year); and up to $1,000,000 (for projects to be completed in 3 years).

Public Works and
Economic
Adjustment
Assistance Programs
U.S.

Department of
Commerce -
Economic
Development
Administration
Grant
The Department of Commerce grants for public works projects provide grant funding for public works projects, including wastewater and stormwater projects that promote economic development. EDA provides support assistance for implementation projects. Program provides a 50 percent match in funds up to $5 million and is based on the number of permanent jobs created by the proposed project (for every job created, the funding is $10,000). As part of the application process, the Agency is required to provide an economic impact statement demonstrating the anticipated growth associated with the project implementation. All construction projects are expected to be completed within 5 years from the date of award. In 2018, public works project awards ranged from $600,000 to $3,000,000, with an average award of $1.4 million. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY |CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-17
Table 7.5 State Funding Source Summary
Program Agency Type Description
Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF)
State Water
Resources
Control Board
CWSRF
Construction
Loan
The State’s SRF program provides low interest (50% of the G.O. bond rate – in early 2019 rate was

1.9%) loans for up to 30 years for the funding of wastewater treatment works, transmission lines, distribution systems, recycled water, and other projects. To be considered for funding, a complete (or as complete as possible) SRF Application package (including required documentation is due on December 31st for evaluation by the SWRCB based on established scoring criteria. Projects meeting an established priority score will be placed on a fundable list in the upcoming fiscal year. As funding for the program is from both Federal and State sources – federal requirements apply including CEQA plus, A&E Procurement, AIS, Davis Bacon, and other requirements.

For Small or Expanded Small Disadvantaged Communities principal forgiveness maybe provided with up to $500,000 for planning efforts and up to $5,000,000 for construction. The life of the loan could also be extended to 40 year or the life of the proposed facilities.

Water Recycling
Funding Program
State Water
Resources
Control Board
Grant/Loan
The Program promotes the beneficial use of treated municipal wastewater (water recycling) in order to augment or offset fresh water supplies in California by providing technical and financial assistance to agencies and other stakeholders in support of water recycling projects and research.

The WRFP provides grants and loans for water recycled projects. The maximum planning grant available is for 50% of the study cost (up to $75,000). Construction grants are available for Category I through IV projects (based on funding availability) and provide up to 35% of the eligible construction costs ($15 million maximum). Construction loans are low interest loans with up to a 30 year term.

Proposition 68 -
Groundwater
Treatment and
Remediation
Grant Program
State Water
Resources
Control Board
Grant
The SWRCB will administer $80 million for grants for treatment and remediation activities that prevent or reduce the contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water. The draft program guidelines, including eligible projects and program requirements, is anticipated in spring of 2019.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-18 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL
Program Agency Type Description
Integrated
Regional Water
Management
Grants Program
(Proposition 84)
Department of
Water
Resources
Grant
Low interest loans or grants are available for projects that support IWRM plans and are related to water supply reliability, groundwater recharge, water quality enhancement, etc. 25 percent minimum match requirement. No limit per project. To pursue IRWM funding, the proposed project would need to be included in a local IRWM Plan. The Prop 1 Round 1 Implementation Grant PSP is anticipated in Spring 2019.

California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development
Bank –
Infrastructure
State Revolving
Fund (ISRF)
State of
California –
Governor’s
Office of
Business and
Economic
Development
Loan
The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) Infrastructure SRF (ISRF) Program provides financing to public agencies and nonprofit corporations sponsored by public agencies for a wide variety of infrastructure and economic development projects. ISRF Program funding is available in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $25 million, with terms for the useful life of the project up to a maximum of 30 years. Eligible projects include parks and recreational facilities, public safety facilities, sewage/solid waste collection, treatment and disposal and water projects (drainage, supply, flood control, treatment and distribution). The program offers below-market interest rates, on-going application acceptance, non-competitive application process, technical assistance, no match funding requirement, and no federal overlays.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY |CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-19

7.3 Funding Sources
The City will investigate appropriate funding sources and conduct a cost-of-service and rate study in early 2020. Rate studies begin with a revenue requirement analysis which compares the utility’s forecasted revenues to its forecasted operating and capital costs. This will allow the determination of annual rates necessary to be recovered through water, sewer, and recycled water exchange rates in order to meet the utility’s costs of providing service and to meet expected financial obligations. Should any deficits be identified, additional funding (either through rates or additional bond issuances) will be reviewed and then selected.

The cost-of-service analysis serves as a rational basis for distributing the full costs of services to each customer class in proportion to the demands placed on the utility. This analysis yields an appropriate method for allocating costs, based on the current operations of the utility system.

All cost allocations must be consistent with the legal proportionality requirements of Proposition 218 and compliant with recent legal decisions regarding utility rates in California. The final rate structure and rate design should adequately fund the utility’s projected costs of providing service and proportionally allocate costs to customers.

7.3.1 Utility Rates, Charges, and Fees
Utility rates, charges, and fees, such as the rates charged to users for each unit of water used or monthly wastewater treatment fees, can be used to fund recycled water system improvements.

The City could also implement a benefit assessment fee through a public voting process, which would recover costs through the annual property taxes. Benefit assessment fees are usually included as a separate line item on the annual property tax bill sent to each property owner.

Recycled Water Costs
The City will be considering charges to landscape and agricultural irrigators. The City will conduct a cost-of-service and rate study to determine the appropriate fixed and/or volumetric charge per CCF (748 gallons) or per acre foot of recycled water.

7.3.2 Capacity Charges
The City may also impose a capacity charge on new connections to recover a proportionate share of providing regional conveyance and treatment facilities to serve new recycled water customers. This option could be applicable to potential landscape irrigators that may convert to recycled water.

A capacity charge is a one-time fee imposed on a new system connection, or an upsize in required system capacity. They are one-time fees charged to customers at the time of system connection approval or permit/contract issuance. The charges for individual properties may be based on whatever assessment measures desired for equity.

Capacity charges are collected at the time of permitting for many agencies. Consequently, annual revenues from capacity charges depend solely on the rate of growth of the system. As such, funds will not be available to construct new facilities at the time it is needed, but could be used to help pay back loans. Should the project benefit both existing and new users, funding could be allocated to both capacity charges and existing rates and charges.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CHAPTER 7 7-20 | APRIL 2021 | FINAL

7.3.3 Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees (DIF) are another funding source similar to capacity charges that can be used to generate revenues for capital projects. Cities may collect DIF in accordance with AB 1600.

7.4 Funding Uses

7.4.1 Capital Costs
The capital costs presented in Table 7.2 are based on the recommended recycled water program summarized in Chapter 6 of this report and in the Integrated Master Plan (Chapter 7). The project forms basis for the capital program, with two phases for project timing: near-term (commencing construction in about 2021); and build-out (commencing construction in approximately 2032).

7.4.2 Operating Costs
The annual operating costs associated with each phase are found in Table 7.2, and consist of costs for the treatment of the recycled water and its conveyance to irrigation districts by way of pump stations and pipelines. Operating costs are typically recovered through user charges and, similar to capital costs, it is possible to recover operating costs using a combination of fixed- and consumption-based methods. The City will conduct a rate study to determine the best method to use to recover annual operating costs.

7.5 Funding Plan Options

7.5.1 Debt Financing
Alternatively, the City could pursue debt financing, including both conventional and federal (WIFIA) and state (Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)) low interest loans.

7.5.1.1 Conventional Financing
Conventional financing typically consists of a 30-year term with an interest rate between 5 and 6 percent. In addition, conventional financing often requires that the borrower maintain a debt reserve fund. The City would also have to monitor its debt coverage ratio to ensure that it is meeting the bond coverage stipulated by the bond offering.

7.5.1.2 Federal and State Low Interest Loans
Potential federal and state low interest loan programs include the EPA’s WIFIA Program and the SWRCB’s CWSRF. Like conventional financing, WIFIA and SRF financing can be used to fill any funding gaps between the capital plan and available revenues. EPA’s WIFIA Program offers loans for up to 49 percent of the total project costs and typically consists of a 30 year loan program with the opportunity to delay repayment for 5 years from completion of project. The SWRCB’s CWSRF program offers loans for up to 100 percent of the total project costs and may include grant funding from the WRFP program. Compared with conventional debt financing however, both WIFIA and SRF loans come with more advantageous borrowing terms, including below market interest rate (SRF is currently 1.8 percent in California; WIFIA is the US Treasury rate of similar maturity) and lower fees. Furthermore, for SRF repayment does not begin until one year following completion of the eligible project, while for WIFIA repayment can be deferred up to five years following completion of the eligible project. In contrast, conventional debt financing repayment typically begins immediately. Repayment can be postponed, but interest is capitalized in the interim.

CHAPTER 7 | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY |CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021 | 7-21
One consideration with SRF and WIFIA funding is how disbursements are managed. Under conventional financing, the full proceed is available immediately. However, the SRF and WIFIA programs require agencies to fund the costs upfront (from cash or reserves or bridge-financing) and then submit for quarterly reimbursement. In addition, both SRF and WIFIA programs have additional compliance (American Iron and Steel, Davis Bacon, DBE/WBE and reporting requirements) that convention financing does not require.

7.6 Conclusion
The City will investigate appropriate funding sources and conduct a cost of service and rate study in early 2020. The study will determine annual water, sewer, and recycled water exchange rates necessary to recover in order to meet the utility’s costs of providing service and meet expected financial obligations. Any deficits will be met with additional funding, either through rates or available financing options.

There are several funding approaches available to the City. PAYGO and reserve funding are not recommended due to the high cash requirements and rate increases that could be necessary in order to fund the project.

Grants and low-interest loan programs are a no-cost or low-cost source of funding available that can substantially offset capital costs, and are thus highly recommended. However, grants and loans do warrant uncertainty. Due to increased demand on funding programs, grants and low-interest loans are highly competitive. Critical to the success is the tracking of potential funding opportunities, fit of the project to the funding program priorities, readiness of the project, and timing of application submittals. If grants or low-interest loans are not available, then revenue bonds could be the next financing option.

APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021
Appendix A

KENNETH SCHMIDT'S TECHNICAL

MEMORANDUM ON UPDATED GROUNDWATER

CONDITIONS FOR THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON UPDATED GROUNDWATER

CONDITIONS FOR CITY OF PORTERVILLE
prepared for
Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Walnut Creek, California
by
Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates
Groundwater Quality Consultants
Bakersfield, California
September 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iii
INTRODUCTION 1
WATER-LEVEL TRENDS 4
CITY PUMPAGE 5
WATER BUDGET 5
SGMA CONSIDERATIONS 6
GROUNDWATER QUALITY 7
Update for Shallow City Wells 7
Comparison Between 2008 and 2017 for Shallow Wells 11
Update for Deeper City Wells 15
Comparison Between 2008 and 2017 for Deeper Wells 21
Vertical Trends 27
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY 29
RECOMMENDATIONS ON LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS FOR NEW CITY WELLS 29 INTENTIONAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE 30
REFERENCES 34
i

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Chemical Quality of Water from Shallow
City Wells (2017) 8
2 Comparison of Chemical Quality of Water
from Shallow City Wells (2008 & 2017) 12
3 Chemical Quality of Water from Deeper
City Wells (2017) 16
4 Comparison of Chemical Quality of Water
from Deeper City Wells (2008 & 2017) 22
ii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
No. Title Page
1 Location of Plan Area, City Wells, and Subsurface
Geologic Cross Sections 2
2 Topsoil Map 31
3 Location of Subsurface Geologic Cross Sections
and Areas Favorable for Recharge 33
iii

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON UPDATED GROUNDWATER

CONDITIONS FOR CITY OF PORTERVILLE

INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum is provided to Carollo Engineers, Inc. for preparation of a water system master plan for the City of Porterville. Following are the major parts of this memorandum, in the order they are discussed:

1. Groundwater conditions in the part of the Tule Sub-basin used for the City’s potable water supply are updated herein. A detailed hydrogeologic evaluation of groundwater conditions in and near the City urban area was provided by Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates (KDSA) in October 2009. This update focuses on City pumpage, water-level trends, and groundwater quality changes since 2008.

Both groundwater overdraft and sustainable pumpage for water years 1984-2006 within the proposed Urban Development Boundary (UDB) were discussed by KDSA in 1990. The UDB has been revised (Figure 1), and the primary change was the deletion of many lands overlying hardrock outcrops. Hardrock outcrops coincide with areas of closely spaced contours, both north and south of the Tule River. These lands are considered by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to be outside of the groundwater basin. Updated values for the groundwater overdraft and sustainable pumpage are provided for a base period (water years 1991-2010) that has been developed for the Tule Sub-basin SGMA hydrogeologic studies.

3 2. The effects of the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in the Tule Sub-basin are evaluated. The City is within the Eastern Tule GSA. The sustainable pumpage in the Tule Sub-basin as a whole has been determined by the Thomas Harder Co. (2017) as 0.54 acre-foot per acre per year, when applied equally across the entire sub-basin. This value does not include recharge to groundwater from imported water deliveries (such as Friant Kern Canal), or surface water diversions from the Tule River.

3. An updated discussion of the chemical quality of water from City wells is provided. Analyses for Spring 2017 were compared to those in the KDSA 2009 report. Also, vertical trends in groundwater quality have now been determined at eight sites within the UDB, and the results of these are discussed. Opportunities to improve the quality of delivered water through drilling new wells are discussed. Included are suggestions on locations and depth ranges for new City wells.

4. A discussion of the additional use or recharge of water in the UDB in order to eliminate the groundwater overdraft to the extent possible is provided. The most favorable and moderately favorable areas for groundwater recharge in the UDB are discussed and shown on a map.
4 WATER-LEVEL TRENDS
KDSA (2009, Appendix A) presented water-level hydrographs for a number of City wells for a hydrologic base period that covered the 1984-2006 water years. This was determined to be a period of average Tule River streamflow at and near Success Reservoir.

Average water-level declines in four representative City shallow wells (about 300 feet deep or less) were 0.4 foot per year. An important geographic trend for shallow wells within the UDB was an average water-level decline of about 0.3 foot per year in the eastern part of the area and an average water-level decline of about 0.75 foot per year in the western part of the area. The greatest average City water-level declines (2.6 feet per year) were for five City wells tapping strata below a depth of 400 feet, which are indicated to be confined. Thomas Harder Co. (2017) developed a more recent hydrologic base period (water years 1991-2010) for the Tule Sub-basin, pursuant to DWR guidelines for the SGMA evaluation.

KDSA updated the previously prepared water-level hydrographs through 2017. Trend lines were developed, based on the shallowest annual levels, following DWR SGMA guidelines. In interpreting water-level changes, it became apparent that measurements after 2013 were highly influenced by the severe drought. Thus trend lines were extended through the end of 2013. An updated evaluation of the water-level changes was then done for the pe- 5 riod Spring 1991-Spring 2011, to be consistent with the Tule Sub-basin hydrogeologic base period. For 18 shallow City wells with suitable records, average water-level declines were 0.4 foot per year in the eastern part of the area and 0.7 foot per year in the western part.

This isn’t considered significantly different than values determined for the earlier base period (1984-2006) by KDSA (2009).

CITY PUMPAGE
Figure 1 shows the locations of active City wells as of 2018.

Between 2000 and 2006, the total City pumpage ranged from 11,000 to 12,800 acre-feet per year. Carollo Engineers provided updated City pumpage after 2006. From 2007 to 2016, the City pumpage ranged from 9,600 to 13,800 acre-feet per year. The highest pumpage was in 2007. City pumpage between 2007 and 2013 ranged from 12,400 to 13,800 acre-feet per year. Implementation of mandatory water conservation measures during 2014-16 reduced the City pumpage from 11,900 acre-feet in 2014 to 9,600 acre-feet in 2015. The City pumpage during 2015-16 averaged about 74 percent of that in 2013, or a 26 percent reduction.

