Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/94 WATER Mark Salva~io~ Chair Conni Bmnni~ Vice-Ch~ir ~ndy Rowles MEETING NOTICE OF THE WATER BOARD OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1994 AT 4:30P.M. WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD, BAKERSFIELD, CA AGENDA 1). CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2). ROLL CALL - BOARD MEMBERS. 'i 3). APPROVE MINUTES OF WATER BOARD MEETING HELD MAY 11, 1994. 4). PUBLIC STATEMENTS. 5). DEFERRED BUSINESS. A. NORTHEAST WATER SUPPLY REPORT - PHASE II UPDATE. B. AGRICULTURAL/DOMESTIC WATER INTERFACE PROJECT. 6). NEW BUSINESS. A. DESIGNATE WATER BOARD MEMBER TO ATI'END URBAN PURVEYOR FACILITATION MEETING. 7). CLOSED SESSION A. GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9(b)(1); CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 54956.9 (ONE CASE). 8.) CLOSED SESSION ACTION. 9). ADJOURNMENT. POSTED: June 30, 1994 ENE~(GAR~A GB~ T,~ GER 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD ,, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 ,, (805) 326-3715 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Wednesday, May 11, 1994, 4:30 p.m., Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. I. The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Salvaggio 2. Present: Mark Salvaggio, Chair; Randy Rowles Absent: Conni Brunni, Vice-Chair 3. Boardmember Rowles made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held March 16, 1994. Motion approved. 4. A public statement was made by Mr. Joe Garone who spoke on the Upper Kern Island Water Association and the Kern Delta Water District's supply of old area water to the panhandle of the Kern Island sen, ice area. Mr. Garone asked for the City's support in protecting the water being taken from the old area to the panhandle area because it would be mutually beneficial to the City. Boardmember Rowles stated he would have a conflict of interest and would have to absent "" himself from the meeting if there was any further discussion or action taken on this item. Since it was not appropriate to discuss this item further, Boardmember Salvaggio thanked Mr. Garone and said that his request would be discussed in closed session. There were no further public statements. 5.A~ The 1994 Kern River yield and water supply projections were presented to the Board by Mr. Core. 1994 is forecasted to be 43% of normal and will yield 200,000 acre feet for the April-July period. The City will be using all 1994 entitlements plus Isabella carryover storage to meet City agricultural contract deliveries. The City will go into the fall season with little or no storage. There will be virtually no chance of having Kern River water in the river channel this summer. Board information, no action required or taken. 6.A. A letter from Rodney Powers, addressed to Boardmember Brunni and referred from City Council to the Water Board concerning Vaughn Mutual Water Company rates was presented by Alan Daniel, Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Daniel suggested that a letter be sent to Mr. Powers stating that the City has no direct control over Vaughn Water Company rates since they are a separate public entity, everyone in that district has voting fights and can approach their board to ask for an explanation or reduction of the water rates. Boardmember Rowles recommended a letter be written to Mr. Powers, stating the City's position, have Boardmember Brunni review before final signature and mailing. Board information, no action required or taken. .. 7.A. An agreement with Texaco, Inc. and North Kern Water Storage District for discharge of oilfield wastewater into the Beardsley-Lerdo Canal system was brought before the Board. Boardmember Rowles excused himself from discussion on this item due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Core explained the agreement was to substitute for an existing contract concerning oilfield discharge to the Beardsley-Lerdo Canal, with primary changes occurring in the method of calculating the discharge fee that will be based upon the quality of the water so discharged. Judy Skousen, Acting City Attorney, recommended that due to lack of quorum, this agreement go to City Council with no action by the Board. Board information, no action taken.. Boardmember Rowles returned to the meeting. 