HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D Haskins Way WSA 6 Sept 18.pdfAPPENDIX D
Water Supply Assessment
SB 610 Water Supply Assessment
For
201 Haskins Way Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Project
September 6, 2018
Prepared by
California Water Service
341 North Delaware Ave
San Mateo, California 94401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Project Description ................................................................. ..............................3
Haskins Project Water Demand Estimate .......................................................... ..............................5
South San Francisco District Background Information ..................................... ..............................7
South San Francisco District Water Demand .................................................... ..............................8
South San Francisco District Water Supply ...................................................... .............................17
PurchasedWater ................................................................................... .............................18
Groundwater......................................................................................... .............................23
FuturePossible Supplies ................................................................................... .............................28
RecycledWater ..................................................................................... .............................28
DesalinatedWater ................................................................................. .............................30
WaterTransfers ..................................................................................... .............................31
Water Supply Reliability Assessment ............................................ .............................34
NormalWater Year ............................................................................... .............................38
SingleDry Year .................................................................................... .............................39
MultipleDry Years (3) ......................................................................... .............................39
Summary of Supply and Demand Analysis ...................................................... .............................44
Conclusions...................................................................................................... .............................45
References......................................................................................................... .............................46
2
Introduction and Project Description
The City of South San Francisco (City) has requested California Water Service (Cal Water)
prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) in accordance with California SB 610 requirements
for the proposed 201 Haskins Way Project ( "Haskins Project "). A summary description of the
Haskins Project follows.
The project includes eight parcels in the City in the area east of 101 Area shown on Figure 1,
Haskins Project Site. The Haskins Project would rezone the parcels from Mixed Industrial (MI)
and Business Commercial (BC) to Business and Technology Park (BTP). The existing City
General Plan designations would remain unchanged for all eight parcels. The project, which
would result in approximately 677,600 sq ft of new office/R &D space, would be built out in at
least two phases. Phase 1 would be completed in 2021. The Haskins Project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) includes analysis of the maximum potential development in Phase 2
associated with the proposed rezoning of those affected parcels; however, there is no site - specific
development program proposed for Phase 2 at this time. Nonetheless, in order to provide a
conservative (worst case) analysis of impacts for CEQA purposes, it is assumed that Phase 2
construction would commence in 2021 (immediately after completion of Phase 1 construction)
and would to be completed in 2023.
Haskins Project Summary
Phase 1:
Existing mixed industrial use to be removed: 24,075 sq ft
New business and technology space: 336,368 sq ft
Phase 2:
Existing mixed industrial use to be removed: 157,995 sq ft
New business and technology space: 341,232 sq ft
Total Phase 1 and 2
Existing mixed industrial use to be removed: 182,070 sq ft
New business and technology space: 677,600 sq ft
3
Figure 1: Haskins Project Site
_ . 431 E Grand
��. 401 E Grand 415EGrand (015 -901 -130) _*{ J �f r.M4 P4 i
{015- 101 -140]1 `" (015- 101 -120) .
_ _
377 Swift � 1p1 Haskins �---- �__-- -_�-,. East Grand- A�enrJe �. � r,._�°
(p377Swift f.101 Haskins \�
�� .� JJ
410 E Grand .� { 430 E Grand
(015 - 102 -180) (015 - 102 -160)
" :. – „ ins \ – i� 620 E Grand
5; ^- ift,Ave, � (015- 102 -220y � (p15- 102 -370}
�,.,., —
Aze
+ ��{ i= 0
0
�>= 201 Haskins f
� .[015 -102- 230 }R �1 � 451 E Jamie 0 {015 -102 -240}
+.� i Ik ^ I� q._ •/ _.
1
�
390 Swift » r 0 �, --
(015- 960 -010) 0 o.
East Jamie Cc)urt
– 500 E Jamie
- - 0 (015- ..102350i"
F
4p4 -450 E Jamie
r' - {p15- 102- 25p1R,
JW
m �1
San Francisco Bay'Trail Proposed Project ❑ ° q
C3 Site 0 Phase F Area
0
Phase 2 Area F
n sp 100 zou
Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 200 1) (SB 610) amended state law, effective January
1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and land use
development decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 /SB 221 are companion measures
that require detailed information regarding water supply availability be provided to local public
agency decision - makers prior to approval of development projects that meet or exceed any of
the following criteria:
1. A residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
2. A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having
more than 500,000 square feet.
3. A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
250,000 square feet of floor space.
4. A hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms.
LI
5. An industrial, manufacturing or processing plant or industrial park planned to house more
than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land or having more than 650,000
square feet of floor area.
6. A mixed -used project that includes one or more of the projects specified above.
7. A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than the amount of
water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
Since the proposed Haskins Project exceeds criteria 3, a WSA is required.
If the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was accounted for in the most
recently adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the area within which the project
is located, then information from that UWMP may be incorporated into the WSA for the project.
(Water Code § 10910(c)(2).) If projected water demand associated with a project was not
accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP, then the WSA must address the adequacy of
the water supply to meet estimated demands of the proposed project over the next 20 years in
addition to those of Cal Water's existing customers and other anticipated future users under
normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. (Water Code § 10910(c)(3).) In this
case, SB 610 requires that the information developed to address the adequacy of the water supply
question be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an
approval action by the local public agency.
SB 610 recognizes local control and decision - making regarding the availability of water for
projects and the approval of projects. Under SB 610, WSAs must be furnished to local
governments for inclusion in any required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documents. Water Code 10910 (a) requires that any city or county that determines that a
project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to CEQA shall comply with the requirements of
this part of the water code.
Cal Water adopted its current SSF District UWMP in June 2016. This UWMP accounts for the
projected water demand associated with the proposed Haskins Project. Per Section 10910(c)(2)
of the Water Code, this WSA is based on information contained in the UWMP, updated water
demand data for 2016 and other sources cited here.
Following is an estimate of the Haskins Project water demands and a description and assessment
of the water supply to meet those and other forecasted demands in the SSF District in
accordance with the requirements of SB 610.
Haskins Project Water Demand Estimate
Existing water use is based on 2017 metered readings for the buildings to be replaced by the
Haskins Project are shown in Table 1. These readings do not distinguish between types of uses
of the existing space which totals 364,140 ft2. Also, not known is what percent of the existing
building space is being utilized. Based on 2017 data, the average use for all existing buildings is
0.0265 gallons /day /ft2.
Table 1: Existing Haskins
Site 2017
CCF /year
Water Use
Gallons /day
AFY
Interior Use
101 Haskins
56
151 Haskins
298
201 Haskins
278
410 East Grand
80
430 East Grand
112
451 East Jamie
69
Total Interior Use
893
1,830
2.05
Use
-Irrigation
400 East Jamie
773
450 East Jamie
742
Total Irrigation Use
1,515
3,105
3.48
Total Use
4,935
5.53
In the May 23, 2017, request letter from the City of South San Francisco to Cal Water, a water
demand calculation for the Genentech 2017 Master Plan Update was provided. Based on
metered water use data, it indicated that existing Genentech office water use is 20
gallons /year /ft2 or 0.0547 gallons /day /ft2 and laboratory water use is 30 gallons /year /ft2 or 0.082
gallons /day /ft2. Since this water use data differentiates water use for office and laboratory
facilities similar to those proposed for the Haskins Project, it is used here.
At project build -out, the irrigated landscaped areas will likely be similar to present site
conditions; therefore, no additional irrigated water demand is expected.
It is not known if the existing Genentech water use factors for the office and laboratory
categories of building uses reflect the last 6 years of progress in water conservation programs
focused on water use reduction. It is conservatively assumed to be the case here.
Current city ordinances require all new developments to install water conserving fixtures and
appliances. All of these will be incorporated into the Haskins Project. It is likely that since all
new construction for offices and laboratories will use water conserving fixtures and appliances,
the actual water use rates for the proposed Haskins Project new facilities may be lower than
current ones.
The intended use of the Haskins Project is for biotechnology development. For purposes of
calculating water demand estimates, it is assumed that 60% of the new space will be for
laboratories and 40% will be for offices.
Therefore, the estimated new water demand for the Haskins Project based on the space to be
constructed is calculated as follows:
Office: 0.4 x 677,600 ft2 x 0.0547 gallons /day /ft2 = 14,826 gallons /day
Laboratories: 0.6 x 677,600 ft2 x 0.082 gallons/day/ft== 33,338 gallons /day
Total Estimated New Water Use: 48,164 gallons /day.
Total NET Estimated New Water Use: 48,164 —1,830 = 46,334 gallons /day
Since there are only 2 years separating completion of the two phases (Phase 1 in 2021, and
Conceptual Phase 2 in 2023), the WSA takes 2023 as the date of overall project completion and
beginning of operations of the proposed facilities.
South San Francisco District Background Information
The South San Francisco (SSF) District is located in northern San Mateo County approximately
six miles south of the City of San Francisco. The SSF District serves the communities of South
San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo
County known as Broadmoor, which lies between Colma and Daly City. The South San
Francisco District was formed by Cal Water in 1931 with the purchase of the South San
Francisco Water Company from Pacific Water Company. Figure 2 is a map showing the SSF
District's service areas.
Figure 2: South San Francisco District
Cal Water designates customer classifications as follows:
• Single Family Residential
• Multifamily Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Government
• Other
A variety of land uses exist in the SSF District service area. Within the City of South San
Francisco, 28 percent of the land is residential, 21 percent industrial, 7 percent commercial, 11
percent is vacant and agricultural land and the balance is for public and utility use. In the City
of Colma, approximately 77 percent of the land is used for cemeteries. The balance of the land
is for residential, commercial, and public use. The Broadmoor area is primarily residential.
South San Francisco District Water Demand
Based on data contained from the SSF District 2016 UWMP, actual water use in the SSF District
in 2015 by customer category is shown in Table 2. Total system demand in 2015 was 7,064 acre
feet (AF). SSF District water use in 2015 was strongly affected by the Drought Emergency
Regulation adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in May of 2015 (SWRCB
Resolution No. 2015- 0032). The Drought Emergency Regulation mandated urban retail water
suppliers reduce potable water use between June of 2015 and February of 2016 by percentages
specified by the State Water Resources Control Board. The South San Francisco District was
ordered to reduce potable water use by 8 percent over this period relative to use over the same
period in 2013. Between June and December 2015, water use in South San Francisco decreased
by 21.7% compared to 2013.
Residential customers account for approximately 86.6 percent of services and 40 percent of
water use in the SSF District, most of which is single - family residential water use. Figure 3
Table District Demands for
User Category
Potable
2015 Actual
Single Family
2,404
Multi - Family
348
Commercial
3,212
Industrial
663
Institutional /Governmental
219
Other
16
Losses
201
Total
7,064
Residential customers account for approximately 86.6 percent of services and 40 percent of
water use in the SSF District, most of which is single - family residential water use. Figure 3
shows the distribution of services in SSF District in 2015. Figure 4 shows historical water sales
by customer category.
12,000
10,000
8,000
5;000
4,000
2,000
Residential
85:fi%
Figure 3: Distribution of Services in 2015
tial
mrnerclal
11.7%
Industrial
0.4%
dernment
1.3%
Figure 4: Water Use by Customer Category
■:Single FamilyJSFR) I (Multi Family .. Commercial ■ Government ■Other l Unaccounted
for Water
Year
1
11110111
19,
r,119,19,
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
--
--
--
--
Year
Projected Potable Water Demand
Projected normal year potable water demands by customer categories through 2040 are shown in
Table 3. Future demands are estimated as the product of future services and expected water use
per service.
Future services are based on use of historical growth rates in the SSF District. Use of these rates
has been accurate in forecasts made in previous SSF District UWMPs and is expected to
continue to be accurate since growth in the SSF District is largely due to redevelopment. Single -
family residential services are projected using the historical growth rate for the last 20 years
while multi - family services are projected using the 5 -year historical growth rate. Commercial
and industrial services are projected using the historical growth rate for the past 15 and 20 years,
respectively. The forecast assumes no change in the number of institutional services. The
projected average annual growth rate in services across all customer categories is approximately
0.5 percent. Historical and projected services are shown in Figure 5. Also shown in the figure is
the services projection from Cal Water's 2009 Water Supply and Facility Master Plan
(WSFMP).