WATER BUDGET
There were only minor changes in the alluvial parts of the UDB in 2018 compared to that as of 2009 (Figure 1). This means in effect that both the groundwater overdraft (1,200 acre-feet per year), and sustainable pumpage (23,300 acre-feet per year) within the UDB as determined by KDSA (2009) are still applica- 6 ble. Projections made in 2009 indicated that the City pumpage by 2030 would be about 23,700 acre-feet per year. Carollo Engineers, Inc. estimates the projected average daily demand is equivalent to about 19,100 acre-feet per year in 2030 and about 24,400 acre-feet per year in 2040. The surface water used in the UDB was 7,800 acrefeet per year in 2008 KDSA (2009). These calculations considered the changes in consumptive use between 2008 and 2040, and accounted for eliminating the groundwater overdraft. For full development of the 17,700 acres, there would be a reduction in consumptive use of about 5,000 acre-feet per year. The difference between the surface water used in 2009 and the decrease in consumptive use is about 2,800 acrefeet per year. The groundwater overdraft in 2008 was about 1,200 acre-feet per year. Thus about 4,000 acre-feet of surface water would be needed for full development of the 17,700 acres in order to balance groundwater levels. Similar calculations indicate that about 3,600 acre-feet of surface water would be needed to achieve a water balance for development of 15,876 acres within the UDB.

SGMA CONSIDERATIONS
The KDSA estimate of sustainable pumpage by the City within the UDB would be about 23,000 acre-feet per year over an area of 17,700 acres, or about 1.3 acre-feet per acre per year. This assumed that some of the recharge from the Tule River and Porter Slough seepage can be tapped, and that about 4,000 acre-feet per year of additional surface water would be used or recharged by the City compared to in 2008. 7 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Update for Shallow City Wells
Chemical analyses were obtained for City wells for Spring 2017 (Table 1). These analyses are for major cations and anions, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), iron, manganese, arsenic, and alpha activity. Other inorganic chemical constituents are not indicated to be significant. TDS concentrations in water from shallow City wells ranged from 140 to 330 mg/l in Spring 2017. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from 1 to 8.4 mg/l. The highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations (about 7 to 8.4 mg/l) were in water from Wells C-20 and C-21. Both of these wells have relatively shallow perforations.

Well C-20 is located near Porter Slough and Newcomb Street (near the WWTF). Well C-21 is located near Morton Street, west of Highway 65. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and arsenic were below the respective MCLs in water from City wells in Spring 2017, except for iron in water from Well L-8 (1.2 mg/l, compared to the recommended MCL of 0.3 mg/l). The manganese concentration in water from Well L-8 (0.04 mg/l) was just below the recommended MCL of 0.05 mg/l. Well L-8 is located south of Porter Slough and north of Morton Street and is one of the shallowest City wells. Alpha activities in water from shallow City wells were less than the MCL of 15 picocuries per liter in Spring

11 2017. The highest alpha activities (8.0 to 9.7 picocuries per liter) were in water from Wells C-21 and C-26. Well C-26 is located near Poplar Avenue and Road 240.

Comparison Between 2008 and 2017 for Shallow Wells
Table 2 provides a comparison of chemical analyses of water samples collected from shallow City wells in May 2008 (from KDSA, 2009) with those for Spring 2017. A significant difference between the two sets of samples is that the May 2008 samples were collected during a period of relatively shallow water levels, whereas the Spring 2017 water samples were collected during a period of very deep water levels. Overall, the chemical quality of groundwater produced from most City wells has been excellent, except for moderately high nitrate concentrations in some areas.

For most shallow City wells (less than about 300 feet deep), nitrate concentrations were higher in Spring 2017 than in May 2008.

Some of the largest increases were for Well R-7 (in the western part of the area) and for Well EP-5 (in the eastern part of the area). The highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in shallow wells in Spring 2017 were in water from C-1, C-2, R-6, R-7, and EP-5. These concentrations ranged from 3.6 to 6.8 mg/l, still below the MCL of 10 mg/l. Increased nitrate-nitrogen concentrations are expected when water levels are deeper, because there is less influence of recharge of low nitrate seepage from the Tule River and

15 Porter Slough. pH values were generally higher in many shallow wells in Spring 2017 than in May 2008, which is expected. This is because the pH of the deeper groundwater is higher than for the shallow groundwater, and when water levels are deeper, a greater percentage of the groundwater that is pumped is from deeper strata. Concentration changes for other constituents in Table 2 were generally insignificant.

Update for Deeper City Wells
TDS concentrations in water from deeper City wells ranged from 160 to 300 mg/l in Spring 2017 (Table 3). Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from less than 1 to 5.5 mg/l. The highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations (4.1 to 5.5 mg/l) were in water from Wells C-6, C-10A, C-11, and C-24. Three of these wells (C6, C-10A, and C-24) have perforations extending up to from 100 to 120 feet in depth. In contrast, Well C-11 does not have perforations this shallow, and the reason for the moderate nitratenitrogen concentrations in water from this well is unknown. Wells C-6 and C-10A are located between old Highway 65 and new Highway 65 and Locust Street and Morton Street. Well is C-11 is located near Porter Slough east of Highway 65. Well C-24 is located near Olive Drive and east of Westwood Street. Iron concentrations were less than the recommended secondary MCL of 0.3 mg/l in water from the deeper City wells, except for Wells C-12 and C-33,

21 which had from 0.35 to 0.6 mg/l of iron. Manganese and arsenic concentrations in all of the deeper City wells were less than their respective MCLs. Alpha activities ranged from 1.9 to 11.7 picocuries per liter and were less than the MCL of 15 picocuries per liter. The highest alpha activity was in water from Well C-6.

Comparison Between 2008 and 2017 for Deeper Wells
For most deeper City wells (Table 4), nitrate concentrations were slightly higher in Spring 2017 than in May 2008. However, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in water from Wells C-11, C-24, and C-29 were significantly higher in Spring 2017. Nitrate concentrations in water from these three deep wells ranged from 3.2 to 5.5 mg/l in Spring 2017. This apparently was due to the downward flow of shallow groundwater to greater depths when water levels were deeper. pH values for most deep City wells also were greater in Spring 2017 than in May 2008. Concentration changes for other constituents in Table 4 were generally insignificant. Overall, the chemical quality of water from deep City wells is considered excellent.

The trace organic constituent tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, was found at higher concentrations in water from six City wells in Spring 2017 than in May 2008. However, all concentrations were still below the MCL of 5.0 ppb for this constituent. These higher concentrations are also expected when water levels are deeper, when the influence of recharge from the Tule River and

27 Porter Slough seepage is less.

Vertical Trends
Vertical variations in groundwater quality have been determined at eight sites in the City (TH-90-2, Wells C-28, C-29, C-31, C-32, and C-33, at the Burton School, and at the Akin Water Co. TW-1 (Figure 1).

Some of the most noticeable trends were decreases in nitratenitrogen with increasing depth, primarily at sites away from the Tule River or Porter Slough. At TH-90-2 (the Walmart test hole), a nitrate-nitrogen concentration of 3.2 mg/l was indicated between 105 and 110 feet in depth, whereas concentrations in the deeper groundwater about 1 mg/l or less. At Well C-28, nitratenitrogen concentrations were less than 1 mg/l in four samples between 110 and 625 feet in depth. At Well C-29, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in six samples from between 80 and 620 feet in depth ranged from about less than 1 to 2.7 mg/l. This well is located near Porter Slough, and seepage from flow in the slough likely has caused lower nitrate-nitrogen concentrations above a depth of 250 feet, compared to those in the deeper samples. At Well C-31, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from less than 1 to about 1 mg/l in five samples between 220 and 685 feet in depth. This well is near the Tule River, and the low nitrate-nitrogen concentrations are likely due to seepage of river water. At Well C-32, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in 28 five water samples ranged from less than 1 to 4.8 mg/l, and decreased with increasing depth. This well is in the airport area, where higher nitrate-nitrogen concentrations are expected in shallow groundwater beneath irrigated lands. At Well C-33, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in water from six samples ranged from less than 1 to about 1 mg/l. The lowest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations were in samples taken from above a depth of 510 feet. This well is also near the Tule River, and seepage from the river is indicated to be responsible for the low nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater. At the Burton School, water samples were collected from seven depth zones. Nitratenitrogen concentrations were highest (10 mg/l) in samples from above a depth of 160 feet, and were 1.4 mg/l or less below a depth of 194 feet. At Akin Water Co. TW-1, water samples were collected from 12 depth zones. The highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations (10 to 11.1 mg/l) were in samples from above a depth of 220 feet. Below a depth of 250 feet, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations were usually less than 1.4 mg/l.

In summary, the results generally indicated lower nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in water from wells near the Tule River and Porter Slough. For wells not near these sources of recharge, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations were usually higher in the shallower groundwater. These higher nitrate-nitrogen concentrations 29 are primarily due to historical irrigation practices. Some of the highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations have been found in the shallow groundwater in the western part of the area (approximately west of Newcomb Street and not near the Tule River or the Porter Slough).

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Overall, the chemical quality of water from City wells is considered excellent. Moderately high nitrate concentrations can be avoided by constructing new wells near the Tule River or Porter Slough and by not perforating above about 200 feet in depth. The continuation of test wells or pilot hole sampling programs will result in the City being able to tap better quality groundwater at specific sites.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS FOR NEW CITY WELLS Important issues to be considered in siting new City wells include spacing away from hardrock outcrops and other wells, and siting new wells near existing recharge and future intentional recharge sites (locations discussed later). A spacing for shallow City wells of at least a quarter mile from other shallow wells is preferable. For deeper City wells, a minimum spacing of about one-third mile from other deep wells is preferable.

This is because the deeper groundwater is confined and drawdowns 30 are thus generally greater than for the shallower groundwater.

In general, new wells aren’t recommended within about half a mile of hardrock outcrops. These are shown by the closely spaced land surface elevation contours on Figure 1. In general, subsurface geologic conditions for new wells are more favorable where the bedrock is deeper, which is primarily beneath the area west of old Highway 45. The area between the Tule River and Scranton Avenue is considered a favorable area to construct new City wells, because of recharge potential.

INTENTIONAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Two primary sources of information were reviewed to evaluate favorable areas for City intentional recharge. First, are the topsoil maps for the central and western parts of Tulare County by Stephens (1982) and Wasner and Arroues (2003). These maps shows a number of soil types within the uppermost five feet or so of the land surface, which is termed the topsoil. The topsoil types from these soil surveys were grouped into four categories: 1) underlain by hardrock, 2) sandy soils, 3) clayey soils and 4) soils with hardpan development. Figure 2 shows these main types of topsoils. The sandy topsoils are the most favorable for intentional recharge, as no surficial overburden would probably have to be removed when developing recharge ponds. The sandy topsoils are primarily present along the Tule

32 River, and also farther north in the western part of the area.

The soils with hardpan development could be suitable for recharge, if the hardpan is first removed when recharge basins are developed. Such removal is common for urban storm runoff ponds.

Topsoils with hardpan are widespread south of Highway 190 and west of Road 278 (which includes the airport area). Neither the hardrock areas nor the clayey soils are considered favorable for intentional recharge.

The second source of information that was reviewed were the three subsurface geologic cross sections (Figure 3) that were developed by KDSA (2009). Figure 3 shows the locations of Cross Section A-A’, which extends from north to south, between Westwood and Newcomb Street. The most favorable locations for recharge (predominantly coarse-grained deposits above the groundwater level) were indicated north of Henderson Avenue, at TH-94- 2, TH-94-3; and south of the Tule River at 33R, 3E, and 16C (in the airport area). Cross Section B-B’ extends from north to south near or west of Highway 65. The most favorable subsurface geologic conditions for recharge were indicated at Wells C-3 and C-13 (Figure 3). The latter well is about half a mile south of the Tule River. Cross Section C-C’ extends from west to east, generally between Poplar and Scranton Avenues from near the Friant-Kern Canal on the west to near Road 278. The most favorable

34 conditions for recharge were indicated at Wells 33R, 3E, C-27, 6D, PDC No. 10, No. 4, the Greenhouse Well, and at 4F. Thus subsurface geologic conditions in much of the area south of the Tule River and north of Avenue 140 are indicated to be favorable for intentional recharge. The topsoils in this area are generally sandy. Also shown in Figure 3 are other areas that are considered favorable for recharge.

In summary, the largest area indicated to be the most favorable for City intentional recharge is located between Road 228 and Road 276, south and within about a mile of the Tule River.

The second largest most favorable area is indicated to be between Westwood and Newcomb Street, and Avenue 160 and 170. Because of the direction of groundwater flow (away from the Tule River), recharge in the first of these areas would primarily benefit City wells south of the Tule River. In contrast, recharge in the second area would primarily benefit wells in the northwest part of the City. Other lands along the Tule River are also considered favorable for recharge. This includes lands north of the Tule River near Olive Avenue and along the Tule River.

REFERENCES
Thomas Harder & Co., 2017, “Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Sub-basin, report prepared for the Tule Sub-basin MOU Group, 49p.
35 Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, 2009 “Groundwater Conditions within the City of Porterville Urban Area Boundary”, prepared for City of Porterville, Porterville, California, 66p.

APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021
Appendix B

POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER LANDSCAPE

IRRIGATION USERS

RANK ACCOUNT NO# ACCOUNT NAME ADDRESS CONSUMPTION NOTES 1 01-00198-00 FOSTER FARMS 770 N PLANO ST 145,689 >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 2 06-14600-09 CITY OF PORTER/GOLF COURSE 702 E ISHAM AVE 51,646 Porterville Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 3 29-78001-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 960 N NEWCOMB ST 37,271 Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer 4 10-01600-09 KERN JT JR COLLEGE 100 E COLLEGE AVE 28,269 Porterville College, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Pioneer Middle School
5 36-20050-01 BURTON PATHWAYS CHARTER H.S. 1155 N ELDERWOOD ST 24,709 Burton Middle School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
6 50-85200-01 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1701 E PUTNAM AVE 23,114 Granite Hills High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 7 46-50080-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 252 N WESTWOOD ST 21,453 Jim Maples Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 8 06-14200-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/MURRY PUTNAM & PARK DR 20,849 Murry Park, 500 E Putnam Avenue, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville Municipal Golf Course
9 13-54000-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/ZAL GRAND-ZALUD PK 20,549 Zalud Park, 700 N El Granito Street, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
10 23-60400-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 465 W OLIVE AVE 19,106 Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Olive Street Elementary 11 10-01700-00 KERN JT JR COLLEGE 100 E COLLEGE AVE 16,933 Porterville College, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 12 10-01905-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 225 E COLLEGE AVE 15,716 Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
13 23-60200-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 465 W OLIVE AVE 14,877 Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
14 25-00007-01 VILLA ROBLES APARTMENTS 450 W SPRINGVILLE AVE 14,795 Eliminate b/c residential 15 10-01909-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 271 E COLLEGE AVE 14,647 Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
16 30-17600-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/VET 1501 W HENDERSON AVE 14,026 Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer 17 10-24700-02 RANCHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK 670 E POPLAR AVE 13,677 Eliminate b/c residential 18 08-17190-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 286 E ORANGE AVE 12,747 Santa Fe Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Heritage Community Center.
19 22-43000-01 ALISAM PROPERTIES 600 S JAYE ST 12,704 Eliminate b/c residential 20 01-01800-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 500 E MULBERRY AVE W 12,365 Los Robles Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 21 10-01200-01 GOLDEN HILLS MHP LLC 720 E WORTH AVE 12,197 Eliminate b/c residential 22 10-01400-01 GOLDEN HILLS MHP LLC 720 E WORTH AVE 12,167 Eliminate b/c residential 23 25-00011-02 PARKVIEW APARTMENTS 550 W SPRINGVILLE AVE 11,944 Eliminate b/c residential 24 03-00200-02 LOS CHURCH 837 E MORTON AVE 11,212 Church w/ ~2.8 acres of green area, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
25 27-01200-09 LA SERENA HOUSING 1500 N PROSPECT ST 11,209 Eliminate b/c residential 26 36-20046-01 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 2573 W WESTFIELD AVE 10,898 William R Buckley Elementary School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
27 18-20000-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 347 N KESSING ST 10,830 Bartlett Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
28 20-00300-09 SIERRA VIEW DIST HOSPITAL 465 W PUTNAM AVE 10,285 Eliminate - no green area 29 44-10000-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 175 S MATHEW ST 10,274 Summit Charter Academy, within the 1-mile barrier 30 36-03100-00 HOLIDAY RETIREMENT SITE 5280 2500 W HENDERSON AVE 10,098 Eliminate b/c residential 31 31-51600-00 MISSION BELL PARK 1343 W MORTON AVE 10,066 Eliminate b/c residential 32 12-09710-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 701 W WESTFIELD AVE 9,964 Monte Vista School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
33 43-02600-09 ALDER APARTMENTS 45 N SALISBURY ST 9,843 Eliminate b/c residential 34 27-01050-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1151 W PIONEER AVE 9,797 Westfield Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
35 21-30200-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 255 W OLIVE AVE 9,488 Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 36 31-25002-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1345 W PUTNAM AVE 8,806 West Putnam Elementary School, within the 1-mile barrier 37 22-40150-00 THE HOME DEPOT #1080 750 S JAYE ST 8,767 Eliminate b/c commercial 38 26-97000-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1509 N LOMBARDI ST 8,361 Summit Charter Academy Lombardi Campus, >1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal 39 01-00200-02 FOSTER FARMS 770 N PLANO ST 7,641 Eliminate b/c commercial 40 04-26000-09 SANTA FE PLAZA 250 N THIRD ST 7,334 Eliminate b/c residential 41 24-51730-00 WAL-MART 1300 S F ST MTR 7,253 Eliminate b/c commercial 42 49-19600-00 US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 2125 S NEWCOMB ST 7,155 Eliminate b/c commercial 42 01-01505-01 MOUNTAIN VIEW APARTMENTS 870 N PLANO ST 7,155 Eliminate b/c residential 44 08-25000-11 VALLARTA MARKET #32 305 E OLIVE AVE 7,119 Eliminate b/c commercial 45 09-08890-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1045 E ORANGE AVE 6,985 John J. Doyle Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 46 30-16200-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/VET 440 N NEWCOMB ST 6,736 ??? 47 10-00601-09 WAL-MART DC #6021 1300 S F ST MTR 6,589 Eliminate b/c commercial 48 14-04200-09 HOUSING AUTH. OF TULARE CNTY 500 W MORTON AVE 6,557 Eliminate b/c residential 49 17-32200-00 SMITH'S ENTERPRISES 19 N D ST 19-55 6,312 Eliminate b/c commercial 50 49-00014-00 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 2701 W SCRANTON AVE 6,300 OHV Park, within the 1-mile barrier 51 18-22800-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 335 N G ST 6,264 Bartlett Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
52 28-72500-01 ST ANNE'S CHURCH 1765 N NEWCOMB ST 5,888 Church w/ ~1.9 acres of green area, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
53 20-00800-09 SIERRA VIEW DIST HOSPITAL 465 W PUTNAME AVE 5,703 Eliminate - no green area 54 43-02000-02 FOXWOOD, APARTMENTS LLC 1704 W OLIVE AVE 5,595 Eliminate b/c residential PORTERVILLE TOP 100 WATER USERS - 2013
RANK ACCOUNT NO# ACCOUNT NAME ADDRESS CONSUMPTION NOTES PORTERVILLE TOP 100 WATER USERS - 2013
55 10-00280-00 BIG STUMP TRAILER PARK 574 S MAIN ST 5,411 Eliminate b/c residential 56 29-78000-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL HENDERSON, INSIDE CI 5,235 Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer 57 10-00298-00 BIG STUMP TRAILER PARK 574 S MAIN ST 5,164 Eliminate b/c residential 58 22-01200-11 PORTERVILLE PACIFIC ASSOCIATES 424 S E ST 4,964 Eliminate b/c residential 59 30-19400-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 1333 W GRAND AVE 4,864 WWTP 60 12-55600-01 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/HAY 945 W MULBERRY AV 4,725 Hayes Field, within the 1-mile buffer 61 49-01100-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 1893 S NEWCOMB ST 4,626 Eliminate b/c commercial 62 01-43600-02 HOME RENTAL CO 833 N LIME ST 4,587 Eliminate b/c residential 63 44-02890-01 PORTERVILLE NAZARENE CHURCH 1991 W OLIVE AVE 4,532 Church w/ ~0.9 acres of green area, within the 1-mile buffer 64 43-02800-09 EVERGREEN APARTMENTS 65 N SALISBURY ST 4,521 Eliminate b/c residential 65 30-13451-01 MOYLE'S CENTRAL VALLEY 1100 W MORTON AVE 4,464 Eliminate - no green area 66 09-01400-04 STUBBS, ARTHUR P 778 E DATE AVE 778-792 4,403 Eliminate b/c commercial 67 30-16000-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/VET 1344 W MORTON AVE 4,352 Eliminate b/c residential 68 31-28201-01 PORTERVILLE GARDENS 1585 W PUTNAM AVE 4,322 Eliminate b/c residential 69 19-10400-09 MOTEL 6 #0275-01-01-C 935 W MORTON AVE 4,311 Eliminate b/c commercial 70 19-30010-00 SIERRA VIEW DIST HOSPITAL 283 N PEARSON DR 4,203 Eliminate - no green area 71 30-15800-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/VET 415 N PROSPECT ST 4,013 Eliminate b/c residential 72 17-33400-05 TCP COMMERCIAL LLC 200 N E ST 3,985 Eliminate b/c commercial 73 08-17060-01 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 256 E ORANGE AVE 3,966 Heritage Community Center w/ ~0.25 acres of green area >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Santa Fe Elementary School. 74 08-59950-01 PORTERVILLE FAMILY APARTMENTS 93 E DATE AVE 3,895 Eliminate b/c residential 75 25-10005-01 LOWE'S 500 W VANDALIA AVE 3,886 Eliminate b/c commercial 76 10-01900-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 225 E COLLEGE AVE 243 & 3,874 Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
77 12-55400-01 CAL TRANS D06 65 MULBERRY & HIGHWAY 3,837 Caltrans landscape irrigation, within the 1-mile buffer 78 17-46000-10 BELVEDERE APTS 116 N G ST 3,834 Eliminate b/c residential 79 04-33000-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL PLANO & MORTON-YR ME 3,780 ??? 80 01-46200-01 PHILLIPS, EDWARD 998 N HIGHLAND DR 3,726 Eliminate b/c residential 81 36-10196-02 SAEPHAN, SENG 700 N WESTWOOD ST 3,725 Eliminate b/c residential 82 16-00100-00 CAL TRANS D06 HENDERSON/HWY 65 3,707 Caltrans landscape irrigation, within the 1-mile buffer 83 49-00071-00 PORTERVILLE FAIR BOARD 2700 W TEA POT DOME AVE 3,680 Lots of green area, possibly ag, east of the airport 84 30-13450-01 MOYLE'S CENTRAL VALLEY 1100 W MORTON AVE 3,651 Eliminate - minimal green area 85 22-01205-01 PORTERVILLE PACIFIC ASSOCIATES 424 S E ST 3,622 Eliminate b/c residential 86 24-00400-10 WAGON WEST MOBILE HOME PARK IN 815 S INDIANA ST 3,574 Eliminate b/c residential 87 24-51720-00 WAL-MART 1300 S F ST MTR 3,548 Eliminate b/c commercial 88 08-30400-02 VALLARTA PROPERTIES LLC 305 E OLIVE AVE 3,474 Eliminate b/c commercial 89 46-50001-01 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 264 N WESTWOOD ST 3,456 Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 90 24-51700-00 WAL-MART 1300 S F ST MTR 3,299 Eliminate b/c commercial 91 43-02830-00 PORTERVILLE VETERAN MEMORIAL 1900 W OLIVE AVE 3,291 Porterville Veterans Memorial w/ ~2.4 acres of green area, within the 1- mile buffer, adjacent to "white area" ~4.75 acres
92 18-10800-09 SIERRA VALLEY REHAB CENTER 301 W PUTNAM AVE 3,275 Eliminate - no green area 93 01-01505-01 MOUNTAIN VIEW APARTMENTS 870 N PLANO ST 3,172 Eliminate b/c residential 94 30-16800-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 520 N NEWCOMB ST 3,161 Eliminate b/c commercial 95 17-33000-11 SAN ANTONIO ORCHARD CO 142 W OLIVE AVE 3,116 Eliminate b/c commercial 96 19-28200-10 SUN VILLA 350 N VILLA ST 3,098 Eliminate b/c residential 97 30-03210-00 SMEE BUILDERS 1150 W MORTON AVE 3,084 Eliminate b/c commercial 98 08-45400-01 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 265 E DATE AVE 3,057 Eliminate b/c residential 99 36-10194-01 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 2411 W PORTER CREEK AVE 3,047 ~2 acres of green area, possibly ag, within the 1-mile buffer 100 03-12000-09 FIRST METHODIST CHURCH 344 E MORTON AVE 2,997 Church w/ ~1.6 acres of green area, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
TOTAL 1,008,448
RANK ACCOUNT NO# ACCOUNT NAME ADDRESS CONSUMPTION NOTES 1 01-00198-00 FOSTER FARMS 770 N PLANO ST 148,868 >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 2 49-00010-00 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 2701 W SCRANTON AVE 56,507 OHV Park, , within the 1-mile barrier 3 06-14600-09 CITY OF PORTER/GOLF COURSE 702 E ISHAM AVE 37,188 Portervill Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 4 20-00300-09 SIERRA VIEW DIST HOSPITAL 465 W PUTNAM AVE 20,353 Eliminate - no green area 5 29-78001-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 960 N NEWCOMB ST 19,506 Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer 6 10-01200-01 GOLDEN HILLS MHP LLC 720 E WORTH AVE 17,105 Eliminate b/c residential 7 23-60400-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 465 W OLIVE AVE 15,972 Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Olive Street Elementary 8 01-01505-01 MOUNTAIN VIEW APARTMENTS 870 N PLANO ST 15,147 Eliminate b/c residential 9 31-51600-00 MISSION BELL PARK 1343 W MORTON AVE 13,872 Eliminate b/c residential 10 30-15600-01 PI PROPERTIES NO 112 LLC 1040 W GRAND AVE 13,848 Eliminate b/c residential 11 25-00007-01 VILLA ROBLES APARTMENTS 450 W SPRINGVILLE AVE 11,825 Eliminate b/c residential 12 10-24700-02 RANCHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK 670 E POPLAR AVE 11,312 Eliminate b/c residential 13 50-85200-01 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1701 E PUTNAM AVE 10,527 Granite Hills High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 14 47-60001-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 15550 REDWOOD ST 10,519 Summit Charter Collegiate Academy, within the 1-mile barrier 15 25-00011-02 PARKVIEW APARTMENTS 550 W SPRINGVILLE AVE 10,124 Eliminate b/c residential 16 10-01600-09 KERN JT JR COLLEGE 100 E COLLEGE AVE 9,724 Porterville College, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Pioneer Middle School
17 10-01700-00 KERN JT JR COLLEGE 100 E COLLEGE AVE 9,713 Porterville College, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Pioneer Middle School
18 27-40305-00 PORTERVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL 1450 W CASTLE AVE 9,681 Sequoia Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 19 21-15800-04 GROW PURE AGRIBUSINESS LLC 180 S E ST 8,678 Eliminate b/c commercial 20 27-01200-09 LA SERENA HOUSING 1500 N PROSPECT ST 8,487 Eliminate b/c residential 21 13-54000-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/ZAL GRAND-ZALUD PK 8,307 Zalud Park, 700 N El Granito Street, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
22 19-30010-00 SIERRA VIEW DIST HOSPITAL 283 N PEARSON DR 8,029 Eliminate - no green area 23 23-60200-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 465 W OLIVE AVE 7,893 Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Olive Street Elementary 24 08-25000-11 VALLARTA MARKET #32 305 E OLIVE AVE 7,660 Eliminate b/c commercial 25 01-01800-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 500 E MULBERRY AVE W 7,626 Los Robles Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 26 30-17600-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/VET 1501 W HENDERSON AVE 7,089 Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer 27 43-02600-09 ALDER APARTMENTS 45 N SALISBURY ST 7,027 Eliminate b/c residential 28 04-26000-09 SANTA FE PLAZA 250 N THIRD ST 7,011 Eliminate b/c residential 29 26-97000-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1509 N LOMBARDI ST 6,628 Summit Charter Academy Lombardi Campus, >1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal 30 08-59950-01 PORTERVILLE FAMILY APARTMENTS 93 E DATE AVE 6,570 Eliminate b/c residential 31 10-01909-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 271 E COLLEGE AVE 6,358 Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
32 10-00740-00 AKIN WATER CO S/E LINCOLN/S 4TH 6,305 Eliminate b/c commercial 33 12-09710-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 701 W WESTFIELD AVE 6,282 Monte Vista School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
34 30-02185-01 ALLISAM HANTORT LLC 1085 W HENDERSON AVE 6,192 Eliminate b/c commercial 35 14-04200-09 HOUSING AUTH. OF TULARE CNTY 500 W MORTON AVE 6,142 Eliminate b/c residential 36 09-08890-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1045 E ORANGE AVE 5,950 John J. Doyle Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 37 10-01905-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 225 E COLLEGE AVE 5,801 Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
38 27-01050-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1151 W PIONEER AVE 5,569 Westfield Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
39 43-02000-02 FOXWOOD, APARTMENTS LLC 1704 W OLIVE AVE 5,529 Eliminate b/c residential 40 22-43000-01 ALISAM PROPERTIES 600 S JAYE ST 5,504 Eliminate b/c residential 41 22-01200-11 PORTERVILLE PACIFIC ASSOCIATES 424 S E ST 5,441 Eliminate b/c residential 42 46-50070-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 252 N WESTWOOD ST 5,417 Jim Maples Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 43 08-17190-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 286 E ORANGE AVE 5,399 Santa Fe Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Heritage Community Center.
44 29-78000-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL HENDERSON, INSIDE CI 5,331 Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer 45 28-72500-01 ST ANNE'S CHURCH 1765 N NEWCOMB ST 5,320 Church w/ ~1.9 acres of green area, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
46 24-51730-00 WAL-MART 1300 S F ST MTR 5,136 Eliminate b/c commercial 47 10-01900-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 225 E COLLEGE AVE 243 & 5,098 Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
48 46-50080-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 252 N WESTWOOD ST 5,079 Jim Maples Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 49 21-30200-09 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 255 W OLIVE AVE 5,033 Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 50 44-10000-00 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 175 S MATHEW ST 4,997 Summit Charter Academy, within the 1-mile barrier 51 49-19600-00 US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 2125 S NEWCOMB ST 4,897 Eliminate b/c commercial 52 50-85201-01 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1701 E PUTNAM AVE 4,543 Granite Hills High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 53 36-20046-01 BURTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 2573 W WESTFIELD AVE 4,479 William R Buckley Elementary School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
PORTERVILLE TOP 100 WATER USERS - 2017
RANK ACCOUNT NO# ACCOUNT NAME ADDRESS CONSUMPTION NOTES PORTERVILLE TOP 100 WATER USERS - 2017
54 17-32200-00 SMITH'S ENTERPRISES 19 N D ST 19-55 4,341 Eliminate b/c commercial 55 37-30410-01 HOUSING AUTH OF TULARE CNTY 707 N NEWCOMB ST 4,280 Eliminate b/c residential 56 36-03100-00 HOLIDAY RETIREMENT SITE 5280 2500 W HENDERSON AVE 4,226 Eliminate b/c residential 57 30-19400-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 1333 W GRAND AVE 4,176 WWTP 58 13-11000-01 HOVANISIAN TRUST 108 W NORTH AVE 4,116 Eliminate b/c commercial 59 16-06200-10 LUZANILLA, KELLY & JOSHUA 959 W HENDERSON AVE 4,082 Eliminate b/c commercial 60 12-57425-01 SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS 900 W HENDERSON AVE 3,953 Eliminate b/c commercial 61 09-18600-02 HOVANNISIAN, JOHN 671 E ISHAM AVE 3,817 Eliminate b/c residential 62 19-10400-09 MOTEL 6 #0275-01-01-C 935 W MORTON AVE 3,785 Eliminate b/c commercial 63 24-51715-13 BEST WESTERN PORTERVILLE INN 350 W MONTGOMERY AVE 3,767 Eliminate b/c commercial 64 30-13451-01 MOYLE'S CENTRAL VALLEY 1100 W MORTON AVE 3,742 Eliminate - no green area 65 24-51720-00 WAL-MART 1300 S F ST MTR 3,738 Eliminate b/c commercial 66 01-43600-02 HOME RENTAL CO 833 N LIME ST 3,594 Eliminate b/c residential 67 03-00200-02 LDS CHURCH 837 E MORTON AVE 3,593 Church w/ ~2.8 acres of green area, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
68 31-90500-09 WONG, TEDDY 1325 W TOMAH AVE 3,525 Eliminate b/c commercial 69 04-24600-00 PORTERVILLE APARTMENTS 309 N THIRD ST 3,450 Eliminate b/c residential 70 31-28201-01 PORTERVILLE GARDENS 1585 W PUTNAM AVE 3,448 Eliminate b/c residential 71 30-16200-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/VET 440 N NEWCOMB ST 3,423 Eliminate b/c residential 72 10-00280-00 BIG STUMP TRAILER PARK 574 S MAIN ST 3,393 Eliminate b/c residential 73 14-03300-09 THORNTON, ROBERT 430 W MORTON AVE 3,382 Eliminate b/c residential 74 12-56400-10 CLARK, BECKY 885 W MULBERRY AVE 3,329 Eliminate b/c residential 75 20-42800-09 HOUSING AUTH. OF TULARE CO 659 W PUTNAM AVE 3,312 Eliminate b/c residential 76 36-20050-01 BURTON PATHWAYS CHARTER H.S. 1155 N ELDERWOOD ST 3,305 Burton Middle School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
77 49-00095-02 TULARE CO JR LIVESTOCK SHOW 2700 W TEA POT DOME AVE 3,271 Lots of green area, possibly ag, east of the airport 78 49-00014-00 CITY OF PORTERVILLE 2701 W SCRANTON AVE 3,253 OHV Park, within the 1-mile barrier 79 49-06300-00 GAITHER, HENRIETTA 1408 S NEWCOMB ST 3,243 Lots of green area, possibly ag, ~1 mile from the effluent line 80 17-33400-05 TCP COMMERCIAL LLC 200 N E ST 3,207 Eliminate b/c commercial 81 10-00298-00 BIG STUMP TRAILER PARK 574 S MAIN ST 3,162 Eliminate b/c residential 82 36-03200-00 HOLIDAY RETIREMENT SITE 5280 2500 W HENDERSON AVE 3,148 Eliminate b/c residential 83 10-40260-00 PORTERVILLE TRAILER PARK 1168 S MAIN ST 3,121 Eliminate b/c residential 84 37-30201-01 VILLAGE AT HENDERSON LLC 1711 W HENDERSON AVE 3,087 Eliminate b/c residential 85 44-02890-01 PORTERVILLE NAZARENE CHURCH 1991 W OLIVE AVE 3,044 Church w/ ~0.9 acres of green area, within the 1-mile buffer 86 29-48300-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL W MULBERRY AVE 3,034 Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer 87 24-19215-00 VALLEY CARE CENTER 661 W POPLAR AVE 3,033 Eliminate - no green area 88 43-02830-00 PORTERVILLE VETERAN MEMORIAL 1900 W OLIVE AVE 2,999 Porterville Veterans Memorial w/ ~2.4 acres of green area, within the 1- mile buffer, adjacent to "white area" ~4.75 acres
89 31-25002-00 PORTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL 1345 W PUTNAM AVE 2,971 West Putnam Elementary School, within the 1-mile barrier 90 20-62000-09 JONES, J 52 N WISCONSIN ST 2,947 Eliminate b/c residential 91 43-02800-09 EVERGREEN APARTMENTS 65 N SALISBURY ST 2,936 Eliminate b/c residential 92 06-14200-09 CITY OF PORTERVILLE/MURRY PUTNAM & PARK DR 2,886 Murry Park, 500 E Putnam Avenue, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville Municipal Golf Course
93 14-05000-02 HOVANNISIAN TRUST 590 W MORTON AVE 2,848 Eliminate b/c residential 94 08-66200-09 SHADY LANE PARK 53 E DATE AVE 2,730 Eliminate b/c residential 95 13-01000-02 WASH HOUSE 469 N MAIN ST 2,705 Eliminate b/c commercial 96 17-46000-10 BELVEDERE APTS 116 N G ST 2,680 Eliminate b/c residential 97 37-30205-01 VILLAGE AT HENDERSON LLC 1711 W HENDERSON AVE 2,657 Eliminate b/c residential 98 22-41800-10 THE DIXIE GROUP INC 600 S E ST 2,624 Eliminate b/c commercial 99 30-13450-01 MOYLE'S CENTRAL VALLEY 1100 W MORTON AVE 2,585 Eliminate - no green area 100 18-10800-09 SIERRA VALLEY REHAB CENTER 301 W PUTNAM AVE 2,584 Eliminate - no green area TOTAL 815,130
Address Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 Jun 2013 Jul 2013 Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2013 2013
Total
Monthly
Average
Annual
Consumption
Annual
Consumption Notes
1045 E Orange Ave 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 161 192 174 220 188 153 110 51 1,263 105 944,790 gal 2.9 acre-ft John J. Doyle Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1045 E Orange Ave 61 123 125 99 214 227 192 274 230 166 171 62 1,944 162 1,454,213 gal 4.5 acre-ft John J. Doyle Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1151 W. Pioneer Ave 32 46 55 38 90 34 5.0 42 66 60 74 43 585 49 437,610 gal 1.3 acre-ft Westfield Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
1151 W. Pioneer Ave 0.0 88 279 137 1,158 968 1,396 1,880 1,485 1,059 1,125 222 9,797 816 7,328,665 gal 22.5 acre-ft Westfield Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
1345 W Putnam Ave 78 169 45 49 50 158 59 72 107 123 63 44 1,017 85 760,769 gal 2.3 acre-ft West Putnam Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 1345 W Putnam Ave 143 26 45 138 327 1,218 1,702 1,663 1,417 1,639 350 138 8,806 734 6,587,346 gal 20.2 acre-ft West Putnam Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 135 E Harrison Ave 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 19 14 14 21 15 16 18 125 10 93,507 gal 0.3 acre-ft Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 140 S C St 0.0 0.0 11 28 68 82 79 150 161 124 100 46 849 71 635,096 gal 1.9 acre-ft Vine Street Community Day School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 140 S C St 27 26 18 38 57 88 129 222 134 64 66 23 892 74 667,262 gal 2.0 acre-ft Vine Street Community Day School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1450 W Castle Ave 7.0 8.0 12 6.0 16 4.0 0.0 3.0 12 12 15 9.0 104 8.7 77,797 gal 0.2 acre-ft Sequoia Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1701 E Putnam Ave 218 200 268 257 390 228 169 225 213 193 237 222 2,820 235 2,109,507 gal 6.5 acre-ft Granite Hills High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1701 E Putnam Ave 4.0 0.0 0.0 249 761 3,303 4,810 5,803 5,560 2,562 62 0.0 23,114 1,926 17,290,474 gal 53.1 acre-ft Granite Hills High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 197 W Belleview Ave 31 24 33 21 57 27 2.0 7.0 44 32 56 32 366 31 273,787 gal 0.8 acre-ft Belleview Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 197 W Belleview Ave 0.0 8.0 43 47 396 460 459 518 450 319 130 4.0 2,834 236 2,119,979 gal 6.5 acre-ft Belleview Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 225 E College Ave 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 849 672 502 739 653 459 3,874 323 2,897,953 gal 8.9 acre-ft Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
225 E College Ave 14 19 667 1,491 1,708 1,343 2,194 2,890 1,737 1,400 1,311 942 15,716 1,310 11,756,385 gal 36.1 acre-ft Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
245 W Walnut Ave 17 20 32 29 52 51 285 168 56 57 66 49 882 74 659,782 gal 2.0 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, across the street from Olive Street Elementary School / Porterville High School
255 W Olive Ave 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 2.3 20,945 gal 0.1 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 255 W Olive Ave 5.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 8.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 65 5.4 48,623 gal 0.1 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 255 W Olive Ave 1.0 4.0 13 12 10 20 54 63 58 50 40 6.0 331 28 247,605 gal 0.8 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 255 W Olive Ave 44 126 174 356 863 1,126 1,431 1,878 1,414 1,089 805 182 9,488 791 7,097,517 gal 21.8 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 261 E Mulberry Ave 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 9.0 22 24 8.0 9.0 5.0 2.0 93 7.8 69,569 gal 0.2 acre-ft Citrus High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 261 W Mulberry Ave 4.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 13 9.0 0.0 3.0 13 10 20 8.0 100 8.3 74,805 gal 0.2 acre-ft Citrus High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 271 E College Ave 31 0.0 574 560 1,508 2,428 2,544 2,367 2,489 1,573 427 146 14,647 1,221 10,956,718 gal 33.6 acre-ft Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
286 E Orange Ave 17 17 20 19 33 21 1.0 3.0 8.0 42 35 35 251 21 187,761 gal 0.6 acre-ft Santa Fe Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Heritage Community Center.
286 E Orange Ave 1.0 0.0 120 95 1,216 1,671 1,731 2,564 1,999 1,767 1,232 351 12,747 1,062 9,535,419 gal 29.3 acre-ft Santa Fe Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Heritage Community Center.
335 N G St 46 61 159 198 771 847 911 1,082 815 660 547 167 6,264 522 4,685,798 gal 14.4 acre-ft Bartlett Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
347 N Kessing St 9.0 94 177 281 1,655 1,545 1,819 1,820 1,262 1,271 805 92 10,830 903 8,101,403 gal 24.9 acre-ft Bartlett Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
388 N Roche St School 39 47 34 36 46 74 2.0 4.0 40 54 56 61 493 41 368,790 gal 1.1 acre-ft Roche Avenue Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 2013 Porterville Unified School District - Water Usage (100 cuft unless stated otherwise)