7.B. Mr. Core presented the 1994-95 Agricultural Water Price and Sand Sale Schedule for Board review. The recommended rates are in response to the forecasted dry year Kern River supplies. The Basic Contracts prices are unchanged at $20 per acre foot, miscellaneous surface water will be increased to $26 per acre foot and other categories will be changed to reflect contractual price escalators. Motion by Salvaggio to recommend City Manager to execute the Executive Order. Motion approved. 7.C. Mr. Core presented the 1994-1995 Domestic Water Rate Schedules to the Board. The schedules reflect rate increases that will go into effect on October 1, 1994 and April 1, 1995. These rates will increase the average monthly residential water bill by $0.62 in the fall and $0.62 next spring. The primary reasons for the increases are the imposition of higher pump taxes on the groundwater production and the lingering effects of the drought. A rate comparison chart showing the City's rates in comparison to other water company rates was included with the agenda package. Alan Tandy, City Manager, commented that if the rate increase is not approved it delays the City's ability to move forward and implement the Interface Project that will go a long way towards rate stabilization. Boardmember Rowles asked to suspend action on this item until later in the agenda. 7.D. Assembly Bill 2673 (Cortese) was brought before the Board by Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel commented that the Bill would give outside water purveyors or agencies more power and authority to impact the City's ability to prepare general plans or amendments to plans. Mr. Daniel recommended that a resolution or letter be sent, signed by the Water Board, to the legislature saying the City opposes this Bill. Boardmember Rowles felt that the City should plan its own water supplies and agreed that a letter of opposition be sent to our area state legislators as well as members of the assembly committee. Motion by Boardmember Rowles to prepare letter of opposition to AB2673 and letter be signed by the full Council and Mayor. Motion approved. 7.C. The Board returned to item 7.C. (the 1994-95 Domestic Water Rate Schedules). Boardmember Rowles commented that the ability to make rate changes based on other purveyor rates is inappropriate and that the City should make government services as efficient as possible. Boardmember Rowles also said he believes it is improper for City to raise water rates to recover win- lieu" fees and charges to the Domestic Water operations budget, but will support the motion to approve the new rate schedules because he didn't want to prevent the City from doing business. Motion by Salvaggio to recommend City Manager to execute the Executive Order. Motion approved. 7.E. Mr. Core presented to the Board a proposed financing program for completion of the Agricultural/Domestic Water Interface Project. Staff has asked the City Finance Department to explore the possibility of using loans, grants or bonding proceeds to complete the Interface Project. The basis of the Interface Project will be the ability of the City to store excess Kern River water in the n2800 Acres", recover the water through wells and distribute to customers of the City Domestic 2 Water System. The financing being discussed is for the last phase of the Project, the regulation/storage tank. Repayment of a loan would be through the savings generated by off-peak electric power usage for pumping and the avoidance of KCWA imposed groundwater taxes. Subsequent benefits from the Project are water rate stabilization and excellent quality drinkingwater. Board information, no action required or taken. 7.F. A letter from the Water Association of Kern County requesting a $1,000 contribution to the 1994 Water Awareness Campaign was brought before the Board by Mr. Core. The Water Association is asking for contributions from all water purveyors in Bakersfield to finance a major media public awareness campaign for 1994. Funds are budgeted in the 1994-95 Agricultural and Domestic Water divisions for this type of program, $500.00 from Ag and $500.00 from Domestic for this contribution. Motion by Salvaggio to grant the request from the Water Association in the amount of $1,000.00 to be paid after July 1, 1994. Motion approved. 7.G. Mr. Core presented three Domestic Water Main Extension Contract reassignments. Board information, no action required or taken. 