10
Table 3: SSF District Projected
Use Category
Potable Demands
2020 2025
2030
2035
2040
Single Family
3,159
3,125
3,124
3,146
3,180
Multi- Family
402
394
396
404
417
Commercial
3,698
3,723
3,764
3,800
3,839
Industrial
695
730
768
807
848
Institutional /Governmental
371
367
363
360
358
Other
15
15
15
15
15
Losses
220
226
232
238
244
Total
8,560
8,580
8,662
8,770
8,901
Future services are based on use of historical growth rates in the SSF District. Use of these rates
has been accurate in forecasts made in previous SSF District UWMPs and is expected to
continue to be accurate since growth in the SSF District is largely due to redevelopment. Single -
family residential services are projected using the historical growth rate for the last 20 years
while multi - family services are projected using the 5 -year historical growth rate. Commercial
and industrial services are projected using the historical growth rate for the past 15 and 20 years,
respectively. The forecast assumes no change in the number of institutional services. The
projected average annual growth rate in services across all customer categories is approximately
0.5 percent. Historical and projected services are shown in Figure 5. Also shown in the figure is
the services projection from Cal Water's 2009 Water Supply and Facility Master Plan
(WSFMP).
10
25,OW
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Figure 5: SSF District Historical and Projected Services
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 .2025 2030 2035 2040
Expected water use per service, shown in Figure 6, is based on weather - normalized historical use,
adjusted for future expected water savings from plumbing codes and District conservation
programs. Weather normalization of historical use was done econometrically using the California
Urban Water Conservation Council GPCD Weather Normalization Methodology. Expected water
savings from plumbing codes are presented in Section 4.4 of the 2015 UWMP. Expected water
savings from District conservation programs and projected compliance with the District's SB X7-
7 2020 per capita water use target are discussed in Chapter 9 of the 2015 UWMP. The projected
trend in average use per service shown in Figure 6 does not account for possible effects of
climate change on future demand. The potential effects of climate change are discussed in
Section 4.6 of the UWMP.
Projected water uses in Table 3 and Figure 6 are based on unrestricted demands under normal
weather conditions. Demands are assumed to partially rebound by 2020 from 2015 levels due to
the State Water Resources Control Board ending its mandatory water use reductions. The
difference between actual and projected demands in 2020 will depend in part on how water uses
will change without state mandated reductions.
11
Figure 6: Historical and Projected Average Use per Service in Gallons per Day
0 Actual ---C)-- Projected — £ £ Draught Rebound
M
500
400
L
Qi
0 300
Qi
d
h
0 200
�.7
100
2005 2010 2015
Future Water Savings
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
The projections of future water use in Table 3 include expected water savings from plumbing
codes and appliance standards for residential and commercial toilets, urinals, clothes washers,
dishwashers, and showerheads. These savings are called passive water savings in contrast to
savings from water supplier conservation programs, which are called active water savings.
Active water savings from the South San Francisco District's implementation of demand
management measures are discussed in Chapter 9 of the UWMP. Estimates of passive water
savings were developed with the Alliance for Water Efficiency's Water Conservation Tracking
Tool using data on the age, number, and water using characteristics of residences and
businesses within South San Francisco District's service area. They are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Projected SSF District Passive Water Savings
The following codes and standards form the basis for estimated future passive water savings:
• AB 715 enacted in 2007
• U.S. Department of Energy water use standards for residential and commercial
clothes washers and dishwashers
• CalGreen Code requirements for maximum indoor water consumption of plumbing
fixtures and fittings in new and renovated properties.
• SB 407 mandates that buildings in California come up to current State plumbing
fixture standards within this decade. Noncompliant plumbing fixtures include:
• Toilets manufactured to use more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush
• Urinals manufactured to use more than one gallon of water per flush
12
o Showerheads manufactured to have a flow capacity of more than 2.5 gallons
per minute
o Interior faucets that discharge more than 2.2 gallons of water per minute.
For single - family residential property, the compliance date is January 1, 2017. For
multi - family and commercial property, it is January 1, 2019. In advance of these
dates, the law requires effective January 1, 2014 for building alterations and
improvements to all residential and commercial property that water - conserving
plumbing fixtures replace all noncompliant plumbing fixtures as a condition for
issuance of a certificate of final completion and occupancy or final permit approval
by the local building department.
SB 407 also requires effective January 1, 2017 that a seller or transferor of single -
family residential property disclose to the purchaser or transferee, in writing, the
specified requirements for replacing plumbing fixtures and whether the real property
includes noncompliant plumbing. Similar disclosure requirements go into effect for
multi - family and commercial transactions January 1, 2019. SB 837, passed in 2011,
reinforces the disclosure requirement by amending the statutorily required transfer
disclosure statement to include disclosure about whether the property is in
compliance with SB 407 requirements. If enforced, these two laws will require
retrofit of non - compliant plumbing fixtures upon resale or major remodeling for
single - family residential properties effective January 1, 2017 and for multi - family
and commercial properties effective January 1, 2019.
California has also adopted regulations governing the future use of landscape water use.
The California Water Commission approved the State's updated Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance ( MWELO) on July 15, 2015. The updated
MWELO supersedes the State's MWELO developed pursuant to AB 1881. Local
agencies have until December 1, 2015 to adopt the MWELO or to adopt a Local
Ordinance which must be at least as effective in conserving water as MWELO.
Local agencies working together to develop a Regional Ordinance have until
February 1, 2016 to adopt. The size of landscapes subject to MWELO has been
lowered from 2500 sq. ft. to 500 sq. ft. The size threshold applies to residential,
commercial, industrial and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check
or design review. Additionally, the maximum applied water allowance (MAWA)
has been lowered from 70% of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) to 55% for
residential landscape projects, and to 45% of ETo for non - residential projects. This
water allowance reduces the landscape area that can be planted with high water use
plants such as cool season turf. For typical residential projects, the reduction in the
MAWA reduces the percentage of landscape area that can be planted to high water
use plants from 33% to 25 %. In typical non - residential landscapes, the reduction
in MAWA limits the planting of high water use plants to special landscape areas.
The revised MWELO allows the irrigation efficiency to be entered for each area of
the landscape. The site -wide irrigation efficiency of the previous ordinance (20 10)
was 0.71; for the purposes of estimating total water use, the revised MWELO
defines the irrigation efficiency (IE) of drip irrigation as 0.81 and overhead
irrigation and other technologies must meet a minimum IE of 0.75.
13
• CalGreen requires that automatic irrigation system controllers for new landscaping
provided by a builder and installed at the time of final inspection must be weather -
or soil moisture -based controllers that automatically adjust irrigation in response to
changes in plant water needs as weather or soil conditions change.
The estimates of future water savings in Table 4 do not include potential landscape water
savings from implementation of MWELO or CalGreen standards because estimating these
savings required data that was not available to Cal Water at the time the 2015 UWMP plan was
prepared. Required data include existing and future landscape areas, plant materials, irrigation
equipment, enforcement of and compliance with the landscape design and irrigation equipment
requirements.
SSF District Population
In the 2015 UWMP, Cal Water updated the baseline period population estimates to incorporate
information from the 2010 US Census that was not available at the time the 2010 UWMP was
prepared. Updating resulted in a small change in the original population estimates.
Urban retail water suppliers must estimate their service area population consistent with DWR
requirements. For water suppliers whose boundaries correspond by 95 percent or more with a
city or census designated place, population estimates prepared by the Department of Finance
may be used. Where this is not the case, water suppliers may use the DWR Population Tool or
estimate their population using other methods, provided these methods comply with
Methodology 2 — Service Area Population — of DWR's Methodologies for Calculating Baseline
and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use.
Cal Water uses a population estimation methodology based on overlaying Census Block data
from the 2000 and 2010 Censuses with the District's service area. LandView 5 and MARPLOT
software are used with these data to estimate population per dwelling unit for 2000 and 2010. The
per dwelling unit population estimates are then combined with Cal Water data on number of
dwelling units served to estimate service area population for non - Census years.
Cal Water also estimated service area population using DWR's Population Tool. The estimates
prepared using Cal Water's methodology and DWR's Population Tool differed by less than one
percent. A comparison of the estimates generated by the two approaches is provided in
Appendix I of the 2015 UWMP. Cal Water elected to use the population estimates produced by
its methodology in order to maintain consistency with population projections it has prepared in
other planning documents and reports.
SSF District Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use
Baseline daily per capita water use is calculated by converting annual gross water use to gallons
per day and dividing by service area population. Daily per capita water use for each baseline
year and 2015 are summarized in Table 5.
14
SSF District GPCD 2015 and 2020 Targets
Urban retail water suppliers may select from four GPCD target methods (CWC 10608.20).
• Target Method 1: 20% reduction from 10 -year baseline GPCD
• Target Method 2: Water use efficiency performance standards
• Target Method 3: 95% of Hydrologic Region Target
• Target Method 4: Savings by water sector, DWR Method 4
Regardless of target method selected, the final target cannot exceed 95 percent of the 5 -year
baseline period average GPCD (CWC 10608.22).
The South San Francisco District has selected Target Method 3, which sets the 2020 target to
either 95 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area Hydrologic Regional Target or 95 percent of the
5 -year baseline average GPCD, whichever is less. This results in a 2020 target of 124 GPCD.
15
Table 5:
Baseline
Year 1
SSF District
Year
1995
Per Per
Service Area
Population
10 to 15 Year Baseline
52,724
1. 1
Annual Gross
GPCD
8,226
Daily Per Capita
139
Year 2
1996
52,885
8,403
142
Year 3
1997
53,456
9,008
150
Year 4
1998
53,939
8,917
148
Year 5
1999
54,386
9,394
154
Year 6
2000
55,024
9,738
158
Year 7
2001
55,326
9,606
155
Year 8
2002
55,784
9,633
154
Year 9
2003
56,031
9,245
147
Year 10
2004
57,028
9,549
149
10 -15 Year Average Baseline GPCD
150
5 Year Baseline GPCD
Baseline Year
Service Area
Population
Annual Gross
Water Use (AF)
Daily Per Capita
Water Use (GPCD)
Year 1
2003
56,031
9,245
147
Year 2
2004
57,028
9,549
149
Year 3
2005
57,398
8,869
138
Year
2006
57,646
9,101
141
Year 5
2007
57,920
9,169
141
5 Year Average Baseline GPCD
143
2015 Compliance Year GPCD
2015
61,223
7,064
103
SSF District GPCD 2015 and 2020 Targets
Urban retail water suppliers may select from four GPCD target methods (CWC 10608.20).
• Target Method 1: 20% reduction from 10 -year baseline GPCD
• Target Method 2: Water use efficiency performance standards
• Target Method 3: 95% of Hydrologic Region Target
• Target Method 4: Savings by water sector, DWR Method 4
Regardless of target method selected, the final target cannot exceed 95 percent of the 5 -year
baseline period average GPCD (CWC 10608.22).
The South San Francisco District has selected Target Method 3, which sets the 2020 target to
either 95 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area Hydrologic Regional Target or 95 percent of the
5 -year baseline average GPCD, whichever is less. This results in a 2020 target of 124 GPCD.
15
The 2015 interim target of 137 GPCD is the midpoint between the 10 -year baseline average
GPCD and the 2020 target.
The District's GPCD baselines and targets are summarized in Table 6.
2015 Compliance with Daily per Capita Water Use
Cal Water is not electing to make any adjustments to the District's compliance daily per capita
water use in 2015. The South San Francisco District's 2015 compliance daily per capita water
use is 103 gallons compared to its 2015 interim target of 137 gallons. The South San Francisco
District is in compliance with its 2015 interim target.