465 W Olive Ave 448 846 465 608 990 1,747 1,340 1,828 2,326 1,823 1,108 1,348 14,877 1,240 11,128,770 gal 34.2 acre-ft Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Olive Street Elementary 465 W Olive Ave 159 276 304 460 454 771 3,457 4,091 2,905 3,217 1,810 1,202 19,106 1,592 14,292,282 gal 43.9 acre-ft Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Olive Street Elementary 500 E Mulberry Ave 84 84 55 53 96 66 41 43 63 83 112 67 847 71 633,600 gal 1.9 acre-ft Los Robles Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 500 E Mulberry Ave (W) 0.0 7.0 9.0 72 1,656 1,466 2,090 2,955 1,453 1,294 933 430 12,365 1,030 9,249,663 gal 28.4 acre-ft Los Robles Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 534 N E St 32 8.0 11 7.0 19 8.0 0.0 8.0 13 10 33 25 174 15 130,161 gal 0.4 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 534 N E St 8.0 24 15 16 21 17 16 19 26 25 44 26 257 21 192,249 gal 0.6 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 600 W Grand Ave 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 27 2.3 20,197 gal 0.1 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
605 W Memory Ln 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 25 2.1 18,701 gal 0.1 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
606 W Memory Ln 28 20 22 22 28 22 20 29 23 27 29 21 291 24 217,683 gal 0.7 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
632 W Grand Ave 51 32 36 36 74 70 79 140 114 115 127 87 961 80 718,878 gal 2.2 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
645 N Prospect St 8.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 8.0 6.0 56 4.7 41,891 gal 0.1 acre-ft Prospect Education Center School w/ ~0.2 acres of green area, within the 1- mile buffer
645 N Prospect St 11 15 40 35 97 112 112 189 138 61 77 23 910 76 680,727 gal 2.1 acre-ft Prospect Education Center School w/ ~0.2 acres of green area, within the 1- mile buffer
701 E Westfield Ave 37 38 32 32 59 46 17 94 335 58 84 38 870 73 650,805 gal 2.0 acre-ft Monte Vista School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
701 E Westfield Ave 128 94 251 283 940 1,009 1,616 2,008 1,794 1,494 174 173 9,964 830 7,453,590 gal 22.9 acre-ft Monte Vista School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
900 W Pioneer Ave 10 11 13 11 17 21 12 13 14 12 17 18 169 14 126,421 gal 0.4 acre-ft Butterfield Charter High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
900 W Pioneer Ave 40 42 34 46 166 214 199 286 398 220 226 106 1,977 165 1,478,899 gal 4.5 acre-ft Butterfield Charter High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
91 S F St 30 31 24 24 32 8.0 0.0 2.0 25 22 23 15 236 20 176,540 gal 0.5 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 960 N Newcomb St 851 808 686 1,125 5,072 4,733 4,734 7,204 5,253 3,106 2,560 1,139 37,271 3,106 27,880,646 gal 85.6 acre-ft Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer MHS Henderson Ave Inside CI 479 436 410 453 489 437 431 405 421 402 431 441 5,235 436 3,916,052 gal 12.0 acre-ft Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer MHS W Mulberry Ave 8.0 53 36 39 498 249 507 102 169 212 152 51 2,076 173 1,552,956 gal 4.8 acre-ft Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer Plano & Morton YR ME 0.0 0.0 34 35 249 515 603 687 686 470 229 272 3,780 315 2,827,637 gal 8.7 acre-ft Roche Avenue Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line TOTAL (100 cuft) 3,246 3,955 5,406 7,580 22,633 27,674 36,311 44,743 36,664 27,908 16,768 8,911 241,799 TOTAL (acre-ft) 7.5 9.1 12.4 17.4 52.0 63.5 83.4 102.7 84.2 64.1 38.5 20.5 555 403 180,878,226 gal 555 acre-ft