7.H. A request from Olcese Water District to construct additional water wells in City's "2800 Acres" with first priority use was presented before the Board by Mr. Bogart. By existing agreement, Olcese Water District, Buena Vista Water Storage District and the City of Bakersfield have an arrangement for the development of spreading and extraction facilities in the "2800 Acres". Buena Vista W.S.D. and the City have the right to exercise their full share of well extraction capacity and in dry years this infringes on Olcese's ability to pump and meet its demands. Olcese has proposed to City to construct two additional wells and gain first priority to use the new wells. This would be a modification from the existing City/Olcese Agreement No. 77-07. The City would have first priority to use the two new wells for direct use in the City Domestic Water system, with City granting an equivalent capacity to production from other wells in the "2800 Acres". Mr. Tandy asked Mr. Bogart to cite the advantages and disadvantages to the City. Mr. Bogart stated that the advantages to the City are that the City gains two additional water wells, at no capital cost to the City. The wells will produce high quality drinking water that will serve City residents in both southwest Bakersfield and in Olcese. Boardmember Salvaggio asked of disadvantages. Mr. Bogart stated none, as long as City residents in Olcese were being served. Boardmember Rowles stated that this item was worth a further investigation and a presentation of benefits to the City. Mr. Tandy requested that various scenarios of extreme conditions in the "2800 Acres" be examined to further analyze City position. Boardmember Salvaggio asked if staff could get back to the Board on this item. Mr. Bogart said staff would update the Board at a future meeting if the proposal was firmed-up. Board information, no action required or taken. 7.I. Mr. Bogart presented a Bakersfield Police Department request for use of domestic water pump station grounds for "K-9" unit training facility. The Bakersfield Police Department "K-9" unit proposes to use a Domestic Water pump station along Truxtun Avenue, located near the Texaco parking lot, as a training area. The use of the site will add to the multiple use concept of the Parkway plan and cause no disruption to the operation of the pump station. Board information, no action required or taken. 8.A. Motion by Boardmember Salvaggio to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of Government Code at 5:57p.m. Boardmember Rowles stated he would absent himself due to conflict of interest regarding the Closed Session items. There would not be a quorum present to discuss the subject. 9. Boardmember Salvaggio reconvened the meeting at 5:58 p.m.. Due to lack of quorum, there were no discussions or actions resulting from the Closed Session. 10. Motion by Boardmember Salvaggio to adjourn at 5:$9p.m.. Mark Salvaggio, Chair '-~ City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secreta~ City of Bakersfield Water Board 4 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS JUN ! 199 CITY OF BAKERSFIELC June 15, 1994 WATER RESOURCE~ To: All participants in Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Improvements Study Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 1 Discussion of Economic Issues Gentlemen: Attached herewith is a copy of Technical Memorandum No. 1 on the Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Improvements Study. This memorandum presents basic data and calculated economic values for siting a water treatment plant at a higher elevation in the Northeast Bakersfield area. We have reviewed past water studies prepared for the Northeast Bakersfield area and have compiled basic alignment alternatives for siting water distribution, storage and treatment facilities. In order to present these alternatives and to provide a forum for input from the sponsoring organizations, we have scheduled a meeting to be held at 9:00 am on Wednesday June 22, 1994. The meeting will be held at the Olcese Water District Office at 14801 Highway 178, located approximately one fourth mile east of Highway 178 and Alfred Harrell Highway intersection. After the meeting we will have a tour of the project area with emphasis on Diversion facilities, storage reservoirs and Treatment Plant