The low per capita water use in 2015 partially reflects the impacts of the Drought Emergency
Regulation adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in May of 2015 (SWRCB
Resolution No. 2015- 0032). Among other things, the Drought Emergency Regulation mandated
urban retail water suppliers reduce potable water use between June of 2015 and February of 2016
by percentage amounts specified by the State Water Resources Control Board. The South San
Francisco District was ordered to reduce potable water use by 8 percent over this period relative
to use over the same period in 2013.
However, the Drought Emergency Regulation does not explain all of the decline in per capita
water use, which has been trending downward since 2000 when it reached its peak of 158 gallons
per person per day. By 2014 this had fallen by 27 percent, to 115 gpcd. Between 2014 and the
end of 2015, per capita water use had fallen an additional 11 percent, to 103 gpcd.
The following analysis indicates that the forecasted demand of the Haskins Project is well
within the SSF District forecasted demand growth.
Actual gross water use demand for the SSF District in 2015 was 7,064 acre - feet /year (AFY) or
6.31 million gallons per day (mgd). The forecasted demand for 2025 is 8,580 AF; so the
forecasted increase in average day demand for the 10 -year period 2015 to 2025 is 1,516 AFY or
1.35 mgd. The Haskins Project forecasted increase in demand in 2023 is 46,334 gallons /day
(gpd) or 0.0463 mgd. After 2023, no further increase in Haskins Project demand is projected.
The 2025 net new water demand for the Haskins Project is only 3.4% (0.0463/1.35) of the
projected increase in total water use for the SSF District demand between 2015 and 2025.
Water demand for the SSF District in 2040 is 8,901 AFY or 7.94 mgd so the increase in average
day demand from 2015 to 2040 (25 year period) is 1,837 AFY or 1.638 mgd.
16
Table 6: SSF District Baselines
Baseline
Average 2015 Interim Confirmed
Start Years
End Years
Period
GPCD Target 2020 Target
10 -15 year
1995
2004
150
137
124
5 Year
2003
2007
143
2015 Compliance with Daily per Capita Water Use
Cal Water is not electing to make any adjustments to the District's compliance daily per capita
water use in 2015. The South San Francisco District's 2015 compliance daily per capita water
use is 103 gallons compared to its 2015 interim target of 137 gallons. The South San Francisco
District is in compliance with its 2015 interim target.
The low per capita water use in 2015 partially reflects the impacts of the Drought Emergency
Regulation adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in May of 2015 (SWRCB
Resolution No. 2015- 0032). Among other things, the Drought Emergency Regulation mandated
urban retail water suppliers reduce potable water use between June of 2015 and February of 2016
by percentage amounts specified by the State Water Resources Control Board. The South San
Francisco District was ordered to reduce potable water use by 8 percent over this period relative
to use over the same period in 2013.
However, the Drought Emergency Regulation does not explain all of the decline in per capita
water use, which has been trending downward since 2000 when it reached its peak of 158 gallons
per person per day. By 2014 this had fallen by 27 percent, to 115 gpcd. Between 2014 and the
end of 2015, per capita water use had fallen an additional 11 percent, to 103 gpcd.
The following analysis indicates that the forecasted demand of the Haskins Project is well
within the SSF District forecasted demand growth.
Actual gross water use demand for the SSF District in 2015 was 7,064 acre - feet /year (AFY) or
6.31 million gallons per day (mgd). The forecasted demand for 2025 is 8,580 AF; so the
forecasted increase in average day demand for the 10 -year period 2015 to 2025 is 1,516 AFY or
1.35 mgd. The Haskins Project forecasted increase in demand in 2023 is 46,334 gallons /day
(gpd) or 0.0463 mgd. After 2023, no further increase in Haskins Project demand is projected.
The 2025 net new water demand for the Haskins Project is only 3.4% (0.0463/1.35) of the
projected increase in total water use for the SSF District demand between 2015 and 2025.
Water demand for the SSF District in 2040 is 8,901 AFY or 7.94 mgd so the increase in average
day demand from 2015 to 2040 (25 year period) is 1,837 AFY or 1.638 mgd.
16
With respect to the 25 year forecast, Haskins Project new water demand is a very small
percent of the increase in total demand. In 2040, 97.2% (1 - 0.0463/1.638) of increased
demand is available for general growth and other development projects.
The 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update WSA (November 2017) estimated increased
in water demand by 2027 is 264,400 gallons /day
The Oyster Point Development Project WSA (August 2017) estimated increase in
water demand by 2020 is 219,051 gpd.
The SSF Downtown Redevelopment Project WSA (June 2014) estimated increase in
water demand by 2035 is 248,000 gpd.
Adding the estimated increases in water demand of these three development projects to
that of the Haskins Project demand yields a total increase of 777,785 (46,334 +
264,400 + 219,051 + 248,000) gpd or rounded to 778,000 gpd.
These four projects comprise 47% of the total projected increase in demand between
2015 and 2040 in the SSF District, leaving 53% of that remaining increase in demand
for other projects and general growth in the City of South San Francisco.
Therefore, increases in water demand due to the Haskins Project are within the SSF
District UWMP increased demand projections.
South San Francisco District Water Supply
Potable water supply for the SSF District is a combination of purchased water and groundwater
from Cal Water owned wells. Water is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission ( SFPUC). Cal Water's annual allocation of SFPUC supply is shared among its
three peninsula districts: Bear Gulch, Mid - Peninsula, and South San Francisco. Annual supply
from SFPUC to its utility customers varies with precipitation and related hydrologic conditions.
Water is allocated among wholesale customers based on an existing agreement with the
member agencies of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The
two stages of allocation are discussed below. In addition, SFPUC supply to the South San
Francisco District in any given year varies slightly with availability of a local surface water
supply in the Bear Gulch District.
Cal Water, City San Bruno, City of Daly City and SFPUC have participated in an evaluation of
the Westside Groundwater Basin to determine the feasibility of entering into a conjunctive use
program. Preliminary results indicate that the South San Francisco District would have a
drought groundwater supply of 1,535 AFY= the District's planned annual pumping quantity.
Purchased SFPUC potable supply is delivered through a network of pipelines, tunnels and
treatment plants shown in Figure 7. This supply is predominantly from the Hetch Hetchy
reservoir, but also includes water produced from watersheds, reservoirs and treatment facilities in
Alameda and San Mateo Counties.
17
Purchased Water
The amount of imported water available to SFPUC's retail and wholesale customers is
constrained by hydrology, physical facilities, and the institutional factors that allocate the water
supply of the Tuolumne River which is downstream of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. Due to these
constraints, SFPUC is very dependent on reservoir storage of its water supplies. Local reservoirs
include: Crystal Springs Reservoir, San Andreas Reservoir, Pilarcitos Reservoir, Calaveras
Reservoir, and San Antonio Reservoir.
The Raker Act, which authorized the Hetch Hetchy project, prevents a privately owned utility
such as Cal Water from receiving water from the Hetch Hetchy system, but allows local sources
to be purchased. In addition, Cal Water is subject to the Water Supply Agreement between The
City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo
County and Santa Clara County.
Supply Guarantee
In July 2009, Cal Water along with 29 other Bay Area water suppliers signed a Water Supply
Agreement ( SFWSA) between The City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers
in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, which replaced the Settlement
Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract) with San Francisco that had been
in place since 1984. The SFWSA continues the provision to provide a Supply Guarantee of 184
mgd, expressed on an annual average basis to SFPUC wholesale customers collectively. SFPUC
retail customers receive 81 mgd as a supply guarantee. Cal Water's Individual Supply Guarantee
(ISG) is 35.68 mgd or 39,967 acre feet per year.
The SFPUC can meet the demands of its retail and wholesale customers in years of average and
above average precipitation. The SFWSA allows SFPUC to reduce water deliveries during
droughts, emergencies and for scheduled maintenance activities. SFPUC's wholesale customers
through their collective organization, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) during 2010 negotiated the Drought Implementation Plan (DRIP), which replaces
the previously adopted Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan. The SFWSA allocates the
required reduction of available water supply between San Francisco's retail and wholesale
customers. The SFWSA established that during a called upon 20% drought reduction, collective
wholesale customers face up to a 28% reduction in their available supply, while SFPUC retail
customers face only a 2% reduction.
The DRIP aggregates the reduction applied to the wholesale customers and allocates it among
individual wholesale customers during water shortages of up to 20% of system -wide. The
DRIP was formulated was unanimous consensus by a BAWSCA committee of designated
representatives from each wholesale customer.
The DRIP uses an allocation process that takes into consideration the wholesale customer's ISG
and the seasonal water use pattern of the wholesale customer's service area. Communities that
use substantially more water in the summer will face a greater reduction in their allocated
drought supply. Health and safety adjustments were provided to increase the drought allocation
of several wholesale customers that have extremely low ISG values.
18
Much like the previously approved Interim Water Supply Allocation Plan, during a called upon
20% drought reduction because of the seasonal water use pattern of its customers and the
recent high demand that has reached or exceeded its ISG, Cal Water's customers face a
potential 33% reduction in their available supply. By implementing conservation and seeking
outside water supplies that can be transferred into Cal Water's service area, the magnitude of
the potential reduction can be reduced.
The SFWSA also calls for implementation of an Interim Supply Allocation (ISA) accompanied
by an Environmental Enhancement Fee. If the entire SFPUC service area exceeds the collective
supply guarantee of 265 mgd (81 mgd to SFPUC retail and 184 mgd to wholesale), then any
individual customer that exceeds their ISA will be assessed the yet to be determined
Environmental Enhancement Fee. Cal Water's ISA has been set at its ISG of 35.68 mgd. This is
intended to be an incentive to implement conservation. In 2010, the collective SFPUC service
area used 214.4 mgd; the five year average use is 237.6 mgd.
In addition to hydrologic conditions, supply available to SFPUC's retail and wholesale
customers also depends on the status of conveyance and treatment facilities and agreements that
allocate water supply.
While the Raker Act prohibits the SFPUC from selling water from the Hetch Hetchy project to
privately owned utilities, SFPUC makes available for purchase, water from its other sources to
privately owned utilities, i.e. Cal Water.
Cal Water's purchased water supply from the SFPUC is subject to the Water Supply Agreement
between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers, which was adopted in
July 2009. As a means of addressing the aforementioned Raker Act exclusion the Water Supply
Agreement contains Article 9.02 A. which identifies Cal Water as an investor owned utility
company, and as such, has no claim to co- grantee status under the Act. In addition Article 9.02
B. states that:
The total quantity of water delivered by San Francisco to California Water Service
Company shall not in any calendar exceed 47,400 acre-feet, which is the estimated
average annual production of Local System Water. If San Francisco develops additional
Local System Water after the Effective Date, it may (1) increase the maximum delivery
amount stated herein; and (2) increase the Supply Assurance, but not necessarily both.
San Francisco has no obligation to deliver water to California Water Service Company in
excess of the maximum stated herein, except as such maximum may be increased by San
Francisco pursuant to this subsection. The maximum annual quantity of Local System
Water set forth in this subsection is intended to be a limitation on the total quantity of
water that may be allocated to California Water Service Company, and is not an
Individual Supply Guarantee for purposes of Section 3.02. The maximum quantity of
Local System Water set forth in this subsection is subject to reduction in response to (1)
changes in long -term hydrology or (2) environmental water requirements that may be
imposed by or negotiated with state and federal resource agencies in order to comply
with state or federal law or to secure applicable permits for construction of Regional
Water System facilities. San Francisco shall notify California Water Service Company of
any anticipated reduction of the quantity of Local System Water set forth in this
subsection, along with an explanation of the basis for the reduction.
s�
Short term changes in hydrologic conditions such as drought and supply emergencies are
governed by other provisions of the Water Supply Agreement including the two tiered allocation
plan adopted by the BAWSCA membership. This plan is described in Chapter 7 of the 2015
UWMP.