Address Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 Jun 2013 Jul 2013 Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2013 2013
Total
Monthly
Average
Annual
Consumption
Annual
Consumption Notes
1155 N ELDERWOOD ST 0.0 0.0 2.0 1,118 2,806 3,411 3,226 4,142 2,638 3,278 2,686 402 23,709 1,976 17,735,565 gal 54.4 acre-ft Burton Middle School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
1155 N ELDERWOOD-1 9.0 23 22 8.0 14 14 0.0 3.0 12 12 19 8.0 144 12 107,719 gal 0.3 acre-ft Burton Middle School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
1509 N LOMBARDI ST 3.0 1.0 35 326 1,179 1,119 1,538 1,578 1,456 620 476 30 8,361 697 6,254,463 gal 19.2 acre-ft Summit Charter Academy Lombardi Campus, >1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
1509 N LOMBARDI ST-2 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 10 11 19 11 63 5.3 47,127 gal 0.1 acre-ft Summit Charter Academy Lombardi Campus, >1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
15550 REDWOOD ST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 gal 0.0 acre-ft Summit Charter Collegiate Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 15550 REDWOOD ST-2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 gal 0.0 acre-ft Summit Charter Collegiate Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 175 S MATHEW ST 29 21 35 32 49 22 1.0 6.0 35 33 38 27 328 27 245,361 gal 0.8 acre-ft Summit Charter Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 1885 W MULBERRY 41 20 21 116 256 281 206 265 291 198 137 25 1,857 155 1,389,133 gal 4.3 acre-ft Oak Grove Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 2283 W MORTON AVE 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 113 127 11 95,003 gal 0.3 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 2440 W HENDERSON AVE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 gal 0.0 acre-ft The River Church w/ ~5.25 acres of green area, within the 1-mile buffer 2440 W HENDERSON AVE-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 gal 0.0 acre-ft The River Church w/ ~5.25 acres of green area, within the 1-mile buffer 252 N WESTWOOD ST 6.0 12 5.0 11 1,745 3,809 3,175 3,087 3,881 2,869 1,422 1,431 21,453 1,788 16,047,960 gal 49.2 acre-ft Jim Maples Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 252 N WESTWOOD ST-2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 17 0.0 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56 4.7 41,891 gal 0.1 acre-ft Jim Maples Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 2573 W WESTFIELD AVE 18 186 40 19 59 63 4.0 12 82 45 54 45 627 52 469,029 gal 1.4 acre-ft William R Buckley Elementary School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
2573 W WESTFIELD AVE-2 45 33 30 518 1,520 1,505 2,513 1,777 1,394 1,022 340 201 10,898 908 8,152,271 gal 25.0 acre-ft William R Buckley Elementary School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
264 N WESTWOOD ST 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 12 26 30 14 30 35 18 14 186 16 139,138 gal 0.4 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 264 N WESTWOOD ST-1 61 45 124 76 241 495 410 437 533 487 271 276 3,456 288 2,585,268 gal 7.9 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 264 N WESTWOOD ST-2 1.0 2.0 3.0 17 84 118 95 200 181 136 92 61 990 83 740,571 gal 2.3 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 275 S MATHEW ST-1 Summit Charter Academy, within the 1-mile buffer TOTAL (100 cuft) 215 344 323 2,244 7,984 10,887 11,201 11,552 10,543 8,746 5,572 2,644 72,255 TOTAL (acre-ft) 0.5 0.8 0.7 5.2 18.3 25.0 25.7 26.5 24.2 20.1 12.8 6.1 166 Connection # Address Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 Jun 2013 Jul 2013 Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2013 2013
Total
Monthly
Average
Annual
Consumption
(gal)
Annual
Consumption
(AF)
Notes
Barn-1 42 S Plano Street 0.0 4.0 0.0 50 159 137 136 213 175 161 81 19 1,135 95 849,039 2.61 Barn Theater w/ ~0.7 acres of green area, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
Chase-1 356 E Chase Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 Fallen Heroes Park, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Chase-2 356 E Chase Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 Fallen Heroes Park, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Golfcourse-1 702 E Isham Avenue 0.0 0.0 174 2,702 1,489 5,200 6,869 6,748 7,826 4,719 3,356 1,156 40,239 3,353 30,100,864 92.38 Porterville Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Golfcourse-2 702 E Isham Avenue 0.0 0.0 16 342 7.0 12 12 3.0 706 5.0 750 0.0 1,853 154 1,386,140 4.25 Porterville Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Golfcourse-3 702 E Isham Avenue 10 9.0 9.0 11 15 11 12 17 11 10 13 8.0 136 11 101,735 0.31 Porterville Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Hayes Field-1 945 W Mulberry Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 453 714 774 1,017 781 529 456 1.0 4,725 394 3,534,546 10.85 Hayes Field, within the 1-mile buffer Lime Street 855 N Lime Street 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 80 66 129 93 96 102 126 30 724 60 541,590 1.66 Olivewood Mini Park, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Main St Park 765 or 296 N Main Street 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63 158 96 100 129 63 35 38 682 57 510,171 1.57 Main St Park (either 765 or 296 N Main St) Both addresses are >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
Murry-1 500 E Putnam Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 649 3,364 2,998 2,800 4,042 2,950 1,756 2,089 201 20,849 1,737 15,596,136 47.86 Murry Park, 500 E Putnam Avenue, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville Municipal Golf Course
OHV-1 2701 W Scranton Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37 43 74 355 22 51 78 42 702 59 525,133 1.61 OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Sewer 4" 2701 W Scranton Avenue 45 136 140 489 784 849 870 1,101 857 392 319 318 6,300 525 4,712,728 14.46 OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer 335 54,050,497 gal 166 acre-ft
2013 City Parks - Water Usage (100 cuft unless stated otherwise) 2013 Burton School District - Water Usage (100 cuft unless stated otherwise)

Sports Plex-1 2701 W Scranton Avenue 6.0 13 243 530 7,310 7,450 7,483 11,021 7,233 4,725 4,613 1,019 51,646 4,304 38,633,894 118.56 OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Sports Plex-2 2701 W Scranton Avenue 4.0 1.0 9.0 9.0 13 12 11 16 18 12 11 4.0 120 10 89,766 0.28 OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Sports Plex-3 2701 W Scranton Avenue 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 7.0 1.0 8.0 4.0 5.0 48 4.0 35,906 0.11 OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-1 1501 W Henderson Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 582 2,179 2,100 2,341 2,990 2,070 880 852 32 14,026 1,169 10,492,177 32.20 Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-2 1501 W Henderson Avenue 127 0.0 0.0 0.0 425 416 525 580 463 209 243 0.0 2,988 249 2,235,179 6.86 Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-3 1501 W Henderson Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 216 610 632 672 812 662 187 196 26 4,013 334 3,001,933 9.21 Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-4 1501 W Henderson Avenue 0.0 122 0.0 187 789 478 636 864 876 71 326 3.0 4,352 363 3,255,522 9.99 Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-5 1501 W Henderson Avenue 127 0.0 0.0 313 1,063 1,007 984 1,250 988 509 489 2.0 6,732 561 5,035,886 15.45 Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Zalud-1 700 N El Granito Street 0.0 0.0 2.0 631 3,073 2,988 2,221 5,130 3,234 1,413 1,587 270 20,549 1,712 15,371,721 47.17 Zalud Park, 700 N El Granito Street, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Zalud-2 700 N El Granito Street 6.0 4.0 8.0 13 18 14 31 46 35 20 19 10 224 19 167,564 0.51 Zalud Park, 700 N El Granito Street, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line TOTAL (100 cuft) 327 294 604 6,728 21,934 25,290 26,679 36,405 29,133 15,822 15,643 3,184 182,043 TOTAL (acre-ft) 0.8 0.7 1.4 15.4 50.4 58.1 61.2 83.6 66.9 36.3 35.9 7.3 418 690 136,177,630 417.91

Address Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 2017 Total
Monthly
Average
Annual
Consumption
Annual
Consumption Notes
1045 E. Orange Ave 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 56 86 254 221 252 241 335 110 1,570 131 1,174,442 gal 3.6 acre-ft John J. Doyle Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1045 E. Orange Ave-2 19 52 72 118 117 136 221 230 307 308 382 103 2,065 172 1,544,727 gal 4.7 acre-ft John J. Doyle Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1151 W. Pioneer 0.0 1.0 0.0 310 609 484 824 642 886 736 911 166 5,569 464 4,165,902 gal 12.8 acre-ft Westfield Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
1151 W. Pioneer-2 10 61 72 81 90 14 1.0 23 74 55 77 49 607 51 454,068 gal 1.4 acre-ft Westfield Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
1345 W Putnam 17 32 33 54 70 54 29 28 52 72 76 76 593 49 443,595 gal 1.4 acre-ft West Putnam Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 1345 W Putnam-1 21 0.0 1.0 130 266 369 434 397 321 360 349 323 2,971 248 2,222,462 gal 6.8 acre-ft West Putnam Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 140 S. C St 21 17 28 30 76 120 231 70 146 107 195 117 1,158 97 866,244 gal 2.7 acre-ft Vine Street Community Day School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 140 S. C St-2 16 7.0 9.0 16 53 78 119 32 82 68 92 44 616 51 460,800 gal 1.4 acre-ft Vine Street Community Day School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1450 W. Castle Ave 0.0 0.0 0.0 730 815 643 1619 1340 1777 1042 1166 549 9,681 807 7,241,891 gal 22.2 acre-ft Sequoia Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1450 W. Castle Ave-1 1.0 8.0 10 12 9.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 10 9.0 14 6.0 83 6.9 62,088 gal 0.2 acre-ft Sequoia Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1701 E. Putnam Ave 379 339 450 512 394 334 220 442 398 445 43 0 3,956 330 2,959,294 gal 9.1 acre-ft Granite Hills High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 1701 E. Putnam Ave LS 6.0 94 33 42 25 447 1037 2597 3193 2660 304 89 10,527 877 7,874,743 gal 24.2 acre-ft Granite Hills High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 197 W. Belleview 1.0 0.0 0.0 87 182 288 291 258 298 248 183 40 1,876 156 1,403,346 gal 4.3 acre-ft Belleview Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 197 W. Belleview-2 9.0 27 32 59 69 94 73 69 97 90 127 64 810 68 605,922 gal 1.9 acre-ft Belleview Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 225 E. College Ave 91 165 257 308 296 365 421 343 903 846 730 373 5,098 425 3,813,569 gal 11.7 acre-ft Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
225 E. College Ave-2 72 14 21 192 245 569 539 549 1029 660 1416 495 5,801 483 4,339,450 gal 13.3 acre-ft Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
245 W. Walnut 10 16 23 30 30 31 39 43 47 72 42 45 428 36 320,166 gal 1.0 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, across the street from Olive Street Elementary School / Porterville High School
255 W. Olive Ave-1 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 9.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 50 4.2 37,403 gal 0.1 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 255 W. Olive Ave-2 2.0 5.0 8.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 7.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 59 4.9 44,135 gal 0.1 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 255 W. Olive Ave-3 35 44 66 247 411 578 628 646 615 969 469 325 5,033 419 3,764,946 gal 11.6 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 255 W. Olive Ave-4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 12 31 37 41 37 54 29 18 264 22 197,486 gal 0.6 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School 261 E. Mulberry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 27 2.3 20,197 gal 0.1 acre-ft Citrus High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 261 E. Mulberry-2 3.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 2.0 43 3.6 32,166 gal 0.1 acre-ft Citrus High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 271 E. College Ave 104 31 0.0 257 346 535 1487 754 929 810 1028 77 6,358 530 4,756,115 gal 14.6 acre-ft Pioneer Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville College
286 E. Orange Ave 58 0.0 0.0 71 146 673 813 826 817 916 1008 71 5,399 450 4,038,733 gal 12.4 acre-ft Santa Fe Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Heritage Community Center.
286 E. Orange Ave-1 13 26 22 54 46 40 2.0 20 22 38 59 24 366 31 273,787 gal 0.8 acre-ft Santa Fe Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Heritage Community Center.
335 N. G St 19 25 39 67 166 322 259 308 323 442 452 131 2,553 213 1,909,777 gal 5.9 acre-ft Bartlett Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
347 N. Kessing St 8.0 11 14 235 448 555 522 92 17 21 0.0 0.0 1,923 160 1,438,504 gal 4.4 acre-ft Bartlett Middle School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
388 N. Roche St 30 38 50 46 64 53 8.0 11 42 40 53 36 471 39 352,332 gal 1.1 acre-ft Roche Avenue Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 2017 Porterville Unified School District - Water Usage (100 cuft unless stated otherwise)

388 N. Roche St LS 45 58 56 36 138 231 273 270 285 255 379 196 2,222 185 1,662,172 gal 5.1 acre-ft Roche Avenue Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 465 W. Olive Ave 254 321 332 498 856 717 797 532 822 1159 1106 499 7,893 658 5,904,374 gal 18.1 acre-ft Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Olive Street Elementary 465 W. Olive Ave-1 160 32 11 198 948 1899 2645 2219 2699 2646 1786 729 15,972 1,331 11,947,887 gal 36.7 acre-ft Porterville High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Olive Street Elementary 500 E. Mulberry 1.0 0.0 0.0 332 504 565 1031 1009 953 1259 1291 681 7,626 636 5,704,645 gal 17.5 acre-ft Los Robles Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 500 E. Mulberry LS 34 51 110 71 63 58 6.0 8.0 63 73 72 63 672 56 502,691 gal 1.5 acre-ft Los Robles Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 534 N. E St 0.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 4.0 53 4.4 39,647 gal 0.1 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 534 N. E St-2 3.0 5.0 6.0 9.0 6.0 12 6.0 6.0 12 10 13 6.0 94 7.8 70,317 gal 0.2 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line 600 W. Grand 1.0 15 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 47 79 6.6 59,096 gal 0.2 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
605 W. Memory Ln 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 42 3.5 31,418 gal 0.1 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
606 W. Memory Ln 13 14 7.0 11 14 20 16 14 17 15 18 6.0 165 14 123,429 gal 0.4 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
632 W. Grand Ave 11 11 13 15 14 20 37 31 27 31 34 5.0 249 21 186,265 gal 0.6 acre-ft Porterville Unified School District - District Offices, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
645 N. Prospect 2.0 6.0 7.0 44 48 63 78 88 69 106 93 26 630 53 471,273 gal 1.4 acre-ft Prospect Education Center School w/ ~0.2 acres of green area, within the 1- mile buffer
645 N. Prospect-1 1.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 59 4.9 44,135 gal 0.1 acre-ft Prospect Education Center School w/ ~0.2 acres of green area, within the 1- mile buffer
701 W. Westfield Ave 14 34 65 66 48 42 5.0 8.0 39 44 58 46 469 39 350,836 gal 1.1 acre-ft Monte Vista School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
701 W. Westfield Ave LS 35 1.0 2.0 155 359 571 771 930 931 859 1122 546 6,282 524 4,699,263 gal 14.4 acre-ft Monte Vista School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
900 W. Pioneer 51 58 89 114 71 81 56 146 82 81 132 59 1,020 85 763,013 gal 2.3 acre-ft Butterfield Charter High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
900 W. Pioneer-2 2.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 3.0 53 4.4 39,647 gal 0.1 acre-ft Butterfield Charter High School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line)
91 S. F St 10 12 30 25 25 14 2.0 19 10 30 21 25 223 19 166,816 gal 0.5 acre-ft Olive Street Elementary School, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line (but nearly at the 1-mile line), Adjacent to Porterville High School E. Harrison 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 10 8.0 8.0 66 5.5 49,371 gal 0.2 acre-ft ??? MHS Henderson 235 399 498 420 662 294 503 470 529 614 373 334 5,331 444 3,987,865 gal 12.2 acre-ft Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer MHS Landscape 76 0.0 0.0 1465 894 1884 3879 3293 2703 2508 889 1915 19,506 1,626 14,591,502 gal 44.8 acre-ft Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer MHS Mulberry 1.0 1.0 1.0 114 104 156 230 310 281 325 152 26 1,701 142 1,272,436 gal 3.9 acre-ft Monache High School, within the 1-mile buffer TOTAL (100 cuft) 1,903 2,055 2,501 7,321 9,835 13,570 20,468 19,373 22,247 21,379 17,131 8,579 146,362 TOTAL (acre-ft) 4.4 4.7 5.7 16.8 22.6 31.2 47.0 44.5 51.1 49.1 39.3 19.7 336 109,486,387 gal 336 acre-ft