sites. We look forward to meeting with you on June 22nd to discuss preliminary siting alternatives. Please call either Joe Gillick or myself if you have any questions or comments regarding the study. Enclosure: Technical Memorandum No. 1 MWT/kb 1326 H STREET. SUITE 21. BAKERSFIELD. CA 93301 PHONE (805) 323-3169 FAX (805) 323-4331 '- 14 June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC ISSUES This Technical Memorandum will remain in draft form until individual water systems are able to verify or correct the data used by the authors to calculate present-day energy costs to deliver water into northeast Bakersfield. IHTRODUCTIOH The major reason for locating a water supply at an elevation higher than the service area is to reduce the cost of pumping water from a lower elevation. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to place a value on raising the elevation of the source of water supply to urban Bakersfield to a higher elevation. Knowledge of the economic impact of alternate diversion sites will help to select the most appropriate Kern River diversion for water for the proposed Northeast Water Treatment Plant. The physical features in northeast Bakersfield that are referenced in this memorandum are identified on the enclosed sketch. The long-term annual savings in electrical power costs can be represented in several ways. The most understandable ways to present this information are (1) as a series of equal payments for power over the life of the project without considering inflation; and (2) as the present worth of this string of payments. Knowledge of the present worth of annual power savings permits evaluation of the relative value of river diversions at different elevations. Present worth can be used to test the reasonableness of an capital investment to replace a series of annual payments. If the Northeast Water Treatment Plant is built, ID4's East Pipeline and California Water Service Company's 36-inch pipeline can be used to deliver water to lower areas in-lieu of pumping ground water. It is proper to account for this economic advantage in evaluating the proposed Northeast Water Treatment Plant. Bases for Economic Calculations The following present worth calculations are made at six percent for 40years yielding a present worth factor of I5.046. Reasonable arguments can be made for selecting different interest rates and economic lifetimes resulting in present worth factors which might range from a low of 12 to a high of 16. · Energy savings can be accounted as theoretical energy savings (e.g. Using Kern River water at a high elevation diversion instead of pumping water from the Delta) or as operating energy cost savings (e.g. ID4 does not .save the full cost of pumping in some exchanges of river water for Delta water.) It may be valuable to have knowledge of both types of energy savings. Theoretical savings may play an important role in communicating with state and federal agencies when seeking permits, preparing environmental evaluations, and obtaining grant and loan assistance for the project. Actual operating or out-of-pocket savings will be used by individual participants in the project to judge the practicality of their participation and the adequacy of their rate structure. With respect to the value of reusing existing pipelines for new purposes, it is · 14' June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consul rants- Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One ~SCUSS~ON OF E¢ONON~.¢ ~SSUES appropriate to value these pipelines at their current replacement cost. Pipeline service life can be more than 100 years. POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS -- CONCLUSIONS The current annual cost for energy to lift water to serve northeast Bakersfield is approximately $6 million. The present worth of that annual expense approaches $100 million. There will be significant cost savings if the new source of domestic water for northeast Bakersfield is at an elevation of 500 feet above mean sea level, or higher. There is significant economic value to reusing existing pipelines in a new water system. ~eoretical Energy Savings The theoretical savings for the avoidance of energy expense to pump 52,000 acre-feet per year from the delta to northeast Bakersfield exceeds $7 million. The present worth of that power cost is approximately $130 million. The