In 1984, Cal Water and 29 other Bay Area water suppliers signed a Settlement Agreement and
Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract) with San Francisco, supplemented by an
individual Water Supply Contract. These contracts provided for a 184 mgd (annual average
basis) Supply Assurance Allocation (SAA) to the SFPUC's wholesale customers collectively.
This allocation was reached through negotiation in the early 1990s between the SFPUC and Bay
Area Water Users Association (BAWUA), the predecessor organization to BAWSCA. In 2009
the Master Contract was extended through 2018, keeping the SAA at 184 mgd, but changing its
name to the Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG).
Cal Water's ISG for the three districts was 35.39 mgd (39,642 AFY). Additionally, the
acquisition of the Los Trancos County Water District in July 2005 allowed the transfer of its 0.11
mgd ISG to Cal Water. In 2009 Cal water acquired the Skyline County Water District, which also
transferred its 0.181 mgd ISG to Cal Water. This increased Cal Water's total ISG for the three
districts to 35.68 MGD (39,967 AFY).
The Water Supply Agreement allows the SFPUC to reduce water deliveries during droughts,
emergencies, and for scheduled maintenance activities. The SFPUC and all wholesale customers
adopted an Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan in 2000 to address the allocation of water
between San Francisco, wholesale customers, and individual wholesale customers during water
shortages of up to 20 percent of system -wide use. In 2010, the wholesale customers negotiated
and subsequently adopted a revised methodology for allocating supplies during shortages. This
methodology is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of the 2015 UWMP.
Water Supply Improvement Program (WSIP)
Figure 7 is a schematic showing the main projects that comprise the WSIP.
pill
Figure 7: SFPUC Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) Projects
WNW Sywam lmprowrneni PmePwn Prqach
RAN
_�w.asl�al. p l+es'M a.uil�l9 Mw+��ae .J bes�aufnhsc4.�4R+n...e
Lk6xLaxAfltiefdY C SI1I aSEi[rb.� 11 I.rx ;ry 'yNUtia lViv
= i:Yw�.t4nC�r [l Yn.Ci[dLt�iiwn Wr IMaf 54n.P[.nMn..irgR
11WN.eiill�'I [Nna'�.i wf LntFP =GAICxlxFCilwn 23 YIN iArvr- ntf =d9. ae LUyn
NMFNPtCl1 Yf+iln -Nx. 4rIfNNW[irela+ k +w.xL.�LCrwYemeyn :4 IwM1'MM1!M.•..i ..Nanegm�nN
.am NV0. i�LgiMiu.rw M Cwirs MM1u 44w.V 1pevrr� Y.• SwiMU�u4fSnr. ev44.n [Cm^Y I'4ab1
;.RAM g, 5nwnr sue lw +.l'Mq a rly4.Nrq.4+w.r�..�.n....yrb. :R r,,,xx,4H�M�.•...• -n n ,=,o,�
n�s..hr -wsw c,kniki.� � i.�w�wn�w.in+osww v�
.r:fwur
HYxir Mnice Mi�4 ulrlV W[rR wtery
NATWARG qe..a. Rnrrr.x.
Ibn]Rncr. bO ® ry�PNEN _"-�, irini+tlr^xNrYPw
yry„. 6.%FR.MGI WBAY
YnNmre ��� l� �FwAYwb�
Frvtnels - ' As�xu.
Miww � � Na
t �xi YwnAiRrii xY
� pwanw
Rnrrb% Cr.•aui ..orYipal� I xwmae 'MENi!
y ea. cam <n na. s Momm W+M�iwo 8T/AIS a ffdI m
(� :.y.er 9ArVNi xh� NATIONAL PARK
G'N✓y anNxi Rvx.i 'iw+s: W!rl 9ewrmM rORiLT
pP.wix 4YIKTMi.1n1�'PM
gK.mw ac.. *.qq+a M T WpF ProJada IN VamuW
J c.rx.i. n.ry ■ lln.daiarmMrnA LucobwIs
Mn6f ALIGN BAY BAio- Atr¢ a,aI L4iwoY - - 2
wK. r.+m. �. � wir +.++n � lravfw.rmr_vs+a L✓: A
xera4eleN+mee
� ANet< �. .ar�rgau- wu.a•�.
� u.r.w R.+.di+. .�• os.mninr_.rw
•°.4N .Y. C[ +rur4MA!nrneohe�
e ,rws..ix u w.n„iean..m
e.. rn.w.mn a.r.ix•n vq's a sa 7i rx..V rRne R..R
The WSIP goals
System Performance Objective
Water Supply —
e Meet average annual water demand of 265 mgd from
meet customer
the SFPUC watersheds for retail and wholesale
water needs in
customers during non - drought years for system
non - drought and
demands through 2018.
drought periods
e Meet dry -year delivery needs through 2018 while
limiting rationing to a maximum 20 percent system
wide reduction in water service during extended
droughts.
e Diversify water supply options during non - drought
and drought periods.
e Improve use of new water sources and drought
management, including groundwater, recycled water,
conservation, and transfers.
The SFPUC historically has met customer demand in all types of water years. Typically, 85
percent of supply comes from the Tuolumne River from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the
remaining 15 percent from local watersheds through the San Antonio, Calaveras, Crystal
Springs, Pilarcitos and San Andreas Reservoirs. The WSIP continues to use this mix of water
supply sources.
Water Supply — Dry Years
The WSIP includes the following water supply projects to meet dry year demands with no
greater than 20 percent system -wide rationing in any one year:
Calaveras Dam Replacement Project
Calaveras Dam is located near a seismically active fault zone and was determined to be
seismically vulnerable. To address this vulnerability, the SFPUC is constructing a new
21
dam of equal height downstream of the existing dam. The Environmental Impact Report
was certified by the San Francisco City Planning Commission in 2011, and construction
is now ongoing. Construction of the new dam is slated for completion in 2018; the entire
project should be completed in 2019.
Alameda Creek Recapture Project
The Alameda Creek Recapture Project will recapture the water system yield lost due to
instream flow releases at Calaveras Reservoir or bypassed around the Alameda Creek
Diversion Dam and return this yield to the RWS through facilities in the Sunol Valley.
Water that naturally infiltrates from Alameda Creek will be recaptured into an existing
quarry pond known as SMP (Surface Mining Permit) -24 Pond F2. The project will be
designed to allow the recaptured water to be pumped to the Sunol Valley Water
Treatment Plant or to San Antonio Reservoir.
Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements
The Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements were substantially completed in
November 2011. While the project has been completed, permitting issues for reservoir
operation have become significant. While the reservoir elevation was lowered due to
Division of Safety of Dams restrictions, the habitat for the Fountain Thistle, an
endangered plant, followed the lowered reservoir elevation. Raising the reservoir
elevation now requires that new plant populations be restored incrementally before the
reservoir elevation is raised. The result is that it may be several years before the original
reservoir elevation can be restored.
Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project
The Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project is a strategic partnership between
SFPUC and three San Mateo County agencies: the California Water Service Company
(serving South San Francisco and Colma), the City of Daly City, and the City of San
Bruno. The project seeks to balance the management of groundwater and surface water
resources in a way that safeguards supplies during times of drought. During years of
normal or heavy rainfall, the project would provide additional surface water to the
partner agencies in San Mateo County, allowing them to reduce the amount of
groundwater that they pump from the South Westside Groundwater Basin. Over time,
the reduced pumping would allow the aquifer to recharge and result in increased
groundwater storage of up to 20 billion gallons.
The project's Final Environmental Impact Report was certified in August 2014, and
the project also received Commission approval that month. The well station
construction contract Notice to Proceed was issued in April 2015, and construction is
expected to be completed in spring 2018.
2 mgd Dry -year Water Transfer
In 2012, the dry -year transfer was proposed between the Modesto Irrigation District and
the SFPUC. Negotiations were terminated because an agreement could not be reached.
Subsequently, the SFPUC is having ongoing discussions with the Oakdale Irrigation
District for a one -year transfer agreement with the SFPUC for 2 mgd (2,240 acre - feet).
In order to achieve its target of meeting at least 80 percent of its customer demand during
droughts at 265 mgd, the SFPUC must successfully implement the dry -year water supply
projects included in the WSIP.
22
Furthermore, the permitting obligations for the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the
Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements include a combined commitment of 12.8 mgd for
instream flows on average. When this is reduced for an assumed Alameda Creek Recapture
Project recovery of 9.3 mgd, the net loss of water supply is 3.5 mgd. The SFPUC's participation
in regional water supply reliability efforts, such as the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project
(BARDP), additional water transfers, and other projects is intended make up for this shortfall.
Groundwater
As described in the UWMP, groundwater has historically supplied ten to fifteen percent of
SSF District water demand. It is extracted from the Merced Formation of the Colma Creek
Basin, a sub -basin of the Merced Valley Groundwater Basin. Locally this basin is referred to
as the Westside Basin.
Basin Description
The Westside Basin is the largest groundwater basin in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region.
It is separated from the Lobos Basin to the north by a northwest trending bedrock ridge through
the northeastern part of Golden Gate Park. The San Bruno Mountains bound the basin on the east.
The San Andreas Fault and Pacific Ocean form its western boundary and its southern limit is
defined by bedrock high that separates it from the San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin. The basin
opens to the Pacific Ocean on the northwest and San Francisco Bay on the southeast.
A detailed description of the basin is given in the DWR's Groundwater Bulletin 118 in Appendix
G of 2015 SSF District UWMP. There are no plans to adjudicate this basin.
DWR Bulletin 118 provides information on:
• San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region
• Merced Valley (Westside) Basin
• Santa Clara Sub -basin
• Groundwater Basin Number: 2 -35
• Non- adjudicated Status of Basin
According to Bulletin 118, a USGS study covering the period 1987 -1992 showed declining water
levels for the Westside Basin. This is likely the result of a concurrent drought during this period.
Onset of normal precipitation and increased recharge could possibly rectify this occurrence as
depleted storage is renewed. (This description of the Westside Basin in Bulletin 118 was last
updated in January 2006.)
Groundwater Management
In June 2003, Cal Water entered into an agreement with the SFPUC to implement a pilot
conjunctive use program to test its practicality and potential impact on the regional groundwater
basin and Lake Merced recovery. This conjunctive use program is an in -lieu replenishment
operation where SFPUC delivers surplus surface water to Cal Water in exchange for a reduction
in groundwater use. The wells were taken offline while Cal Water participated in the pilot
program with the SFPUC. Cal Water resumed pumping groundwater in late 2008. During the
pilot program the static depth to groundwater decreased by approximately 35 feet.
a]
The Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (GSR Project) is a joint effort between
SFPUC, Cal Water, and the Cities of Daly City and San Bruno to coordinate groundwater and
surface water management in the South Westside Basin. This project would increase water
supply reliability during dry years or emergency conditions. Cal Water, Daly City, and San
Bruno are BAWSCA members who use groundwater from the South Westside Basin to augment
their SFPUC supplies and are referred to as participating pumpers.
The SFPUC will install up to 16 new wells in the Westside Basin. There will be three
operational action cycles within the proposed Groundwater Storage and Recovery Program,
which are associated with the available SFPUC supply. When the SFPUC determines that there
is surplus supply available they can call for a "Put" cycle during which they will deliver some of
this surplus water to the program participants in -lieu of groundwater pumping by the
participating pumpers, thus putting or leaving the groundwater in storage in the basin.
During normal supply years, SFPUC will deliver the normal quantities of imported supply to the
participants who will also pump their Designated Quantity from the groundwater basin. Then
when imported supplies are short the participating pumpers will pump their Designated
Quantities and receive groundwater produced from the aforementioned SFPUC wells, and an
equally reduced quantity of imported water.
The SFPUC wells will only be operated to extract the previously stored or banked supply. The
expected groundwater storage gained from this reduced pumping is approximately 61,000 acre -
feet. With that amount of additional groundwater available in the basin, the agencies could pump
at rate of 7.2 mgd for a 7.5 -year dry period.