Address Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 2017 Total
Monthly
Average
Annual
Consumption
Annual
Consumption Notes
1155 N ELDERWOOD ST 40 0.0 0.0 702 1355 114 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,211 184 1,653,943 gal 5.1 acre-ft Burton Middle School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
1155 N ELDERWOOD-1 2.0 22 15 21 21 3.0 0.0 10 8.0 16 24 15 157 13 117,444 gal 0.4 acre-ft Burton Middle School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
1509 N LOMBARDI ST 236 242 250 545 490 559 1002 921 848 690 710 135 6628 552 4,958,089 gal 15.2 acre-ft Summit Charter Academy Lombardi Campus, >1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
1509 N LOMBARDI ST-2 17 21 39 35 25 10 8.0 11 13 13 16 8.0 216 18 161,579 gal 0.5 acre-ft Summit Charter Academy Lombardi Campus, >1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
15550 REDWOOD ST 216 0.0 338 1215 658 1137 2374 1017 1323 597 1641 3.0 10519 877 7,868,759 gal 24.1 acre-ft Summit Charter Collegiate Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 15550 REDWOOD ST-2 41 78 68 91 56 20 7.0 31 64 85 107 56 704 59 526,629 gal 1.6 acre-ft Summit Charter Collegiate Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 175 S MATHEW ST 10 23 30 38 25 6.0 2.0 14 28 40 35 18 269 22 201,226 gal 0.6 acre-ft Summit Charter Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 1885 W MULBERRY 38 51 51 76 89 57 101 190 141 162 175 96 1227 102 917,860 gal 2.8 acre-ft Oak Grove Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 2283 W MORTON AVE 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 17 1.4 12,717 gal 0.0 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 2440 W HENDERSON AVE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.2 1,496 gal 0.0 acre-ft The River Church w/ ~5.25 acres of green area, within the 1-mile buffer 2440 W HENDERSON AVE-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 gal 0.0 acre-ft The River Church w/ ~5.25 acres of green area, within the 1-mile buffer 252 N WESTWOOD ST 0.0 0.0 0.0 99 391 281 844 847 887 878 749 441 5417 451 4,052,198 gal 12.4 acre-ft Jim Maples Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 252 N WESTWOOD ST-2 0.0 0.0 0.0 88 338 234 813 841 901 837 704 323 5079 423 3,799,356 gal 11.7 acre-ft Jim Maples Academy, within the 1-mile buffer 2573 W WESTFIELD AVE 10 41 46 44 48 11 2.0 18 44 43 50 37 394 33 294,732 gal 0.9 acre-ft William R Buckley Elementary School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
2573 W WESTFIELD AVE-2 14 15 18 280 376 495 878 546 784 753 302 18 4479 373 3,350,525 gal 10.3 acre-ft William R Buckley Elementary School, ~1 mile from the effluent line, near planned recharge basin and Friant-Kern canal
264 N WESTWOOD ST 3.0 7.0 5.0 22 73 45 47 51 105 68 70 46 542 45 405,444 gal 1.2 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 264 N WESTWOOD ST-1 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 11 16 24 13 35 33 154 13 115,200 gal 0.4 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 264 N WESTWOOD ST-2 37 40 76 133 263 146 229 164 237 225 252 275 2077 173 1,553,704 gal 4.8 acre-ft Burton Elementary School, within the 1-mile buffer 275 S MATHEW ST-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 533 262 481 734 715 570 761 800 3.0 4859 405 3,634,785 gal 11.2 acre-ft Summit Charter Academy, within the 1-mile buffer TOTAL (100 cuft) 665 541 938 3,930 4,480 3,613 7,052 5,393 5,977 5,181 5,671 1,510 44,951 TOTAL (acre-ft) 1.5 1.2 2.2 9.0 10.3 8.3 16.2 12.4 13.7 11.9 13.0 3.5 103 Park - # Address Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 2017 Total
Monthly
Average
Annual
Consumption
Annual
Consumption Notes
Barn-1 ? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 83 76 100 96 84 138 33 624 52 466,784 gal 1.4 acre-ft Barn Theater w/ ~0.7 acres of green area, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
Chase-1 356 E Chase Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 337 303 319 317 280 403 264 2224 185 1,663,668 gal 5.1 acre-ft Fallen Heroes Park, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Chase-2 356 E Chase Avenue 5.0 3.0 7.0 12 8.0 8.0 18 198 259 20 7.0 6.0 551 46 412,177 gal 1.3 acre-ft Fallen Heroes Park, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Golfcourse-1 702 E Isham Avenue 0.0 0.0 9.0 1830 2753 3885 5443 7074 7692 4218 3230 1054 37188 3,099 27,818,558 gal 85.4 acre-ft Porterville Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Golfcourse-2 702 E Isham Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 70 94 121 155 174 195 157 140 0.0 1106 92 827,346 gal 2.5 acre-ft Porterville Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Golfcourse-3 702 E Isham Avenue 6.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 18 18 10 12 12 0.0 0.0 103 8.6 77,049 gal 0.2 acre-ft Porterville Municipal Golf Course, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Hayes Field-1 945 W Mulberry Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 15 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 29 2.4 21,694 gal 0.1 acre-ft Hayes Field, within the 1-mile buffer Lime Street 855 N Lime Street 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 15 49 48 124 96 102 26 461 38 344,852 gal 1.1 acre-ft Olivewood Mini Park, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Main St Park 765 or 296 N Main Street 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 57 57 71 55 69 61 28 413 34 308,945 gal 0.9 acre-ft Main St Park (either 765 or 296 N Main St) Both addresses are >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line
Murry-1 500 E Putnam Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2527 0.0 2886 241 2,158,878 gal 6.6 acre-ft Murry Park, 500 E Putnam Avenue, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line, adjacent to Porterville Municipal Golf Course
OHV-1 2701 W Scranton Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 27 23 84 237 19 38 80 36 546 46 408,436 gal 1.3 acre-ft OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Sewer 4" ? 0.0 0.0 36 215 250 135 226 717 603 438 461 172 3253 271 2,433,413 gal 7.5 acre-ft OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Sports Plex-1 2701 W Scranton Avenue 83 55 93 906 7898 10491 9959 8231 7194 5443 6130 24 56507 4,709 42,270,174 gal 129.7 acre-ft OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer 2017 City Parks - Water Usage (100 cuft unless stated otherwise) 2017 Burton School District - Water Usage (100 cuft unless stated otherwise) 33,625,685 gal 103 acre-ft

Sports Plex-2 2701 W Scranton Avenue 0.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 17 1.4 12,717 gal 0.0 acre-ft OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Sports Plex-3 2701 W Scranton Avenue 5.0 2.0 7.0 17 10 6.0 9.0 13 9.0 13 11 1.0 103 8.6 77,049 gal 0.2 acre-ft OHV Park and Porterville Sports Complex, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-1 1501 W Henderson Avenue 0.0 0.0 14 4.0 556 -798 1408 1534 952 996 827 0.0 5493 458 4,109,050 gal 12.6 acre-ft Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-2 1501 W Henderson Avenue 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 108 124 221 244 143 135 124 0.0 1101 92 823,605 gal 2.5 acre-ft Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-3 1501 W Henderson Avenue 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 439 383 682 743 436 449 290 0.0 3423 285 2,560,582 gal 7.9 acre-ft Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-4 1501 W Henderson Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 184 213 373 407 242 243 167 0.0 1829 152 1,368,187 gal 4.2 acre-ft Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Vetrans-5 1501 W Henderson Avenue 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 154 229 392 635 244 376 260 0.0 2297 191 1,718,275 gal 5.3 acre-ft Veterans Park, within the 1-mile buffer Zalud-1 700 N El Granito Street 1.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 315 1265 1500 1614 1503 1059 678 365 8307 692 6,214,068 gal 19.1 acre-ft Zalud Park, 700 N El Granito Street, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line Zalud-2 700 N El Granito Street 4.0 3.0 6.0 16 12 8.0 9.0 9.0 64 16 8.0 5.0 160 13 119,688 gal 0.4 acre-ft Zalud Park, 700 N El Granito Street, >1 mile from the WWTF or effluent line TOTAL (100 cuft) 111 70 183 3,097 13,223 16,605 20,985 22,379 20,161 14,146 15,646 2,015 128,621 TOTAL (acre-ft) 0.3 0.2 0.4 7.1 30.4 38.1 48.2 51.4 46.3 32.5 35.9 4.6 295 Account Name & Service Address Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 May 2017 Jun 2017 Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 2017
Total
(unit =
748 gal)
2017
Total (gal)
2017
Total (ac-ft)
49-00095-02
Tulare Co Jr
Livestock Show
2700 W Tea Pot Dome Ave 0.00 0.00 0.00 482.00 168.00 290.00 322.00 324.00 137.00 764.00 784.00 0.00 3,271 2,446,708 7.51 43-02810-01
Porterville
Veteran
Memorial
1900 W Olive Avenue 10.00 10.00 17.00 63.00 56.00 49.00 78.00 64.00 57.00 49.00 51.00 37.00 541 404,668 1.24 36-10194-01
City of
Porterville
2411 W Porter Creek Ave 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 118.00 75.00 112.00 112.00 122.00 140.00 163.00 90.00 993 742,764 2.28 36-03100-00
Holiday
Retirement Site
(Sierra Hills)
2500 W Henderson Ave 0.00 0.00 0.00 262.00 428.00 557.00 483.00 507.00 542.00 602.00 515.00 330.00 4,226 3,161,048 9.70 96,215,196 gal 295 acre-ft
Miscellaneous Connections

2017 Caltrans
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Annual
Units
Monthly
Average
Annual
Consumpt
ion in MG
(gal?)
Hwy 190 & Main 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Henderson & Hwy 65 0 0 0 16 81 159 237 267 132 95 328 196 1511 125.92 1,130,228 S/W Olive & Hwy 65 0 0 0 0 140 150 308 211 270 104 292 114 1589 132.42 1,188,572 Poplar E of Halsey 0 0 0 8 138 180 311 319 282 218 131 58 1645 137.08 1,230,460 Hwy 190 & S. Jaye 0 0 0 0 21 179 226 243 91 228 278 87 1353 112.75 1,012,044 1331 S. Second St. 13 13 17 13 1 28 38 15 18 5 61 12 234 19.50 175,032 N. Porter & Tomah 0 0 0 0 118 208 60 357 340 258 352 163 1856 154.67 1,388,288 1331 S. Second St. 6 3 5 6 4 13 9 10 9 4 2 2 73 6.08 54,604 190 Hwy East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Hwy 65 & Mulberry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Olive W. of Union St. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Hwy 190 & Cottage St. 0 0 0 0 60 68 159 214 110 149 112 87 959 79.92 717,332 Hwy 65 & Henderson 0 0 0 0 112 73 152 89 35 99 191 100 851 70.92 636,548 TOTAL (100 cuft) 19 16 22 43 675 1,058 1,500 1,725 1,287 1,160 1,747 819 10,071 839 TOTAL (ac-ft) 0.044 0.037 0.051 0.099 1.549 2.429 3.443 3.960 2.954 2.663 4.010 1.880 23.118 1.927

APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021
Appendix C

COMMUNICATION WITH AGRICULTURAL

DISTRICTS CONFIRMING RECYCLED WATER

INTEREST AND CAPACITY

APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021
Appendix D

RECYCLED WATER ALTERNATIVES SCORING

Low Reliability/
Flexibility
(0-1)
Medium Reliability/
Flexibility
(2-3)
High Reliability/
Flexibility
(4-5)
Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 0
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 5
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 5
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 5 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 5 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
3 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
3 Treatment Reliability/ Flexibility
Low Reliability/
Flexibility
(0-1)
Medium Reliability/
Flexibility
(2-3)
High Reliability/
Flexibility
(4-5)
Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 0
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 3
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 3
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 4 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 5 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
4 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
5 Conveyance Reliability/ Flexibility/ Redundancy
Low Consistency
(0-1)
Medium Consistency
(2-3)
High Consistency
(4-5) Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 0
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 0
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 0
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 0
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 0
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 5 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 5 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
5 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
5 Consistency with City's Water Supply Portfolio Goal
Low Beneficial Use
(0-1)
Medium Beneficial Use
(2-3)
High Beneficial Use
(4-5) Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 0
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 1
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 1
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 3
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 5 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 5 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
5 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
5 Higher Beneficial Use of Recycled Water
Low Potential
(0-1)
Medium Potential
(2-3)
High Potential
(4-5) Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 5
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 3
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 3
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 2 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 2 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
2 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
2 Potential Environmental Issues
High Potential for
Hurdles
(0-1)
Medium Potential for
Hurdles
(2-3)
Little to No Potential
for Hurdles
(4-5)
Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 1
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 4
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 4
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 4
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 4
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 2 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 2 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
2 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
2 Regulatory
High Potential for
Hurdles
(0-1)
Medium Potential for
Hurdles
(2-3)
Little to No Potential
for Hurdles
(4-5)
Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 5
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 5
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 5
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 5
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 5
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 3 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 3 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
3 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
3 Legal & Institutional
Most Time to
Implement
(0-1)
Medium Time to
Implement
(2-3)
Least Time to
Implement
(4-5)
Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 5
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 3
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 3
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 3
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 3 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 3 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
3 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
3 Time to Implement
Low Flexibility
(0-1)
Medium Flexibility
(2-3)
High Flexibility
(4-5) Input score (0-5)
1 No Project 0
2a Restricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 1
2b Restricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 1
3a Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (MBR) 2
3b Unrestricted Irrigation on City Land (CAS) 2
4a Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Separate Effluent Pump Stations 5 4b Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District -MBR, Split Disinfection and Combined Effluent Pump Stations 5 4c
Unrestricted Irrigation at Agricultural District - CAS with Split Tertiary/Disinfection & Separate Effluent Pump
Stations
5 4d
Unrestricted Irrigation with Irrigation District -CAS with Centralized Tertiary/Disinfection & Combined Effluent
Pump Stations
5 Reuse Flexibility/ Adaptability

APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021
Appendix E

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR UV OPTIONS

Porterville, CA
Direct Cost Adders
Contingency 30 %General Conditions 15 %Contractor Overhead & Profit 12 %Sales Tax on Direct Costs 8.5 % RW Feasibility Study Alt # 4a 4a 4b 4c 4c 4d 3a 3b
RW Feasibility Study Trtmt + capacity MBR 10 MGD MBR 5 mgd MBR 10 MGD CAS 10 MGD CAS 5 MGD CAS 17 MGD CAS 7 MGD MBR 7 MGD Description
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
LBX1500
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
LBX1500
Option 1A Option 1B Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 4 Option X Option Y Equipment CostsUV Disinfection System (Complete) $1,080,000 $755,000 $855,000 $1,890,000 $1,080,000 $2,350,000 $1,470,000 $680,000 Total Equipment Costs: $1,080,000 $755,000 $855,000 $1,890,000 $1,080,000 $2,350,000 $1,470,000 $680,000 Construction Costs (Estimated)DemolitionCivil/Mechanical Electrical & InstrumentationRoof Shelter/Davit Crane Building for Electrical Equipment Sub-Total: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency (30%): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Conditions (15%): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor Overhead & Profit (12%): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Construction Costs: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sub-Total (Equip.+ Constr.): $4,320,000 $3,020,000 $2,993,000 $7,560,000 $4,320,000 $9,400,000 $5,880,000 $2,380,000 Sales Tax (8.5%): $367,000 $257,000 $254,000 $643,000 $367,000 $799,000 $500,000 $202,000 Total: $4,687,000 $3,277,000 $3,247,000 $8,203,000 $4,687,000 $10,199,000 $6,380,000 $2,582,000 Construction / Equipment Cost Ratio 4.00 4.00 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 Construction Costs