energy cost savings for a 52,000 acre-foot annual diversion from a relatively higher elevation is approximately $900,000 for each lO0-foot increase in diversion elevation. The present worth of that savings is $13.3 million. Operating Energy Cost Savings The actual operating cost savings will be smaller than the theoretical savings for the project sponsors because {1) State Water Project entitlement will have to be moved into Kern County and {2) there will be some sharing of energy cost savings as a part of exchanges of SWP water for Kern River water. Actual energy savings is expected to be on the order of 450 feet of static lift for approximately 40,000 acre-feet per year. Annual power cost savings are estimated to be $4.5 million. The present worth of those estimated savings are $67.7 million. Value of Existing Pipelines for New Uses The existing pipelines that serve the northeast from the valley floor are hydraulically equivalent to 6.5 miles of 48-inch pipeline. The value of a new, equivalent pipeline to serve the northeast from the valley floor is approximately $9.1 million. Construction cost is estimated to be approximately $5.50 per diameter-inch per foot of length for class 150 cement mortar lined and coated steel pipe placed in congested city streets. -2- · ~14'June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consul rants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC ISSUES CALCULATIONS AND DATA Following is the information used to calculate the potential energy savings which might be realized by construction of a domestic water'treatment plant in northeast Bakersfield. Calculation sheets and assumptions are presented in tabular form at the end of this memorandum. Estimated Water Demand The estimated water demand for northeast Bakersfield was presented in the 1993 report entitled "First Phase Technical Report -- Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Improvements" by Ricks, Taylor & Associates and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. That table is reproduced, in part,, as follows: ESTIKATED DOI~ESTIC )LATER DEMAND -- NOR1}IEAST B/U(ERSFIELD SllJOY ARF. A (Water Demand During Peak Week in the Northeast) YEAR ESTIMATED NLI~BER OF RATE OF WATER OEMAND WATER DE)(AND WATER DEMAND PoPErcATION CONMECTIONS GRObrll( (gpm) (mgd) (cf s) 1995 39,900 12,000 1.5% 12,000 17.3 26.7 2000 47,700 14,000 3.7% 14,000. 20.2 31.2 2005 57,000 16,800 3.6% 16,800 24.2 37.4 ' 2010 67,700 19,900 3.5% 19,900 ~ 28.7 44.3 2015 80,200 23,600 3.4% 23,6001 34.0 1 52.$ 2020 94,700 27,900 3.4% 27,900; 40.2] 62.2 Both Kern County Water Agency and East Niles Community Services District have expressed an interest in developing additional treatment capacity in the northeast. Both water suppliers want to shift some of their existing production capacity to the proposed plant. The amount of increase is' estimated to be an annual average of 25 million gallons per day with deliveries during the peak week to be on the order of 40 million gallons per day. The following table presents the design demand for the proposed Northeast Water Treatment Plant for the year 2000 and beyond. The table includes demands for water which will be exported from Northeast Bakersfield. -3 14' June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consul tants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC ISSUES DESIGN DEMAND FOR DOMESTIC WATER -- NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT {Total Design Water Demand During Peak Week, Including Areas Outside the Northeast} YEA.R WATI~DE)(AMD WATER DEMAND WAll~RDEI4AND (gpm) (m~d) 1995 12,000 17.3 26.7 2000 41,800 60.2 93.1 2005 44,600 64.2 99.4 2010 47,700 68.7 106.3 2015 51,400 74.0 114.5 2020 55,700 80.2 124.1 The Northeast Water Treatment plant should be sized to deliver 65 million gallons per day at startup (in the year 2000±} with the ability to expand to 80 million gallons per day capacity within 10 years. The pipeline delivery system should be able to deliver 125 cubic feet per second at a maximum velocity of 6 feet per second. The economics of power use requires that the average daily flow or the average annual flow of the proposed plant be calculated. Experience at the ID4 Garnett Water Treatment Plant is that daily demand during the peak weeks of the year is approximately 1.6 times the average annual flow. The following table is an