Project facilities would include wells, disinfection, and distribution pipelines as needed, which
will be paid for by the SFPUC. SFPUC will pay all operation costs when the take cycle is
authorized. During non - drought emergencies the SFPUC wells would be available to the
participating pumpers to provide additional redundant supply capacity. However, the operational
cost for such an event would be paid for by the participating pumper.
In January 2015, the SFPUC awarded this $42.9 million construction contract to Ranger
Pipelines, Inc. Construction started in spring 2015 and completion is anticipated in spring 2018.
The District produces groundwater from an un- adjudicated basin; however, Cal Water has
voluntarily limited the annual production of groundwater from the Westside (Merced Valley)
Basin to 500 million gallons annually in response to shared concerns raised in a study prepared
for the City of Daly City that focused on local groundwater conditions. In 1999 the Westside
Basin Partners proposed a Groundwater Management Plan, but that plan was not adopted by
Cal Water and the other local jurisdictions. However, the partners implemented many of the
Basin Management Objectives from the Plan.
In 2005, SFPUC published a final draft of its North Westside Groundwater Basin Management
Plan, which covers the portion of the basin that is located in the City of San Francisco. With
SGMA passage in 2014 (see below for a detailed discussion of SGMA), a new effort is
underway to update the Groundwater Management Plan into a Groundwater Sustainability Plan
for the South Westside Basin. Cal Water is an active participant in this effort. A Letter of
Mutual Understanding has been signed in 2016 by all of the agencies.
24
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1739, Senate Bill
1168, and Senate Bill 1319 (AB -1739, SB -1168, and SB- 1319). This three -bill legislative
package is known collectively as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
SGMA was amended in the later part of 2015 by Senate Bill 13, Senate Bill 226 and Assembly
Bill 1390 to provide clarity to the original law and guidance on groundwater adjudications. This
new legislation defines sustainable groundwater management as the "management and use of
groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation
horizon without causing undesirable results" [Water Code § 10721(u)]. The legislation defines
"undesirable results" to be any of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions
occurring throughout the basin [Water Code § 10721(w) (1 -6)]:
Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of
supply;
Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage;
Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;
Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality;
Significant and unreasonable land subsidence;
Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses
of the surface water.
The legislation provides for financial and enforcement tools to carry out effective local sustainable
groundwater management through formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA's)
consisting of local public agencies, water companies regulated by the CPUC and mutual water
companies. The legislation requires that GSA's within High and Medium Priority basins under the
California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program subject to critical
conditions of overdraft prepare and submit a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the basin
by January 31, 2020 [Water Code § 10720.7(a) (1)], and requires GSA's in all other groundwater
basins designated as High or Medium Priority basins to prepare and submit a GSP by January 31,
2022 [Water Code § 10720.7 (a) (2)]. Following State approval, the High or Medium Priority
basin would thereafter be managed under the GSP. The legislation does not require adjudicated
basins to develop GSPs, but they are required to report their water use.
The key intended outcomes and benefits of SGMA are numerous, and include:
Advancement in understanding and knowledge of the State's groundwater basins and
their issues and challenges;
• Establishment of effective local governance to protect and manage groundwater
basins;
Management of regional water resources for regional self - sufficiency and drought
resilience;
W
• Sustainable management of groundwater basins through the actions of GSA's, utilizing
State assistance and intervention only when necessary;
• All groundwater basins in California are operated to maintain adequate protection to
support the beneficial uses for the resource;
• Surface water and groundwater are managed as "a Single Resource" to sustain their
interconnectivity, provide dry season base flow to interconnected streams, and support
and promote long -term aquatic ecosystem health and vitality;
• A statewide framework for local groundwater management planning, including
development of sustainable groundwater management best management practices and
plans;
• Development of comprehensive and uniform water budgets, groundwater models, and
engineering tools for effective management of groundwater basins;
• Improved coordination between land use and groundwater planning;
• Enforcement actions as needed by the SWRCB to achieve region -by- region sustainable
groundwater management in accordance with the 2014 legislation.
To assist in attaining the above outcomes, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
will provide GSA's with the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage
their water resources. The benefits of these outcomes include:
A reliable, safe and sustainable water supply to protect communities, farms, and the
environment, and support a stable and growing economy;
Elimination of long -term groundwater overdraft, an increase in groundwater storage,
avoidance or minimization of subsidence, enhancement of water flows in stream
systems, and prevention of future groundwater quality degradation.
Cal Water's groundwater basin policy is to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in the
basins where it operates and do what is best for managing the basin sustainably including sharing
of costs and benefits on an equitable basis. Cal Water recognizes and supports the goals,
objectives and intended outcomes of the SGMA and intends to take an active role in local and
state -wide management of groundwater resources over the next 5 - 25+ years.
The 2015 UWMP contains many of the elements required by SGMA and thus supports
implementation of SGMA and the basin GSP. SGMA's specific requirements for groundwater
are addressed in:
• Chapter 4: historic and future customer growth and water demand in the basin.
• Chapter 6: historic and future water supplies in the basin and actions Cal Water will need
to take to develop additional water supplies to maintain supply reliability.
• Chapter 6: water quality and necessary actions to protect and maintain water supplies.
0161
• Chapter 6: supplementing water supplies with recycled water.
Chapter 7: adequacy of the combined supplies to reliably meet customer demands under
normal, single -dry -year and multiple -dry -year conditions.
Westside Basin Storage
Cal Water routinely monitors the groundwater level of its wells in the Westside basin. Figure 8
shows the average ground water level for the South San Francisco District from 1990 to 2013.
The groundwater level increased about 35 feet between 2003 and 2007, as Cal Water, San Bruno,
and Daly City suspended groundwater pumping while participating in a pilot conjunctive use
program with SFPUC. Levels decreased beginning in 2010 due to drought conditions.
Figure 8: Average Ground Water Levels for District Wells
DISTRICT WELL LEVEL AVERAGE (StAc)
District: SO. SAN FRANCISCO For All Years As OP 1125120,16
i
i -
---------------------
The May 2011, HydroFocus Westside Basin Model (version 3.1) indicates that the sustainable
municipal pumping rate is 6.9 mgd. Cal Water, Daly City, and San Bruno intend to coordinate
their respective pumping rates so that 6.9 mgd is not exceeded on an annual basis. Cal Water has
offered to limit its planned production of groundwater from the Westside Basin to 1.37 mgd
(1,535 AFY) which is consistent with current pumping capacity and historical pumping rates.
WA
The amount of groundwater historically pumped is shown in Table 7.
Future Possible Water Supplies
Recycled Water
Currently, no municipal or industrial wastewater is processed for non - potable reuse in the SSF
District.
Use of recycled water continues to be evaluated by the Cities of South San Francisco and San
Bruno, SFPUC, and Cal Water to reduce potable water demands on SFPUC supply and
groundwater pumping in the Westside Basin. Focus of use of recycled water has been on non -
potable uses — mainly landscape irrigation.
Daly City currently produces 2.77 mgd of recycled water, which is used for irrigation of the San
Francisco Golf Club, Olympic Club, Lake Merced Golf Club, Harding Park Golf Club, and
several city parks and medians. Daly City and SFPUC are pursuing the Feasibility of Expanded
Tertiary Recycled Water Facilities Project, which will provide approximately 3 mgd of additional
recycled water irrigation supply to the cemeteries in the Town of Colma and other parks and
schoolyards. The goal of the project is to reduce reliance on the groundwater basin and to create a
local, drought -proof water supply. This expansion in currently in design; construction is expected
to occur in 2018 -2019.
Cal Water examined the potential for recycled water use in its SSF District Water Supply and
Facilities Master Plan. It was further evaluated in its Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan
for its three Peninsula Districts. These studies found a potential for 0.61 mgd of recycled water
demand in the SSF District. Because of the low demand and very high cost to treat and convey
recycled water, this supply is not being pursued. Cal Water will reevaluate recycled water use in
the future to determine whether it is feasible.
The North San Mateo County Sanitation District (NSMCSD) treats wastewater from Cal Water's
South San Francisco service area communities of Broadmoor and portions of Colma.
Communities also within the NSMCSD, but not in Cal Water's service area include Westlake,
Westborough County Water District, Daly City, and the San Francisco County Jail. Municipal
wastewater is generated in the NSMCSD service area by residential, commercial, and limited
industrial sources. NSMCSD owns, operates and maintains its sewer system consisting of gravity
sewers and pumping stations.
W:3
Table 7: SSF District
Groundwater Quantity
Pumped
Groundwater
Location or Basin
2011
2012 2013 2014 2015
Type
Name
Merced Valley
Alluvial Basin
(Westside) Basin
515
606 995 1,028 1,312
Total
515
606 995 1,028 1,312
Future Possible Water Supplies
Recycled Water
Currently, no municipal or industrial wastewater is processed for non - potable reuse in the SSF
District.
Use of recycled water continues to be evaluated by the Cities of South San Francisco and San
Bruno, SFPUC, and Cal Water to reduce potable water demands on SFPUC supply and
groundwater pumping in the Westside Basin. Focus of use of recycled water has been on non -
potable uses — mainly landscape irrigation.
Daly City currently produces 2.77 mgd of recycled water, which is used for irrigation of the San
Francisco Golf Club, Olympic Club, Lake Merced Golf Club, Harding Park Golf Club, and
several city parks and medians. Daly City and SFPUC are pursuing the Feasibility of Expanded
Tertiary Recycled Water Facilities Project, which will provide approximately 3 mgd of additional
recycled water irrigation supply to the cemeteries in the Town of Colma and other parks and
schoolyards. The goal of the project is to reduce reliance on the groundwater basin and to create a
local, drought -proof water supply. This expansion in currently in design; construction is expected
to occur in 2018 -2019.
Cal Water examined the potential for recycled water use in its SSF District Water Supply and
Facilities Master Plan. It was further evaluated in its Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan
for its three Peninsula Districts. These studies found a potential for 0.61 mgd of recycled water
demand in the SSF District. Because of the low demand and very high cost to treat and convey
recycled water, this supply is not being pursued. Cal Water will reevaluate recycled water use in
the future to determine whether it is feasible.
The North San Mateo County Sanitation District (NSMCSD) treats wastewater from Cal Water's
South San Francisco service area communities of Broadmoor and portions of Colma.
Communities also within the NSMCSD, but not in Cal Water's service area include Westlake,
Westborough County Water District, Daly City, and the San Francisco County Jail. Municipal
wastewater is generated in the NSMCSD service area by residential, commercial, and limited
industrial sources. NSMCSD owns, operates and maintains its sewer system consisting of gravity
sewers and pumping stations.
W:3
South San Francisco and San Bruno own and operate the South San Francisco Water Quality
Control Plant (SSFWQCP). Wastewater from Cal Water's South San Francisco service area
communities of South San Francisco and Colma is treated at the SSFWQCP. Wastewater from
San Bruno and a small portion of Daly City is also treated at the SSFWQCP, but these areas are
not within Cal Water's service area. The sewer system includes gravity lines and force mains that
combine both wastewater and storm water runoff.
The quantity of wastewater generated is proportional to the population and water use in the
service area. For 2015, it was estimated that 2,382 AFY of wastewater flows from Cal Water's
South San Francisco District to the NSMCSD, and 3,500 AFY flows to the SSFWQCP for a total
of 5,882 AFY.