APPENDICES | RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE FINAL | APRIL 2021
Appendix F

O&M COST BASIS FOR UV

RW Feasibility Study Alt # 4a 4a 4b 4c 4c 4d 3a 3b
RW Feasibility Study Trtmt + capacity MBR 10 MGD MBR 5 mgd MBR 10 MGD CAS 10 MGD CAS 5 MGD CAS 17 MGD CAS 7 MGD MBR 7 MGD Porterville, CA
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
LBX1500
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
Duron
WEDECO
LBX1500
Option 1A Option 1B Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 4 Option X Option Y Equipment Costs (Estimates)
UV Disinfection System 1,080,000 755,000 855,000 1,890,000 1,080,000 2,350,000 1,470,000 680,000 Total Equipment Costs: $ 1,080,000 $ 755,000 $ 855,000 $ 1,890,000 $ 1,080,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 1,470,000 $ 680,000 Operation and Maintenance Cost Information
Power Consumption
Power Consumption (kW) at Average Conditions(1) 65.3 33.62 47.04 112.90 68.00 208.32 175.10 47.04 Lamp and Ballast Power Consumption at Full Power, all
Lamps (kW) 244.8 163.2 158.4 440.64 244.8 587.52 342.72 118.8 Ancillary Power Consumption per Power Distribution
Center (PDC) (Power Supplies, Air Conditioners, Fans,
etc.) (kW) 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Total Number of PDC's 9 6 8 15 9 20 12 6
(PLC, HMI, Power Supplies, Air Conditioner, Fans, etc.) (kW) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Maximum Power Consumption (kW) 246.8 165.2 160.4 442.6 246.8 589.5 344.7 120.8 Lamp Replacement
Total Number of Lamps in System 360 240 480 648 360 864 504 360 Number of Lamps Operating at Average Conditions(1) 96 72 240 192 100 336 288 240 Guaranteed Lamp Life (hours) 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 Lamp Replacement Cost $300 $300 $150 $300 $300 $300 $300 $150 Ballast Replacement
Total Number of Ballasts in System 180 120 240 324 180 432 252 180 Guaranteed Ballast Life (years) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Ballast Replacement Cost $750 $750 $500 $750 $750 $750 $750 $500 Quartz Sleeve Replacement
Total number of Quartz Sleeves in System 360 240 480 648 360 864 504 360 Guaranteed Quartz Sleeve Life (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Quartz Sleeve Replacement Cost $350 $350 $125 $350 $350 $350 $350 $125 UV Intensity Sensor Replacement
Total Number of UV Intensity Sensors in System 15 10 8 27 18 36 21 6 Guaranteed UV Sensor Life (years) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 UV Intensity Sensor Replacement Cost $750 $750 $850 $750 $750 $750 $750 $850 Annual Cost for Duty and Reference Sensors Calibration $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 Cleaning System - Wiper Replacement Cost
Total Number of Automatic Cleaning Wipers in System 720 480 960 1296 720 1728 1008 720 Guaranteed Wiper Life (years) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Wiper Replacement Cost $40 $40 $20 $40 $40 $40 $40 $20
$200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200
factors in your calculations.

Description
Annual Cost for Automatic Cleaning System Consumables
(Cleaning Solution, etc.)
transmittance. Use the design End of Lamp Life and Fouling Notes: (1) Average Conditions is defined as the average flow rate and an average UV

Item No. 6.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Distribute Request for Qualifications for Engineered Plans and Specifications for the Santa Fe Sportsplex
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: City staff has worked with the design firm currently preparing the Library Project to develop a master plan layout for the Santa Fe Sportsplex. The master plan envisions a multi-field recreational complex that includes minipitch soccer fields, pickleball courts, multi-sport courts, a playground, restrooms, an amphitheater, and parking.

To advance this project into the design phase, staff issued a task order request to the City’s On-Call Engineering list. Only one response was received. In order to ensure a competitive process and secure a qualified engineering firm, staff is requesting authorization to distribute a Request for Qualifications for the preparation of engineered plans and specifications for the Sportsplex.

Firms that submit qualifications will be reviewed and rated by a selection panel. The highest ranking firms may be invited to participate in interviews, followed by a final ranking. Staff will present the results to the City Council and seek direction to negotiate a fee with the highest ranked firm. If an agreement on scope and cost is reached, staff will return to the City Council for approval to execute a Service Agreement.

Funding for this project is available through the National Park Service Grant and Community Development Block Grant programs.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications for engineered plans and specifications for the Santa Fe Sportsplex Project.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Master Plan Layout - Santa Fe Sportsplex Appropriated/Funded:

Item No. 6.

Review By:

Department Director:

Javier Sanchez, Engineering & Project Management Director Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

LIBRARY
FUTURE

AMPHITHEATER
Item No. 7.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization of Transit Consulting Services from Moy and Associates SOURCE: Transportation
COMMENT: The Transportation Department is requesting authorization to purchase transit marketing materials, updated passenger information signage, and related technical assistance from Ellon Moy, doing business as Moy and Associates.

These materials are needed to support the upcoming transit service changes scheduled for early 2026 and will ensure that riders receive accurate, consistent, and accessible information throughout the transit system.

Moy and Associates has prepared all recent Porterville Transit marketing and communication materials and has developed a strong working knowledge of the City’s branding, design standards, and service structure. Engaging a different consultant at this stage would require redevelopment of templates, system maps, and branding elements, resulting in higher costs and delays during a period when timely completion is critical.

The total value of the proposed work is approximately $10,000. This qualifies as a micro-purchase under federal procurement thresholds, which allow purchases of $15,000 or less to be awarded without competitive quotations when the price is determined to be fair and reasonable. Staff has reviewed the anticipated scope of work and finds the pricing consistent with similar services previously provided by Moy and Associates.

If approved, Moy and Associates will submit a formal quote for the defined scope of work. Staff will issue a purchase order in compliance with federal micro-purchase requirements and authorize the work to proceed. Funding is available in the Transportation Department budget, with no anticipated impact on the General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize a purchase with Moy and Associates for transit marketing materials, signage updates, and technical assistance in an amount not to exceed $10,000; and

2. Authorize staff to approve the vendor’s quote and proceed Item No. 7.
with the work.

ATTACHMENTS:

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Russell Isom, Director of Transportation
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Item No. 8.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization for REACH Air Medical Services to Proceed with Design and Permitting for Proposed Helipad and Staff Quarters at the Porterville Municipal Airport
SOURCE: Transportation
COMMENT: REACH Air Medical Services currently operates from a hangar at the Porterville Municipal Airport and desires to construct a dedicated helipad and staff quarters directly adjacent to their existing leased facility. This improvement would significantly enhance REACH’s operational readiness, reduce response times, and strengthen emergency medical transport capabilities for the entire Porterville region.

At present, REACH cannot fully advance the project because the Airport’s Master Ground Lease Agreement is under review by the Airport Committee.

The Committee is evaluating necessary updates to the agreement, including development standards, lease terms, and insurance requirements. It is anticipated that this review will be completed and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council by late January or February 2026.

To maintain project momentum and avoid unnecessary delays, staff is requesting City Council authorization for REACH to begin preliminary design, site planning, and permitting activities at their own cost and risk. This action allows REACH to work through technical requirements, coordinate with Airport staff, and prepare submittals for eventual approval once the updated lease template is adopted.

This authorization does not grant approval for construction or site disturbance.

REACH will be permitted only to begin design-related work that positions the project for timely execution following City Council approval of a new ground lease agreement. All final agreements, plans, and construction activities will return to the City Council for consideration and must receive legal approval from the City Attorney.

This approach allows a critical public safety project to progress while ensuring the City’s interests remain protected as the Master Ground Lease Agreement is finalized.

Item No. 8.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize REACH Air Medical Services to proceed with design, site planning, and permitting of a proposed helipad and staff quarters adjacent to their existing leased hangar at the Porterville Municipal Airport while the Airport Committee completes its review of the Master Ground Lease Agreement; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to take actions necessary to facilitate coordination, pending final approval of all agreements by the City Attorney.

ATTACHMENTS:

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Russell Isom, Director of Transportation
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Item No. 9.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization for the Transfer of a Police Department Vehicle to the Public Works Department - Water Division
SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: On July 15, 2025, the City Council authorized the Police Department to negotiate the purchase of police vehicles and associated equipment. As part of this authorization, the City purchased a 2025 Chevy Silverado 2500 to replace Police Department unit #3325. Following further evaluation of operational needs, staff has determined that this vehicle would be better utilized within the Public Works Department – Water Division to support field operations and improve efficiency.

Because the vehicle will be reassigned, the funding source must be updated to reflect the division that will operate and maintain it. Staff is requesting authorization to reallocate the purchase cost from the General Fund Equipment Replacement Fund to the Water Replacement Fund. This adjustment ensures proper accounting with the department responsible for ongoing operation and maintenance.

The total cost of the vehicle and associated equipment is $79,153.69. Funds are available in the Water Replacement Fund, and no additional costs are associated with the transfer. This action results in an administrative reassignment and does not increase total expenditures previously approved by the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the transfer of the vehicle from the Police Department to the Public Works Department - Water Division; and

2. Approve the reallocation of the vehicle purchase cost to the Water Replacement Fund.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report - July 15, 2025
Item No. 9.

2. Vehicle and Equipment Invoices
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Robert Alvarez, Acting Public Works Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JULY 15, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Negotiate the Purchase of Police Vehicles and Associated Equipment
SOURCE: Police
COMMENT: Each year, the Police Department finds it necessary to replace aging vehicles in its fleet. A careful evaluation is made of each particular vehicle to determine the actual need for replacement. Department staff has conducted a thorough evaluation of the fleet, considering the age of the vehicles, mileage, maintenance costs, etc. In addition, the evaluation includes examining the assignment of vehicles to determine if reassignment of vehicles can increase overall efficiency and decrease costs.

As part of the evaluation, consideration was given to the fact that police vehicles and associated equipment still suffer from supply chain issues and locating vehicles. These issues have caused delays of several months, and sometimes years, to have a fully upfitted police vehicle deployed. The Police Department has been actively seeking out vendors for the purchase of vehicles and vendors who have the equipment to fully upfit them. The past practice of utilizing a single vendor for the purchase of police vehicles and /or a single vendor for the upfitting was also a factor in the delays. Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the Police Department to have the ability to utilize approved vendors for both the purchase and upfit as needed to ensure the timely deployment of the emergency vehicles into service to respond to critical incidents.

Department Staff have identified 10 vehicles within the fleet that are at the end of life and require replacement. The vehicles are:

Unit Vehicle Type

1. 3325 2012 Toyota Tundra

2. 3329 2014 Dodge Charger

3. 3338 2014 Dodge Charger

4. 3341 2016 Ford Explorer

5. 3343 2016 Ford Explorer

6. 3349 2016 Dodge Charger

7. 3375 2019 Dodge Charger (K9 vehicle)

8. 3335 2014 Dodge Charger

9. 3336 2014 Dodge Charger

10. 3339 2014 Dodge Charger
Staff is requesting authorization to replace these vehicles with nine (9) Ford Police Explorer Interceptors (or similar models) and one (1) pickup truck. These vehicle costs will have a total cost not to exceed $510,000, plus tax, license, and applicable fees. In addition to the vehicles themselves, department staff are requesting to upfit each vehicle with the necessary emergency equipment, modifications, radios, and other tools before placing the vehicles into service.

Some of the equipment from outgoing vehicles will be salvaged to reduce costs.

The upfit of the vehicles will be done by an approved vendor for a total cost of $280,000, plus tax and fees. In addition, the vehicles will require police radios from an approved vendor of choice, not to exceed a total cost of $57,000, plus tax.

All the vehicles and equipment will be funded through the Police Department's Equipment Replacement/Depreciation Fund, which funds are currently available. Due to the unique purchasing parameters, staff is requesting a 10% contingency based on the total purchasing price and upfitting.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize staff to purchase 10 police vehicles (9 Ford Police Explorer Interceptor models or similar, and one truck) to replace the noted vehicles from an approved vendor of choice, for a total cost not to exceed $510,000, which is based on the
Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price plus tax, license, and applicable fees;

2. Authorize staff to complete the upfitting of said new vehicles with emergency equipment, modification, and tools, from an approved vendor of choice, for a total cost of $280,000, plus tax and fees; and

3. Authorize staff to purchase ten police radios for the new vehicles from an approved vendor of choice, for a total cost of $57,000, plus tax.

ATTACHMENTS:

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Jake Castellow, Chief of Police
Final Approver: Richard Tree, Interim City Manager

Item No. 10.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Schedule Public Hearing for the Traffic Study Findings on Plano Street from State Route 190 to Worth Avenue
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: When an engineering and traffic survey—defined in CVC §§627 and 40802 and throughout the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD)—determines that the prima facie limits and traffic control devices are not appropriate for specific conditions on certain streets and intersections, the City may modify the speed limits and traffic control devices. These changes must be supported by the findings of the survey, which then authorize the enforcement of posted limits using radar and other electronic speedmeasuring devices, along with the installation of stop signs and traffic signals, etc.

A traffic study was recently completed on Plano Street from State Route 90 to Worth Avenue. Staff respectfully requests that the City Council authorize the scheduling of a public hearing for Tuesday, January 20, 2026, to review the findings of the traffic study and recommendations of the City Engineer.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, January 20, 2026, to review the traffic study findings for Plano Street from State Route 190 to Worth Avenue; and

2. Authorize the City Clerk to notice said hearing.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. PLANO ST - SR 190 TO WORTH AVE
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Javier Sanchez, Engineering & Project Management Director Item No. 10.

ENGINEERING DIVISION

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 NORTH MAIN STREET PORTERVILLE, CA. 93257
(559) 782-7462 PLANO STREET
SR 190 - WORTH AVENUE
HIGHWAY 190 S PLANO ST

E COLLEGE AVE

E WORTH AVE

SURVEY AREA
Item No. 11.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Adoption of Updated Seasonal and Part-Time Pay Rates for Fiscal Year 2025– 2026
SOURCE: Administrative Services
COMMENT: The California Department of Finance has made the determination to increase the California minimum wage from $16.50 to $16.90 per hour, effective January 1, 2026. This increase will directly affect the City's seasonal and parttime employee pay rates, so it is necessary to amend the Seasonal and PartTime Pay Rate Schedule.

In order to maintain consistency within the salary ranges and to avoid compaction between part-time classifications, staff is recommending an increase for those classifications in both minimum and maximum salary rates.

The proposed adjustments have been anticipated and accounted for during the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budgetary process.

To implement these changes, it is proposed that the City's Employee Pay and Benefit Plan, and Seasonal and Part-Time Pay Rates be amended by Resolution of the City Council. Attached for Council's reference is the current Seasonal & Part-Time Pay Rate Schedule, as well as the draft Resolution, and the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Pay Rate Schedule.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt the draft Resolution amending the City's Employee Pay and Benefit Plan, Seasonal and Part-Time rates; and

2. Authorize the Mayor to execute these and other documents necessary to implement the provisions hereof.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Seasonal and Part-Time Rates

3. Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Seasonal and Part-Time Rates
Item No. 11.