estimate of average annual flow for the proposed Northeast Water Treatment Plant. ESTIMATED AVF_RJ~GE ANNUAL DEMAND -- NORTHEA~ WATER TREATMENT PLANT (Average Ilow) YEAR WATER DE]4AJJD WATER DEMAND WAlr'ER DE]lAND WATER OEHANO {i~lpm) (m~ld) (cf$) (af/yr) 1995 7,500; 10.8 16.7 12,100; 2000 26,100) 37.6 58.2 42,100i 2005 27,900l 40.1 62.1 44,900 2010 2g.800 42.9 66.4 48.100 2015 32,100 46.2 71.6 51,800 2020 34,800 50.1 77.6 56,100 For the purposes of these present worth calculations, the proposed plant will produce approximately 42,000 acre-feet of water annually in the first years of operation and 52,000 thereafter. Elevations of Current Diversions The present and possible future water supplies to the northeast lift water from either the Delta, the Friant Kern Canal, the ground water basin, or the Kern River. The following table is representative of source elevations for the purpose of I - 4 - :' 14 June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DI$¢U$SIOH OF ECONOMIC ISSUES establishing the relative value of new water facilities that have access to water at a higher elevation. WATER SOURCE ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO THE ID4 PLANT ELEVATION l~ater S)-~tem Current Diversion Approximte E1 evat ion KCI~A ID4 State l~ater Project 0 feet C14S. Co. Ground Water 170 feet East Niles C.S.D. Friant-Kern Canal 380 feet Olcese W.D. Kern River 530 feet Elevations of Potential. Future Kern River Water Diversions The proposed northeast water treatment plant will take water from the Kern River at an elevation higher than the current sources of water supply. Tabulated below are ': alternative sites for a future river diversion and their approximate elevations. ELEVATIONS OF POTENTIAL RIVER DIVERSIONS Potential K~rn River Diversion Approximate Elevation PG&E Power Plant Penstock 940 feet Rio Bravo Hydro Flume , 780 feet_ Olcese WTp Site 530 feet Ant Hill Site 500 feet Elevations of Potential Off-Stream Reservoir Sites Kern River water quality can become unacceptable for treatment for short periods of time due to chemical spills or high turbidity. Examples are {1) a fuel truck overturning on the Kern Canyon Road or {2) a thunderstorm washing ash into the river from a recent forest fire. It will be prudent to provide off-stream storage for one week's plant operation, about 1,000 acre-feet, as an alternative source. Tabulated below are several potential' off-stream water storage sites. -5- 14 Oune 1994 D R A F T Rfcks Taylor & ~ssocfates Kennedy/denks Consultants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC ISSUES ELEVATIONS OF POTENTIAL OFF-Sll~EAM STORAGE SITES Potential Off-StreamReservoir Site Approxi~te Elevation Rancheria Road Site 1.000 feet (N. of Rancheria & N. of River) Rio Bravo Site 980 feet {Sec. 23, T29S, R29E, South of Rio Bravo Golf Course) Ant Hill Site 820 feet {Sec. 9 T29S, R29E, East of Morning Drive) Note: The Cottonwood Creek off-stream reservoir site that has been previously investigated is not listed as a potential off-stream reservoir. The site gentry is more appropriate for much larger storage volume. Service Area Elevation for the Northeast Water Treatment Plant Currently in the northeast, water purveyors lift to tanks located at approximately 700, 800, 900, and 1,000 feet in elevation. Given the range of elevations of the service area, storage reservoir sites, and potential river diversions, the elevation of a new water treatment plant could reasonably range from a low of 800 feet to a high of 1000 feet. Current Cost and Present Worth of Power for Pumping Water The costs for power to lift water into the northeast Bakersfield area are calculated using 1993 records and estimates of reasonable costs under foreseeable circumstances, excluding inflation. Calculation Sheet No. 1, "Present Worth of Power for Pumping" is located at the end of this memorandum. This calculation sheet estimates the total power expenditure to maintain today's level {volume) of water service to the northeast except for the East Niles Community Services District. The cost for power to lift domestic water to serve northeast Bakersfield is more than $6 million. The present worth of the annual energy expense to move water to northeast Bakersfield approaches $100,000,000. -6- '. ~ 14 June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DISCUSSION OFE¢ONONI¢ ISSUES ABBREVIATIONS