Wastewater Treatment in SSF District Area
Wastewater at the North San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant ( NSMWTP) receives secondary
treatment. The NSMWTP cannot provide tertiary treatment. NSMWTP design treatment capacity
is 10.3 MGD average daily flow but currently receives 6.8 MGD from the North San Mateo
County Sanitation District service area. Effluent is discharged to an outfall at Thornton Beach via
pipeline. Secondary non - public contact treated water is currently recycled from this plant for
irrigation of landscaped medians in Westlake. Recycled water from the NSMWTP is not
available to the SSF District service area. Wastewater from the South San Francisco Water
Quality Control Plant (SSFWQCP) receives secondary treatment with chlorination and de-
chlorination before being discharged to the San Francisco Bay. The SSFWQCP also provides de-
chlorination for chlorinated effluent for Burlingame, Millbrae, and San Francisco International
Airport. The SSFWQCP has capacity to treat 13 MGD average daily flow (instantaneous peak
wet weather flow capacity of 30 mgd) and currently receives 10 MGD from the SSFWQCP
service area. The SSFWQCP does not provide recycled water. An assessment of using recycled
water from this plant was made by the firm CDM in preparing the Cal Water's Water Supply and
Facilities Master Plan for the SSF District and although it was concluded to not be feasible
presently, it was recommended that recycling should be re- evaluated in the future.
Potential for Water Recycled Water
South San Francisco has conducted studies to assess the feasibility of developing a recycled
water program and is continuing with further investigations to determine capital and operations
and maintenance costs associated with various stages of implementation of a water recycling
program as well as environmental, institutional, regulatory, and financial issues that must be
addressed.
NSMCWTP staff has worked on upgrading its treatment facilities to meet Title 22 requirements,
i.e., tertiary treatment. Some process improvements have been made. Planned uses for recycled
water include irrigation of three golf courses adjacent to the treatment plant and irrigation of local
median strips and athletic fields. However, theses golf courses currently use groundwater for
irrigation. The golf courses and median strips are not within Cal Water's SSF district service
area. In addition, Cal Water's service areas in Broadmoor and Colma are residential communities
with no current use for recycled water. It is hoped that potential customers will be served with
recycled water from the North San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant in the future, but none of
these potential customers are within Cal Water's service area.
Q
Current projected recycled water demand for Cal Water's service area, which is served by
NSMWTP through 2040 is 0 acre -feet per year.
Cal Water will continue to participate in planning for future recycled water project(s) with South
San Francisco, San Bruno and SFPUC and consider supporting a joint feasibility study with Daly
City to investigate supplying recycled water to Colma cemeteries.
The SSFWQCP is near design capacity. Existing available space will be used to add facilities to
increase treatment capacity. Due to these conditions, SSFWQCP does not have plans to provide
recycled water in the near future.
Desalinated Water
Cal Water did an initial evaluation of developing desalinated water as a source of potable supply
in its 2009 Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan (WSFMP). It was studied in more detail in its
2011 Long Term Water Supply Plan ( LTWSP) for its three Peninsula Districts. Other agencies
are also investigating a number of potential regional and local desalination projects which could
be developed to provide potable water to the Cal Water Peninsula Districts.
The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project ( BARDP) has identified one or two desalination
plants for producing potable water. Participating agencies would either directly receive
desalinated water or exchange other water among them. Participating agencies include Contra
Costa Water District (CCWD), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), SFPUC, Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and Zone 7 Water Agency.
The BARDP evaluation process started in 2003 with the screening of 22 potential sites,
narrowing those down to three sites. The 2007 feasibility study screened and ranked
combinations of location, operation, and conveyance scenarios according to six issues:
environmental, permitting, institutional /legal, cost, public perception, and reliability. The highest
performing configuration was a 65 mgd facility in the City of Pittsburg, co- located with the
existing Mirant Power Plant. BARDP is currently conducting a Regional Reliability Study.
Potential Local Desalination Projects
The LTWSP indicated that a significant demand to supply gap can be anticipated during drought
conditions, which is summarized in Chapter 7 of the 2015 SSF District UWMP.
The LTWSP concluded that most viable alternatives to close this supply gap are through the
development of desalination facilities and/or water transfers.
Desalination options involve developing reverse osmosis membrane treatment plants to
remove the salts from San Francisco Bay surface water or brackish groundwater beneath the
bay. Based on planning level cost estimates, brackish water desalination (with potential yields
up to 5 mgd) is the most attractive option for eliminating the supply gap. Use of surface bay
water, while more expensive, would provide greater treatment capacity and an opportunity for
Cal Water to supply desalinated water to nearby public water utilities which are supplied
solely by the SFPUC.
[till
Cal Water intends to conduct more detailed feasibility studies and if results are positive, prepare
a preliminary engineering report on the recommended desalination option. Implementing a
desalination project will require an additional 7 to 10 years. Several actions are necessary to
refine cost estimates including: determining sustainable brackish groundwater yield capacity,
determining the best well locations for extracting brackish water, confirming feasibility of brine
discharge locations, finding acceptable sites for treatment and finished water storage facilities,
and developing a pilot testing program. If a larger capacity desalination plant is warranted based
on interest from other water utilities, Cal Water will need to identify potential open water intake
sites, treatment and storage locations, and conveyance system facilities and estimate the
associated costs for implementing various alternatives.
The estimated cost of a more detailed feasibility study and preparing a preliminary engineering
report on the recommended desalination plant is $2.6 million over a 4 -5 year period. However,
Cal Water must first obtain approval from the CPUC to approve of the cost of the study in its
General Rate Case requests, which are made every three years.
Local desalination factors discussed in the LTWSP for the three peninsula districts included:
1. Location: varies from SSF to Redwood City.
2. Intakes: vertical wells for brackish groundwater, slant wells and open intake for seawater
3. Brine disposal: Joint use of a wastewater treatment plant outfall; new outfall; Cargill
brine line
4. Small capacity desalination plants: 1 —10 mgd; subsurface intakes, easier to permit
and lower costs and risks
5. Large capacity desalination plant: 10 — 20 mgd: open seawater intake, harder to
permit and greater costs and risks
6. Likely Yields from different locations and intakes
7. Operations requirements and constraints
8. Environmental and permitting approval process, time requirements and costs
Water Transfers
The LTWSP examined several water transfer options as a means to augment existing supplies.
These include Delta transfers, pre -1914 water rights transfers, "green option" transfers, and
transfers of SFPUC water between BAWSCA agencies. Cal Water does not have any plans for
exchanges at this time.
The majority of the Delta transfers are between State Water Project (SWP) and Federal Central
Valley Project (CVP) contractors. Non SWP and CVP contractors have less access to transfers,
lower available supplies and more difficulty in accessing conveyance facilities for moving water.
or for groundwater storage. In drought years, this results a low level of certainty on being able to
contract for and obtain additional water supplies.
Increasing reliability of long -term transfers generally requires use of groundwater storage or
banking. For SWP or CVP contractors and other parties, transfer of supplies from Central Valley
sources, groundwater storage has often depended on sites in Kern County. Storage and
conveyance of stored water adds to the purchase price of the water which under more extreme
drought conditions significantly increases.
31
Even with contracts for transfer in place, storage would be required due to the seasonal
availability of Delta supplies. In addition, these supplies would still need to be transferred from
the Delta to the Peninsula Districts. This would most likely occur either through the South Bay
Aqueduct (SBA) or Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) transmission system from San
Luis Reservoir. Wheeling agreements would be required with DWR for transfers through the
SBA, and additional agreements with either Alameda County Water District (ACWD) or
SCVWD. That water would then need to be conveyed through other agency systems to Cal
Water District, or ACWD would transfer part of its SFPUC supply to the Cal Water.
Not including conveyance /wheeling charges, the price for Delta transfer supply depends on the
source, but currently is around $200 /AF from the Sacramento Valley, and $400 to $900 /AF for
San Joaquin transfers. During dry years these costs increase significantly. These costs do not
include wheeling from the Delta to the Bay Area or then to the Peninsula Districts.
Pre -1914 Water Right Transfers
Another potential group of water transfers are pre -1914 water right supplies. These supplies
have higher priority than post -1914 and the majority of the SWP and CVP rights. As such, they
are not subject to the same environmental and institutional restrictions associated with the Delta
supplies. Pre -1914 rights are more reliable during droughts than other rights and have a higher
value and cost. One of the key issues is conveyance of that supply to the purchaser. This adds
complexity to the transfer arrangements, and increases the costs for wheeling of the supply.
Major issues associated with pre -1914 rights are long -term availability, especially during
droughts, and cost for purchase of the supply and cost and availability of infrastructure to
transfer supplies to Cal Water's Peninsula Districts.
Transfers of "Green Option" Supplies
The conservation offset, or green option, is based on implementation of agricultural water use
efficiencies in the Lower Tuolumne River Watershed (LTRW) (i.e. Modesto Irrigation District
[MID] and Tuolumne Irrigation District [TID] service areas). The green option reduces
irrigation water requirements through implementation of agricultural water efficiency measures,
instead of fallowing land which can cause third -party impacts.
The Tuolumne river option has many advantages, including the high level of water quality. If
the project is a direct offset for releases to MID and TID this would be equivalent to Hetch
Hetchy supply. If this is water released from Don Pedro then additional treatment would be
required. In either case, conveyance would be through the SFPUC system, and would not
require other wheeling agreements outside of those with SFPUC. However, a concern with this
approach is whether the additional Hetch Hetchy supply would not be made available to Cal
Water because of the Raker Act.
Transfers between SFPUC wholesale customers
The water supply agreements with SFPUC allow the transfer of supply between wholesale
customers without penalty, or additional charges. However, the agreements do not allow carry
over from year to year if purchases were less than the interim supply agreement. This transfer
mechanism can be used if other wholesale customers have excess supply, either due to their
contract capacity, or if Cal Water were to fund other projects within these agencies that may free
up SFPUC supply for transfer.
Since it is likely water transfers can be implemented sooner than desalination, Cal Water views
these to be the shorter term solution to meet supply requirements.
32
Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
Table 8 shows 2015 actual total supplies for the three peninsula district.
Table 8: 2015 Peninsula Districts Actual Supplies
AF
SFPUC Purchased Water
28,404
Bear Gulch Surface water
437
SSF District Groundwater
1,312
Total
30,153
Table 9 shows the projected supply quantities to 2040. Cal Water's SFPUC supply is shared
among all three Peninsula districts in order to provide operational flexibility to distribute the
supply as needed depending on the availability of local supplies and demands within each
district.
Table 9: Peninsula Districts
Projected
Water Supply AF
Year
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
SFPUC Purchased Water
37,430
37,485
37,852
38,354
38,972
SSF District Groundwater
1,535
1,535
1 535
1,535
1-1-5-3-5
Bear Gulch Surface Water
1,260
1,260
1 1,260
1 1,260
15260
Total
40,225
40,280
140,647
141,149
41,767
Purchased SFPUC supplies and local supplies (groundwater in the SSF District and surface water
in the Bear Gulch District) are discussed in the 2015 UWMP. Based on estimated demands for all
three districts, total supplies are anticipated to be sufficient to meet combined normal year
demands for all three districts through 2040. The supply amounts shown in Table 8 equal the
total projected demands for the three districts.
Climate Change Impacts to Supply
In 2016, Cal Water prepared an initial study of climate change impacts for some of its districts,
including the South San Francisco District! The districts included in the study account for 85%
of Cal Water's total 2014 water production and reflect the diversity of Cal Water districts,
including geographic, hydrologic, and climatic conditions and primary and secondary supply
sources. The study was undertaken to gain a better understanding of the potential impacts of
climate change on the availability of water supplies. While impact projections are uncertain, they
are useful for estimating future supply changes and how they might be planned for in order to
ensure adequate and reliable supplies.
Changes in climate will affect the availability of local groundwater and surface water supplies, as
well as purchased imported supplies. The study addressed the impacts on each of these sources
M
for each district. It relied on the best available projections of changes in climate (temperature and
precipitation) through the end of the century, and then used the climate projections to estimate
how surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates may change. Cal Water's study
generally relied on studies and data provided by wholesale suppliers.
Climate change is primarily driven by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in
the atmosphere. Future climate change is a function of the rate at which those concentrations
increase and how the atmosphere, oceans and land masses respond to increases in global
temperatures. While the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that climate change has, is
and continues to occur, projections for localized areas with respect to impacts on temperature,
precipitation, runoff, groundwater and related hydrologic conditions are still subject to
significant uncertainty.