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Yuliana Andrade, Administrative Services Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. ____ - 2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PORTERVILLE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT

TO THE SEASONAL AND PART-TIME PAY RATES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Porterville has established a Schedule of Wages for Seasonal and Part-time Employees; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to amend the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Schedule for all Seasonal and Part-time positions in compliance with California’s minimum wage, and to maintain consistency within the salary and avoid compaction between classifications.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby approve the revised Schedule of Wages for Seasonal and Parttime Employees, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A”, effective January 1, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Porterville is hereby authorized to execute those documents as are necessary to implement the provisions hereof.
_______________________________
Greg Meister, Mayor
ATTEST:

Richard Tree, City Clerk
By: ____________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Chief Deputy City Clerk
1 APPENDIX A

SEASONAL AND PART TIME PAY RATES
2025-2026 Fiscal Year
Position Rate
Abatement Worker …………………………………………… $17.90-18.90/hour
Animal Shelter Technician…………………………………… $17.90 - $19.65/hour Clerical Aide…………………………………………………... $16.90 – $18.40/hour Kennel Technician……………………………………………. $16.90 – $18.40/hour Library Aide…………………………………………………….. $16.90 – $22.40/hour Lifeguard.……………………………………………………….. $16.90 – $18.90/hour
Lifeguard (Senior)……………………………………………… $18.90 – $21.90/hour Maintenance Aide …………………………………………... $16.90 – $18.40/hour Pool Cashier……………………………………………...…….. $16.90 – $18.40/hour Pool Manager…………………………………………….…… $21.90 – $25.90/hour
Pool Manager Assistant……………………………………… $20.40 – $23.40/hour Recreation Leader I………………………………………….. $16.90 – $18.40/hour Recreation Leader II…………………………………………. $18.40 – $20.90/hour Recreation Leader III………………………………………… $20.50 – $23.00/hour **Recreation Instructor………………………………….…… Percentage of Flat Rate Reserve Firefighter………………………………………..…... $16.90– $18.90/hour Sports Official/Umpire or Referee (Youth)…………..……. $16.90 – $25.40/game Sports Official/Umpire or Referee (Adult)…………..…….. $18.40 – $45.40/game Student Intern……………………………………………...…… $16.50 – $18.00/hour Zalud House Curator……………………………..………..….. $16.90 – $18.40/hour **Pay to be determined by the number of students enrolled and fees charged for selfsupporting classes and activities.

EXHIBIT A
68 SEASONAL AND PART TIME PAY RATES
Effective Date: March 5, 2025
Position Rate
Abatement Worker…………………………………………….. $17.50 /hour
Animal Shelter Technician…………………………………… $17.50 - $19.25/hour Encampment Maintenance Aide……………………….…. $17.00 - $18.50/hour Clerical Aide………………………………………………….... $16.50 – $18.00/hour Kennel Technician……………………………………………. $16.50 - $18.00/hour Library Aide…………………………………………………….. $16.50 – $22.00/hour Lifeguard.……………………………………………………….. $16.50 – $18.50/hour
Lifeguard (Senior)……………………………………………… $18.50 – $20.00/hour Maintenance Aide …………………………………………... $16.50 – $18.00/hour Pool Cashier……………………………………………...…….. $16.50 – $18.00/hour Pool Manager…………………………………………….…… $21.50 – $24.00/hour
Pool Manager Assistant……………………………………… $20.00 – $21.50/hour Recreation Leader I………………………………………….. $16.50 – $18.00/hour Recreation Leader II…………………………………………. $18.00 – $20.50/hour Recreation Leader III………………………………………… $20.50 – $23.00/hour **Recreation Instructor………………………………….…… Percentage of Flat Rate Reserve Firefighter………………………………………..…... $16.50 – $18.50/hour Sports Official/Umpire or Referee (Youth)…………..……. $16.50 – $25.00/hour Sports Official/Umpire or Referee (Adult)…………..…….. $18.00 – $45.00/game Student Intern……………………………………………...…… $16.50 – $18.00/hour Zalud House Curator…………………………..……………... $16.50 – $18.00/hour **Pay to be determined by the number of students enrolled and fees charged for selfsupporting classes and activities.

Item No. 12.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Appointment to the Library and Literacy Commission SOURCE: Administrative Services
COMMENT:

The Library and Literacy Commission is a seven-member advisory body that provides recommendations to the City Council on matters related to library and literacy services.

There is currently one vacancy on the Commission. The City Clerk’s Office has received an appointment application from Grant Wagner for the Council's consideration.

Staff recommends that the City Council review the application and consider making an appointment to the Library and Literacy Commission.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the appointment of Grant Wagner to the Library and Literacy Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2028.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Request for Appointment : Grant Wagner
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Yuliana Andrade, Administrative Services Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 13.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of Additional Amendments to the City Council Order of Business SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: At the City Council meeting of November 18, 2025, the City Council adopted revisions to the Order of Business section of the City Council's Procedural Handbook to improve the flow and efficiency of meetings, including the addition of a Council Comments section near the beginning of the general session and a reorganization of informational and commission reports.

Following the implementation of these changes, the Vice Mayor has requested that the City Council consider an additional amendment to include a second Council Comments section after Oral Communications. This proposed adjustment intends to support improved communication, allow Council Members an opportunity to address matters raised by the public during Oral Communications, and promote transparency in decision-making.

As revisions to the Order of Business must be adopted by resolution, staff recommends placing this item on the January 20, 2026, agenda, where a revised resolution will be presented for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Vice Mayor’s request to consider amending the City Council Order of Business and direct staff to place the item on the January 20, 2026 City Council meeting agenda.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report - November 18, 2025
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Richard Tree, City Manager
Item No. 13.

Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Item No. 13.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – NOVEMBER 18, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendments to the City Council Procedural Handbook SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: At the City Council meeting of November 4, 2025, the City Council discussed potential amendments to the City Council Procedural Handbook to improve the flow and efficiency of meetings and to clarify certain administrative and policy provisions.

As part of that discussion, Vice Mayor McKervey recommended modifying the Order of Business by moving Informational Reports and Committee and Commission Reports before Oral Communications. Mayor Meister also requested the addition of a Council Comments section at the beginning of the general session before Oral Communications.

The City Attorney reviewed the Procedural Handbook and suggested additional updates to ensure consistency with applicable law and current practices. These include clarifications to Section F regarding Council Member meetings with members of the public, as well as revisions to Appendix F – Social Media Policy.

Both redlined versions are attached for Council review and consideration.

The attached Draft Resolution revises the Order of Business consistent with the City Council’s direction and rescinds Resolution No. 08-2023. Upon adoption, the approved amendments will be incorporated into the next edition of the City Council Procedural Handbook.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached Draft Resolution revising the Order of Business and rescinding Resolution No. 08-2023;

2. Approve the updated Appendix F (Social Media Policy) as reviewed and recommended by the City Attorney; and

3. Approve the updated City Council Procedural Handbook incorporating the redline amendments, including the clarification to Section F.

Item No. 13.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. November 04, 2025 Staff Report

2. Draft Resolution - Order of Business

3. City Council Handbook_Redline_2025

4. Appendix F - Social Media Policy_Redline
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Richard Tree, City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Item No. 14.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Status and Review of Declaration of Local Flood Emergency SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: On March 13, 2023, former Mayor Martha A. Flores, in conjunction with Acting City Manager Patrice Hildreth, declared the existence of a local emergency within the City of Porterville. This declaration was made pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Porterville Municipal Code and in response to a series of storm systems impacting the Porterville area, increasing flows in the Tule River and posing a significant threat to life and property. The City Council ratified the declaration at its Special Meeting on March 17, 2023, in accordance with the California Emergency Services Act (Government Code § 8558 et seq.). Per State requirements, the declaration must be renewed every sixty (60) days to remain in effect. At its most recent meeting on December 2, 2025, the Council renewed the emergency declaration.

Staff continues to work with FEMA to resolve outstanding claims and identify a timeline and path forward. In an effort to reduce the size of the agenda binder while still keeping the Council informed, staff is including only the most current Armory Census as an attachment to this report. Once the declaration of local flood emergency is officially concluded, and in coordination with FEMA guidance, staff will prepare a final close-out report that includes all supporting documentation and attachments currently on file.

Chronology of Emergency Response Actions:
• March 10–19, 2023: Tulare County Sheriff and City officials issued a series of evacuation warnings and mandatory orders due to rising water levels and flood threats, including areas near Success Lake, River Springs Drive, and Rio Vista Avenue.
• March 13, 2023: The City declared a Local Emergency.
• March 15–25, 2023: City Public Works performed extraordinary flood mitigation efforts. Evacuation orders were adjusted based on river activity.
• March 17, 2023: The City Council ratified the emergency declaration. • April 11, 2023: The Temporary Evacuation Point (TEP) and Emergency Shelter relocated from Porterville College to the Porterville Armory.

Item No. 14.
• April 14–May 5, 2023: The City and County executed an MOU to continue Armory TEP operations without Cal OES funding. • May 5, 2023: The City assumed full operational and financial responsibility for the Armory site.
• May 16, 2023: The Council approved a one-year no-cost license agreement for exclusive use of the Armory.
• April–July 2023:
o Council approved emergency expenditures including water rescue equipment, mobile ADA-compliant restrooms, and flood mitigation services.
o Due to contract violations, TopKnotch Security was terminated and replaced by Good Guard Security for ongoing Armory safety services.
• State and Federal Declarations:
o Governor Newsom issued Executive Orders N-6-23, N-7-23, and N-10-23 to support flood response and recovery.
o President Biden’s Major Disaster Declaration (April 3, 2023) activated federal recovery funding; FEMA formally closed the incident period on July 10, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive the report of status and review of the Declaration of Local Emergency and determine the need exists to continue said Declaration.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Armory Census Stats
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Richard Tree, City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 15.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – DECEMBER 16, 2025
SUBJECT: River Springs Plan Development
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: The City of Porterville received an application for a proposed land division for the River Springs Residential development project (Project), and on December 31, 2019, staff met with the applicant during the Project Review Committee (PRC), where the assessment of the Project (PRC 2019-040) commenced.

During the PRC meeting, staff provided comments pertaining to the proposed project, which outlined the entitlement process and the department’s development standards. The developer resubmitted updated maps for the site and met with staff through PRC on December 22, 2021, and on April 5, 2023.

The Project consists of a tentative subdivision map for the development of APN 259-030-030, an approximately 27.95-acre parcel located north of the Tule River, between Newcomb Street and South Beverly Street. The site is zoned PD (Planned Development) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of RS-2 (Low Density Residential) and Parks and Recreation (PK).

The Development would generally include the subdivision of the Project Site into 82 lots for residential development, with the construction of interior private streets and necessary onsite infrastructure, and improvements within the abutting major street right-of-way.

The map proposes lots ranging from 2,504± SF to 8,102± SF and is currently slated to be developed in three phases. To facilitate the project, approval of a Planned Development Plan is required. The proposed map and PD Plan are consistent with the Porterville Development Code, Series 400: Land Division regulations. Circulation is provided through the planned private internal streets. The subdivision provides four points of ingress and egress on River Springs Drive with a short cul-de-sac of Greenwood Street connecting to S.

Beverly Street. The subdivision consists of short blocks, which tend to slow traffic and enhance pedestrian connectivity within the proposed development.

The area containing Lots 75 through 85 is in the process of a Letter of Map Amendment with FEMA regarding the Floodway, until that is approved by FEMA the City can not approve development in that area, as referenced in Attached in Draft Tentative Subdivision Map Resolution 40(f).

Item No. 15.

The Project’s gross density is approximately 7.62 units per acre, which is above the maximum of 6.0 units per acre allowed in the Low-Density Residential Land Use designation. However, the project also proposes to include eight (8) deedrestricted lots to be available to moderate- and lower-income households.

This qualifies it for a Density Bonus, allowing it to exceed the otherwise allowable General Plan and zoning density. Further, it qualifies for an incentive or concession under the Density Bonus Law, and the applicant has requested that parking for the affordable units not be required to be covered.

Staff believes that it is a reasonable concession. The Project Site is surrounded by basin residences to the north, Tule River to the south, with residential development to the East and West. The Project’s development pattern is compatible with the area and falls well within the prescribed density mandated by the City’s General Plan.

The surrounding land use to the north is developed with a storm basin, to the south, the Tule River, and east and west developed with residential subdivisions. Based on review of the application materials, requested entitlements, and submitted tentative map, the proposed project serves to fulfill the goals and policies of the General Plan as adopted. The Porterville General Plan land use description for Low-Density Residential is to provide an area for attached or detached single-family homes and typical single-family subdivisions. The maximum residential density is 6.0 units per gross acre. The General Plan promotes a mix of residential densities and compact neighborhood design. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes Guiding Policies, which include guiding new development into compact neighborhoods and providing sufficient land with appropriate parcel sizes to support a full range of housing types.

The Porterville Development Ordinance provides that the purpose of the Planned Development zone district is to:
a. Establish a procedure for development on large lots of land in order to reduce or eliminate the rigidity, delays, and conflicts that otherwise would result from application of zoning standards and procedures designed primarily for small lots.
b. Ensure orderly and thorough planning and review procedures that will result in quality urban design.
c. Promote variety and avoid monotony in large developments by allowing greater freedom in selecting the means to provide access, light, open space, and amenities.
d. Ensure allocation and improvement of common open space in residential areas, and provide for maintenance of the open space at the expense of those directly benefiting from it.
e. Facilitate the assembly of properties that might otherwise be developed in unrelated increments to the detriment of surrounding neighborhoods.

Item No. 15.
f. Provide for the integration and administration of Specific Plans, adopted pursuant to State law, into the City’s land use regulations.

The Development Ordinance further defines findings that must be met in order to achieve the PD Zone District. A PD Plan shall only be approved if all of the following findings are made:
a. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, including the density and intensity limitations that apply;
b. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses and all setbacks, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking area, loading areas, landscape, and other features required;
c. Adequate transportation facilities and public services exist or will be provided in accord with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development; and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of traffic levels of service or public services so as to be a detriment to public health, safety, or welfare;
d. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding land uses and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area;
e. The improvements required and the manner of development adequately address all natural and man-made hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site, including, but not limited to, flood, fire, and seismic or soils hazards; and f. The proposed development provides a more efficient use of the land and superior architecture and site design compared to that which could be achieved through the application of the zoning district regulations that otherwise would apply.

The project, as proposed, is consistent with the findings for a Planned Development, would accommodate the atypical configuration of parcels, include parkway trees, allow passive recreation, and include a pedestrian bridge connecting the project to adjacent neighborhoods, and encourages walkability to the school campuses.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan. CEQA Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 contain provisions allowing for streamlined environmental review for certain projects that are consistent with the General Plan if an environmental impact report was certified for the General Plan. For such projects, the City must only examine whether impacts resulting from the project are greater than what Item No. 15.
was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Based on the results of the streamlined environmental checklist prepared by the applicant's consultant, the City has made the preliminary determination that, with implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan and mitigation included in the General Plan EIR, the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing to receive comments on the River Springs Residential Development Project; and

2. Adopt the Draft Resolution, adopting the streamlined CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15183; and

3. Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the Planned
Development PD Plan; and

4. Adopt Draft Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map with Conditions.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution - CEQA

2. Draft Resolution - Planned Development

3. Environmental Checklist for Streamlined Review-River Springs

4. Planned Development Plan

5. Draft Resolution - Tentative Subdivision Map

6. Tentative Subdivision Map River Springs
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Claudia Calderon, Community Development Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 1 of 2 ends

Porterville City CouncilDecember 16, 2025

Porterville City Council
December 16, 2025