af : Acre-Foot (325,851 Gallons) af/yr : Acre-Foot per Year cfs : Cubic Foot per Second (1 cfs = 0.646 mgd or 448.8 gpm) CVC = Cross Valley Canal CWS : California Water Service Company ft = Foot gpm = Gallons per Minute (1,000 gpm: 1.44 mgd or 2.23 cfs) ID4 : Improvement District No. ¢ of the Kern County Water Agency kwh = Kilowatt-Hours mgd = Million Gallons per Day (1 mgd = 694 gpm or 1.55 cfs) msl : Mean Sea Level PW = Present Worth SWP : State Water Project TDH = Total Dynamic Head '' 14 June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DISCUSSION OF ECONONI¢ ISSUES NOTES TO ACCOMPANY CALCULATION SHEETS 1. Calculated with a 50% supply year and @ 10.5 mils power value. Variable is $5.80/AF. Off-aqueduct power charge is $12.00/AF. Total is about $18.00/AF. This may be as low as $13.00/AF in a 100% supply year. Quantity shown is for water transported in the East Pipeline in 1993. 2. Synthetic data. CVC power costs can vary substantially due to the importance of demand charges when the canal is not in use for a period of time. Some WAPA power is available. 3. In-plant lift, only. Excludes power for treatment processes. Estimated using 1993' data for the East Pump Station. Plant facilities receive a 5% rate discount for power since they have a dedicated substation. 4. From KCWA power and operations records for 1993 for the East Pump Station and the Oswell Pump Station. The pump station is served by a dedicated substation, thereby receiving a 5% power rate discount. 5. Estimated using 1993 data for the Oswell Pump Station with respect to p~wer cost and efficiencies. 6. Ground water that is extracted from the Kern Fan must be replaced (recharged). Assumes that all water percolated into the ground water basin is lifted to elevation 400 feet before percolation. 7. Most CWS water is delivered to elevations below 23 Corner Tank. 8. Significant quantities of Olcese Water District water is delivered in zones below 1,000 foot elevation. -8- NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES PLAN Calculation Sheet ;" Calculation Sheet No. 1 -- PRESENT WORTH OF POWER FOR PUMPING AT 1993 LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT Calculations: Gilllck Checked: Taylor' printed: 14-Jun-94 OWNER I I I I I IIELEV UFT TDH PUMPED POWER POWER POWER POWER 1993 POWER COST ANNUAL ANNUAL FACILITY IN 1993 I COST ~ COST ~ COST COST POWER (~6% for 40 YRS POWER POWER ~ msl ~ feet J feet I af I $'s/kwh~ $'s/af ~ $'s/af/ft $'s KWH $'s i $'s/af $'s/af/ft KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.4 TREATMENT & DELIVERY SYSTEM Note 1 300 320 19,370 $0.01 $18.00 $0.06 $349,000 34,900,000 $5,251,O00 $271,09 $0.90 Note 2 100 120 19,370 $0.07 $19.25 $0.16 $373,000 5,328,571 $5,612,000 $289.73 $2.90 CrC -- @ ID4 WTP 400 ID4 PLANT -- @TWPS 400 I I I I I I ID4 - OSWELL PS 720 ID4 -- 23 COR TANK 820 TOTALS ---> 820 $114.71 $1,911,000 54,722,890 $28,753,000 $1,727 OLCESE WATER DISTRICT TREATMENT & DELIVERY SYSTEM Notes 5 & 8 470 564 3,400 $0.11 101.52 $0.18 $345,000 3,136,364 $5,191.000 $1,526.76 $3.25 1,000 FOOT TANKS 1000 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY GROUND WATER SYSTEM -- WITHOUT RECHARGE Note 5 780 936 20,000 $0.11 $168.48 $0.18 $3,370,000 30,636,364 $50,706,000 $2,535.30 $3.25 CWS - 900 FT TANKS 900 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY GROUND WATER SYSTEM -- WITH RECHARGE iSPW - AT DELTA 0 Notes 1 & 6 300 320 20,000 $0.01' $18.00 $0.O6 $360,000 36,000,000 $5,417,000 $270.85 $0.90 :SWP - TUPMAN 300 '" CVC - @ ID4 RIO 4 400 ~-- head lost durln~ rechar~le ............ Note 5 780 936 20,000 $0.11 '~;168.48 $0.18 $3,370,000 30,636,364 ' $50,706,000 $2,535.30 $3.25 CWS - 900 FI' TANKS 900 NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT Calculation Sheet Calculation Sheet No.2 - NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW RATES Calculations: -. Gillick Checked: Taylor printed: 14-Jun-94 BASE CASE - LOCAL DEMAND ONLY NE BFL SERVICE AREA DEMAND 1 I PEAK WEEK W/O CWS & ID4 P/L's WATER WATER WATER NE BFL RATE OF DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND YEAR POPULATION CONNECTIONS GROWTH (gpm) (mgd) (cfs) 1995 39,900 12,000 1.5 12,000 17.3 26.7 2000 47,700 14,000 3.7 14,000 20.2 31.2 2005 57,000 16,800 3.6 16,800 24.2 37.4 2010 67,700 19,900 3.5 19,900 28.7 44.3 2015 80,200 23,600 3.4 23,600 34.0 52.6 2020 94,700 27,900 3.4 27,900 