The projections of temperature and precipitation that underlie Cal Water's study are based on 40
of the latest Global Circulation Models (GCMs) run as part of the Coupled Model Inter
comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). This approach is termed an ensemble analysis, for which
the downscaled climate projections for any particular Cal Water Service District were based on
the median of the 40 downscaled GCM datasets. The GCMs used by the analysis are driven by
two GHG emission pathways that bound upper and lower estimates of GHG concentrations.
The climate change study combined the Mid - Peninsula, South San Francisco, and Bear Gulch
districts. Supply reductions due to climate change are projected to be between 6% and 15% for
these districts by the end of the century.
Climate change impacts will generally increase over time. Anticipated late 21St century impacts
are forecast to be higher in some districts than impacts at mid - century. Moreover, during the
period that climate change is forecast to reduce supplies, demands are forecast to increase.
Future potential Cal Water actions regarding climate change include:
• Methodological improvements to reduce uncertainties
• Acquiring better and more complete data;
0 Developing plans to address climate change reductions on supply.
Water Supply Reliability Assessment
Using available historical information and projections of future water uses, regulatory and legal
constraints, and hydrological and environmental conditions, including climate change, Cal
Water has assessed the reliability of the SSF District's water supplies.
Water Supply Agreement with SFPUC
In July 2009, the wholesale customers and San Francisco adopted the Water Supply Agreement
(WSASFPUC). Key features of that Agreement include:
34
Individual Supply Guarantee
San Francisco has a continuing commitment (Supply Assurance) to deliver 184 mgd to the 24
permanent wholesale customers collectively. San Jose and Santa Clara are not included in the
Supply Assurance commitment and each has temporary and interruptible water supply contracts
with San Francisco. The Supply Assurance is allocated among the 24 permanent wholesale
customers through Individual Supply Guarantees (ISG), which represent each wholesale
customer's allocation of the 184 mgd Supply Assurance. Cal Water's total ISG for the three
districts is 35.68 mgd.
2018 Interim Supply Limitation
As part of its adoption of the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) in October 2008,
discussed separately herein, the SFPUC adopted a water supply limitation, the Interim Supply
Limitation (ISL), which limits sales from San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS)
watersheds to an average annual of 265 mgd through 2018.
All 26 wholesale customers and San Francisco are subject to the ISL. The wholesale customers'
collective allocation under the ISL is 184 mgd and the City of San Francisco's is 81 mgd.
Although the wholesale customers did not agree to the ISL, the Water Supply Agreement
provides a framework for administering the ISL.
Interim Supply Allocations
The Interim Supply Allocations (ISAs) refer to San Francisco's and each individual wholesale
customer's share of the Interim Supply Limitation (ISL). On December 14, 2010, the SFPUC
established each agency's ISA through 2018. In general, the SFPUC based the wholesale
customer allocations on the lesser of the projected fiscal year 2017 -18 purchase projections or
Individual Supply Guarantees. The ISAs are effective only until December 31, 2018 and do not
affect the Supply Assurance or the Individual Supply Guarantees. Cal Water's ISA for its three
peninsula districts is 35.68 mgd.
SFPUC's wholesale customers do not concede the legality of the Commission's establishment of
the ISAs and Environmental Enhancement Surcharge, and expressly retain the right to legally
challenge either or both, if imposed.
Environmental Enhancement Surcharge
As an incentive to keep Regional Water System (RWS) deliveries below the ISL of 265 mgd, the
SFPUC adopted an Environmental Enhancement Surcharge for collective deliveries in excess of
the ISL effective at the beginning of fiscal year 2011 -12. This volume -based surcharge would be
unilaterally imposed by the SFPUC on individual wholesale customers and San Francisco retail
customers, when an agency's use exceeds their ISA and when sales of water to the wholesale
customers and San Francisco retail customers, collectively, exceeds the ISL of 265 mgd. Actual
charges would be determined based on each agency's respective amount(s) of excess use over
their ISA. To date, no Environmental Enhancement Surcharges have been levied.
2018 SFPUC Decisions
In the Water Supply Agreement, there are three decisions the SFPUC committed to making
before 2018 that will affect water supply development:
MI
• Whether or not to make the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers,
• Whether or not to supply the additional unmet supply needs of the wholesale
customers beyond 2018
• Whether or not to increase the wholesale customer Supply Assurance above 184 mgd.
Additionally, there have been recent changes to in- stream flow requirements and customer
demand projections that will affect water supply planning beyond 2018. As a result, the SFPUC
has developed a Water Management Action Plan (Water MAP) to provide necessary information
to address the 2018 decisions and to begin developing a water supply program for the 2019 to
2035 planning horizon. The water supply program will enable the SFPUC to continue to meet its
commitments and responsibilities to wholesale and retail customers, consistent with the priorities
of the SFPUC.
The Water MAP was slated for SFPUC Commission discussion in 2016. The discussion resulting
from the questions described in the Water MAP will help guide the water supply planning
objectives through 2035. While the Water MAP is not a water supply program, it presents
pertinent information that will help develop the SFPUC's future water supply planning program.
At this time, and for purposes of longer term planning, it is conservatively assumed that
deliveries from the Regional Water System to San Francisco's wholesale customers will not be in
excess of 184 mgd.
Water Shortage Allocation Plan
The Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) allocates water from the Regional Water System
(RWS) to retail and wholesale customers during system -wide shortages of 20 percent or less (the
Tier One Plan). The WSAP has two components:
• The Tier One Plan, which allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale
customers collectively; and
The Tier Two Plan, which allocates the collective wholesale customer share among the
wholesale customers
Tier One Drought Allocation
The Tier One Plan allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customers
collectively based on the level of shortage. It is summarized in Table 10.
Krol
The Tier One Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and
any wholesale customer and between wholesale customers. In addition, water "banked" by a
wholesale customer, through reductions in use greater than required, may be transferred.
The Tier One Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA in 2034, unless
mutually extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers.
The Tier One Plan applies only when the SFPUC determines that a system -wide water shortage
exists and issues a declaration of a water shortage emergency under California Water Code
Section 350. Separate from a declaration of a water shortage emergency, SFPUC may opt to
request voluntary cutbacks from San Francisco and the wholesale customers to achieve necessary
water use reductions during drought periods. During the most recent drought, SFPUC requested,
but did not mandate, a 10 percent system -wide reduction starting January 2014. The SFPUC did
not declare a water shortage emergency and implement the Tier One Plan because its customers
exceeded the 10 percent voluntary system -wide reduction in conjunction with the state -wide
mandatory reductions.
Tier Two Drought Allocation
The wholesale customers have negotiated and adopted the Tier Two Plan, the second component
of the WSAP, which allocates the collective wholesale customer share among each of the 26
wholesale customers. This Tier Two allocation is based on a formula that takes into account
multiple factors for each wholesale customer including:
Individual Supply Guarantee;
Seasonal use of all available water supplies; and
Residential per capita use.
The water made available to the wholesale customers collectively will be allocated among them
in proportion to each wholesale customer's Allocation Basis, expressed in millions of gallons
per day (mgd), which in turn is the weighted average of two components. The first component is
the wholesale customer's Individual Supply Guarantee, as stated in the WSA, and is fixed. The
second component, the Base /Seasonal Component, is variable and is calculated using the
monthly water use for three consecutive years prior to the onset of the drought for each of the
wholesale customers for all available water supplies. The second component is accorded twice
the weight of the first, fixed component in calculating the Allocation Basis. Minor adjustments
to the Allocation Basis are then made to ensure a minimum cutback level, a maximum cutback
level, and a sufficient supply for certain wholesale customers.
The Allocation Basis is used in a fraction, as numerator, over the sum of all wholesale
customers' Allocation Bases to determine each wholesale customer's Allocation Factor. The final
shortage allocation for each wholesale customer is determined by multiplying the amount of
water available to the wholesale customers' collectively under the Tier One Plan, by the
wholesale customer's Allocation Factor. The Tier Two Plan requires that the Allocation Factors
be calculated by BAWSCA each year in preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. As
the wholesale customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in
SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns, or
changes in residential per capita water use), the Allocation Factor for each wholesale customer
will also change. However, for long -term planning purposes, each wholesale customer shall use
as its Allocation Factor, the value identified in the Tier Two Plan when adopted.
The current Tier Two Plan will expire in 2018 unless extended by the wholesale customers.
[cad
Reliability by Type of Year
SFPUC modeled wholesale supply availability using its historic record. Unconstrained wholesale
supply is 184 mgd. SFPUC defines a single dry year as the first year that storage levels decrease to
the point that system -wide water supply rationing is necessary. In 2015, wholesale supply was
estimated to be 152.6 mgd. SFPUC's multiple dry year cycle begins with one dry year followed
by two additional dry years in which storage levels drop further, such as the 1987 -88 through
1989 -90 sequence. The wholesale supply in the second and third years is estimated at 129.2 mgd.
For a single dry year, Cal Water assumes SFPUC supply to be 129.2 mgd with the 2015 water
conveyance infrastructure and 132.5 mgd in subsequent years resulting from infrastructure
improvements. For three consecutive dry years, Cal Water assumes wholesale supply is 129.2
mgd to 2019 and 132.5 mgd in 2020 and thereafter as a result of completion of SFPUC
infrastructure improvements.
According to BAWSCA, the Tier 2 allocation of the 129.2 mgd would result in Cal Water being
supplied 27.81 mgd through 2019 and 28.52 mgd in 2020 and thereafter.
Cal Water chose 1990 as its single dry year. This is the driest of years in Cal Water's
historical precipitation record. The three year dry period is 1990, 1991 and 1992.
Table 11 summarizes Cal Water's expected dry years SFPUC supplies for its three peninsula
districts.
Table 11: Cal Water Dry Years SFPUC
Year
Supplies
AF
Single -Dry Year
1990
33,836
Multiple -Dry Years 1st Year
1990
33,836
Multiple -Dry Years 2nd
Year
1991
34,223
Multiple -Dry Years 3rd Year
1992
34,223
Normal Water Year
Table 12 shows the projected supply and demand totals for the 3 districts for a normal year. In
normal years the full ISG of 35.68 MGD (39,967 AF) is available. Table 12 shows the total of
SFPUC, SSF District groundwater and the Bear Gulch District surface supplies meets the
combined demands of the three districts.
0.11
Single Dry Year
Table 13 shows the projected supply and demand totals for the 3 districts for a single dry year.
Based on historical records, supply from the Bear Gulch Reservoir provides 351 AF in single
dry year. The SSF District's groundwater supply of 1,535 AFY will be unaffected by a single
dry year. SFPUC supply is 31,950 AF. Projected shortages exceed 20% by the end of the
planning period.
Table 12: 3 Districts - Normal
Year Supply and Demand Comparison
(AF)
2020
Supply •
�1 �1 :1
�•
•
Demand totals
�1 �1 :1 �1 ••
••
•
33,836
33,836
Demand totals
41,984
Single Dry Year
Table 13 shows the projected supply and demand totals for the 3 districts for a single dry year.
Based on historical records, supply from the Bear Gulch Reservoir provides 351 AF in single
dry year. The SSF District's groundwater supply of 1,535 AFY will be unaffected by a single
dry year. SFPUC supply is 31,950 AF. Projected shortages exceed 20% by the end of the
planning period.
Multiple Dry Years (3)
Table 14 shows the projected supply and demand for the 3 districts for 3 consecutive dry years.
Based on historical records, supply from the Bear Gulch Reservoir provides an average of 609
AFY in 3 successive dry years. The first year is assumed to be 351 AF - the same as the single -
dry year of 1990. The subsequent two years based on records are expected to provide 738 AFY.
The SSF District's normal groundwater supply of 1,535 AFY is expected to unaffected in dry
years 2 and 3. Total supplies in Table 14 include these quantities and a SFPUC supply of 31,950
AF. Shortages up to 22% in the first year are followed by projected second and third year
shortages between 14% and 19 %.