40.2 62.2 lADD 40 mgd FLOW FOR ENCSD, CWS, & ID4 IWATER TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND IPEAK WEEK W/CWS & ID4 P/L's WATER WATER WATER NE BFL RATE OF DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND YEAR POPULATION CONNECTIONS GROWTH (gpm) (mgd) (cfs) 1995 39,900 12,000 1.5 12,000 17.3 26.7 2000 47,700 14,000 3.7 41,800 60.2 93.1 2005 57,000 16,800 3.6 44,600 64.2 99.4 2010 67,700 19,900 .3.5 47,700 68.7 106.3 2015 80,200 23,600 3.4 51,400 74.0 114.5 2020 94,700 27,900 3.4 55,700 80.2 124.1 WlTH 40 mgd FLOW FOR ENCSD, CWS, & ID4 I WATER TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND DIVIDE BY 1.6 TO GET AVERAGE DAILY FLOW IAVERAGE DAILY OR ANNUAL AVERAGE FLOW WATER WATER WATER WATER NE BFL RATE OF DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND YEAR POPULATION CONNECTIONS GROWTH (gpm) (mgd) (cfs) (af/yr) 1995 39,900 12,000 1.5 7,500 10.8 16.7 12,100 2000 47,700 14,000 3.7 26,100 37.6 58.2 42,100 2005 57,000 16,800 3.6 27,900 40.1 62.1 44,900 2010 67,700 19,900 3.5 29,800 42.9 66.4 48,100 2015 80,200 23,600 3.4 32,100 46.2 71.6 51,800 2020 94,700 27,900 3.4 34,800 50.1 77.6 56,100 NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES PLAN Calculation Sheet Calculation Sheet No. 3 -- PRESENT WORTH OF POWER FOR LIFTING WATER Calculations: Gillick Checked: Taylor printed: 14-Jun-94 FRICTION PW @ 6% & WATER POWER lOSS AS A POWER TO COST TO 40 YRS OF PW OF COST PW OF COST TO WIRE COST % OF LIFT I AF LIFT 1 AF COST TO LIFT TO LIFT 42,000 TO IJFT 52.000 EFF TOTAL HEAD 100 FEET 100 FEET I AF 100 FEET AF 100 FEET AF 100 FEET (%) ($'s/kwh) (%) (kwh) ($) ($) ($) ($) 70% $0.08 15% 173 $13.80 $207.64 $8.720.000 $10.800.000 70% $0.08 20% 183 $14.66 $220.62 $9.270.000 $11,470.000 70% $0.08 25% 196 $15.64 $235.33 $9.880.000 $12,240.000 70% $0.08 30% 209 $16.76 $252.14 $10,590,000 $13,110,000 70% $0.12 15% 173 $20.70 $311.47 $13,080,000 $16,200.000 70% $0.12 20~ 183 $21.99 $330.93 $13.900,000 $17.210,000 70% $0.12 25~ 196 $23.46 $352.99 $14,830.000 $18,360.000 70% $0.12 30% 209 $25.14 $378.21 $15.880.000 $19.670.000 75% $0.08 15~ 161 $12.88 $1 93.80 $8.140,000 $10.080.000 75% $0.08 20% 171 $13.69 $205.91 $8,650.000 $10.710,000 75% $0.08 25~ 182 $14.60 $219.64 $9.220.000 $1'1.420.000 75% $0.08 30~ 196 $15.64 $235.33 $9.880,000 $12.240.000 75~( $0.12 15, 161 $19.32 $290.70 $12.210.000 $15,120,000 75~ $0.12 20, 171 $20.53 $308.87 $12.970.000 $16,060.000 75~ $0.12 25~ 182 $21.90 $329.46 $13.840.000 $17.130.000 75~, $0.12 30, 196 $23.46 $352.99 $14.830.000 $18.360.000 80% $0.08 15~ 151 $12.08 $181.69 $7.630.000 $9,450.000 80~ $0.08 20~ 160 $12.63 $1 93.04 $8.110.000 $10,040.0(X) 80~ $0.08 25, 171 $13.69 $205.91 $8.650.000 $10~710,000 80~ $0.08 30~ 183 $14.66 $220.62 $9,270.000 $11.470,000 80°~ $0.12 15°~ 151 $18.11 $272.53 $11.450.000 $14.170.000 80°~ $0.12 20~ 160 $19.25 $289.57 $12.160.000 $15.060,000 80, $0.12 250~ 171 $20.53 $308.87 $12.970,000 $16.060.000 80~ $0.12 30~ 1 63 $21.99 $330.93 $13.900.000 $17.210.000 14 June 1994 D R A F T Ricks Taylor & Associates Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Northeast Water Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum One DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC ISSUES ABBREVIATIONS af : Acre-Foot (325,851 Gallons) af/yr = Acre-Foot per Year cfs = Cubic Foot per Second (1 cfs = 0.646 mgd or 448.8 gpm) CVC : Cross Valley Canal CWS : California Water Service Company ft : Foot gpm = Gallons per Minute (1,000 gpm: 1.44 mgd or 2.23 cfs) ID4 : Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County Water Agency kwh : Kilowatt-Hours mgd : Million Gallons per Day~ (1 mgd : 694 gpm or 1.55 cfs) msl : 'Mean Sea Level PW = Present Worth SWP = State Water Project TDH ~ Total Dynamic Head -7- DIVffR$I , RIO I~RAVO :..--:. , "-.... TR EATME P OWE i; [VE R $ NT CAN I PLA 'RiO ~['i'i~ NOR EAST WATER TREATMF:::NT PLANT ::" TECHNICAL. MEMORANDUM ONE: :-~ LOCATION' MAP x,. -,' JUNE 199Zl- ITEM 5B STAFF WILL GIVE A VERBAL UPDATE ON PROJECT I ~ENE~L P~N AGRICULTU~L-DOM~C WA~R I~RFACE PROJECT ~ ~OM ~E SO~~T OF ~E AGRICUL~-DOM~C WA~R I~RFACE P~ECT RiC~, TABOR ~ ~~, IN~ ITEM 6A VERBAL PRESENTATION BY STAFF FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION ITEM 7A GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9(b)(1); CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 54956.9 (ONE CASE).