W
Table
2020
ppComparison
2025
2030
(AF)
2035
2040 (Opt)
Supply totals
33,836
33,836
33,836
33,836
33,836
Demand totals
41,984
42,041
42,425
42,947
43,591
Difference
(8,148)
(8,205)
(8,589)
(9,111)
(9,755)
Percent Shortage
19%
20%
20%
21%
22%
Multiple Dry Years (3)
Table 14 shows the projected supply and demand for the 3 districts for 3 consecutive dry years.
Based on historical records, supply from the Bear Gulch Reservoir provides an average of 609
AFY in 3 successive dry years. The first year is assumed to be 351 AF - the same as the single -
dry year of 1990. The subsequent two years based on records are expected to provide 738 AFY.
The SSF District's normal groundwater supply of 1,535 AFY is expected to unaffected in dry
years 2 and 3. Total supplies in Table 14 include these quantities and a SFPUC supply of 31,950
AF. Shortages up to 22% in the first year are followed by projected second and third year
shortages between 14% and 19 %.
W
In summary, the SSF District has a sufficient supply under normal hydrological conditions.
However, during one -year or multi -year periods, shortfalls up to 22% are projected. Under such
conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as described in
Chapter 8 of the SSF UWMP.
In the 2012 — 2015 drought, SSF District customers were requested to reduce their demand by
8% as specified by the State Board Resources Control Board. The District achieved 20%
reductions based on June 2015 to March 2016 data. Cal Water continues to develop plans to
increase its water supply portfolio for this District and for the other two peninsula districts
(Mid - Peninsula and Bear Gulch).
Regional Supply Reliability
Cal Water coordinates with other water agencies in the region to make best use of regional
water supplies. This includes SFPUC, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, Silicon Valley
Clean Water, and other public and private entities in the Bay area.
Cal Water's continued implementation of its conservation programs in all three peninsula
districts has and is expected to continue to reduce per- capita usage and therefore total demands.
To ensure that its mix of programs is cost - effective manner possible, Cal Water routinely
conducts comprehensive reviews of its conservation program. This is done in tandem with its
updating its UWMPs for each district every 5 years. The Conservation Master Plan is the basis
for the implementation of measures and policies and expected resultant water savings. Demand
40
Table 1
1 1 and
Demand Comparison
2020
2025
2030 2035
2040
First year
supply
33,836
33,836
33,836
33,836
33,836
Demand
totals
41,984
42,041
42,425
42,947
43,591
Difference
(8,148)
(8,205)
(8,589)
(9,111)
(9,755)
% Shortage
19%
20%
20%
21%
22%
Second year
supply
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
Demand
totals
40,764
40,819
41,192
41,700
42,327
Difference
(6,541)
(6,596)
(6,969)
(7,477)
(8,104)
% Shortage
16%
16%
17%
18%
19%
Third year
supply
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
34,223
Demand
totals
39,758
39,812
40,176
40,671
41,283
Difference
(5,535)
(5,589)
(5,953)
(6,448)
(7,060)
% Shortage
14%
14%
15%
16%
17%
In summary, the SSF District has a sufficient supply under normal hydrological conditions.
However, during one -year or multi -year periods, shortfalls up to 22% are projected. Under such
conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as described in
Chapter 8 of the SSF UWMP.
In the 2012 — 2015 drought, SSF District customers were requested to reduce their demand by
8% as specified by the State Board Resources Control Board. The District achieved 20%
reductions based on June 2015 to March 2016 data. Cal Water continues to develop plans to
increase its water supply portfolio for this District and for the other two peninsula districts
(Mid - Peninsula and Bear Gulch).
Regional Supply Reliability
Cal Water coordinates with other water agencies in the region to make best use of regional
water supplies. This includes SFPUC, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, Silicon Valley
Clean Water, and other public and private entities in the Bay area.
Cal Water's continued implementation of its conservation programs in all three peninsula
districts has and is expected to continue to reduce per- capita usage and therefore total demands.
To ensure that its mix of programs is cost - effective manner possible, Cal Water routinely
conducts comprehensive reviews of its conservation program. This is done in tandem with its
updating its UWMPs for each district every 5 years. The Conservation Master Plan is the basis
for the implementation of measures and policies and expected resultant water savings. Demand
40
Management Measures (DMMs) are presented in Chapter 9 of the UWMP. A copy of the
Conservation Master Plan is provided in Appendix L of the UWMP. Cal Water also monitors
and supports the goals of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP).
These goals include:
• Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability
• Improve water supply reliability and quality
• Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality
• Improve regional flood management
Water Supply Projects
Cal Water will continue its annual main replacement program to upgrade and improve the
distribution system of the SSF District. Storage facilities and new booster pumps are added as
needed to meet the average day and maximum day requirements. Future capital expenditures
are planned for drilling and developing new wells to replace aging wells currently in operation,
which will increase system reliability and allow Cal Water to pump its full share of sustainable
extracted groundwater from the Westside basin. Cal Water's SSF District Water Supply and
Facilities Master Plan includes a capital improvements plan and schedule.
Water Demand Manageme
As previously discussed, effective water conservation reduces water demand which reduces
water supply needs. Cal Water's existing conservation programs, including expanded SB7 driven
programs have demonstrated that Cal Water can achieve over 22% reduction in demand — the
worst case scenario for supply shortfall during a dry year in 2040.
SSF District total demand in 2009 was 8,502 AFY. Even with an increase of 120 services
between 2009 and 2016, demand decreased to 6,570 AFY or by 22.7% in 2016.
Continued conservation programs will enable Cal Water to meet its supply obligations for
normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions.
During severe drought periods such as occurred during the 2012 - 2015 period, there were
no shortfalls in supply that necessitated implementation of more extreme demand reduction
measures.
Should periods of more severe water supply shortages occur, Cal Water has in place plans and
measures for further reducing customer water demand beyond 22 %. This includes if necessary
mandatory reductions, rationing, and penalties.
As shown in Table 15, Cal Water has a four -stage water demand reduction plan comprised of
voluntary and mandatory stages. Approval from the CPUC must be obtained prior to
implementation of mandatory restrictions.
41
* Mandatory = Allocations
The following summarizes the actions to be taken during periods when demand reduction is
required:
Stage 1
• Public information campaign consisting of distribution of literature, speaking
engagements, monthly bill inserts, and conservation messages printed in local
newspapers (ongoing)
• Educational programs in area schools (ongoing)
Stage 2
• More aggressive public information and education programs
• Requests to consumers to reduce voluntarily water use by 10 to 20 percent or mandatory
reductions will be implemented
• Prior to implementation of mandatory reductions, obtain approval from CPUC
• Lobby for passage of drought ordinances by appropriate governmental agencies
Stye 3
• Implement mandatory reductions after receiving approval from CPUC
• Maintain rigorous public information campaign explaining water shortage conditions.
• Water use restrictions go into effect; prohibited uses explicitly defined
• Limiting landscape irrigation by restricting hours of the day and or days of the week
during which water for irrigation can be used
• Monitor production weekly for compliance with necessary reductions
• Installation of flow restrictors on the service lines of customers who consistently violate
water use restrictions
Stye 4
• All of steps taken in prior stages intensified.
• Discontinuance of water service for customers consistently violating water use
restrictions
• Monitor production daily for compliance with necessary reductions
• More restrictive conditions or a prohibition of landscape irrigation
42
Table
15: SSF District
Water Demand Reduction
Plan
Supply Shortage
Stage
Demand Reduction
Type of Program
Goal
Minium
Stage 1
10% reduction
Voluntary
5-10%
Moderate
Voluntary or
10-20%
Stage 2
°
20 /o reduction
Mandatory*
Severe °
20 -35/0
Stage 3
35% reduction
Mandatory*
Critical
35-50%
Stage 4
50% reduction
Mandatory*
* Mandatory = Allocations
The following summarizes the actions to be taken during periods when demand reduction is
required:
Stage 1
• Public information campaign consisting of distribution of literature, speaking
engagements, monthly bill inserts, and conservation messages printed in local
newspapers (ongoing)
• Educational programs in area schools (ongoing)
Stage 2
• More aggressive public information and education programs
• Requests to consumers to reduce voluntarily water use by 10 to 20 percent or mandatory
reductions will be implemented
• Prior to implementation of mandatory reductions, obtain approval from CPUC
• Lobby for passage of drought ordinances by appropriate governmental agencies
Stye 3
• Implement mandatory reductions after receiving approval from CPUC
• Maintain rigorous public information campaign explaining water shortage conditions.
• Water use restrictions go into effect; prohibited uses explicitly defined
• Limiting landscape irrigation by restricting hours of the day and or days of the week
during which water for irrigation can be used
• Monitor production weekly for compliance with necessary reductions
• Installation of flow restrictors on the service lines of customers who consistently violate
water use restrictions
Stye 4
• All of steps taken in prior stages intensified.
• Discontinuance of water service for customers consistently violating water use
restrictions
• Monitor production daily for compliance with necessary reductions
• More restrictive conditions or a prohibition of landscape irrigation
42
Section 357 of the Water Code requires that suppliers that are subject to regulation by the CPUC
shall secure its approval before imposing water consumption regulations and restrictions required
by water shortages.
Design, Construction and Operation of Haskins Project Water Supply Facilities
As planning and design proceed further, Cal Water anticipates working closely with the
developer and its engineers, the City of South San Francisco, California Division of Drinking
Water (DDW) and any other agencies that may be involved with the approval of required water
supply facilities.
Cal Water will prepare design drawings and specifications for compliance with state and Cal
Water's standards with respect to pipe sizes, valves, materials, etc. and connection to its existing
system.
Cal Water's SSF District, supported by its engineering, water quality and customer service staff
in San Jose, will be responsible for providing ongoing local operations and maintenance services
of the water system.
SB 610 Section 10910 Paragraph (d)(2) requires identification of existing water supply
entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system shall be
demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
fAJ Written contracts or proof of entitlement to an identified water supply.
Proof of entitlement to use of the wells cited as a major supply source to the District is
demonstrated by Cal Water's ownership of the property and the wells and its legal right
to use the underlying percolated waters.
Proof of entitlement to the use of SFPUC treated water are provided in the contracts cited
in this document between Cal Water and SFPUC and are available for review.
f& Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delive?y of a water supply system
that has been adopted by the public water system.
Capital costs for design and construction of the water distribution system within the
development site are the responsibility of the developer.
Cal Water's SSF District capital improvement program is separate from and does not
include any of the costs associated with the design and construction of the water system
for or within the Haskins Project. However, upon legal transfer of the completed water
system within the development site to Cal Water by the developer, the water system will
be incorporated into Cal Water's capital improvement and maintenance programs.
The SSF District 2009 Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan provides specific
recommendations for water system facility and capital improvements to the year
2030. Cal Water plans to update this plan in the 2018 - 2019 period.
43
LQ Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure
associated with delivering the water suply.
For any distribution system improvements, the developer will be required to obtain
the necessary building permits from the City of South San Francisco.
Cal Water is highly experienced in preparing applications and obtaining the necessary permits
that are needed in order to proceed with design, construction, startup and operation of water
distribution facilities. Cal Water is familiar with approvals it must obtain from the City of South
San Francisco and DDW.
Summary of Supply and Demand Analysis
Normal Hydrologic Year
For all three Cal Water peninsula districts served by SFPUC, the combination of existing local
and purchased supplies are adequate to meet forecasted demands for the Haskins Project, those
associated with existing Cal Water customers and all other new developments for the next 20+
years
Single Dry Year
For a single dry year supplies may be less than normal projected demands if SFPUC supplies are
reduced, which historically has not occurred. Generally, Cal Water does not expect a reduced
supply, but if SFPUC does reduce its supplies, Cal Water will implement additional demand
reduction measures. The amount of groundwater that will be pumped will not be reduced. During
a single dry year treated surface water from the Bear Gulch Reservoir in the Bear Gulch District
will most likely decrease. While a single dry year may trigger increased water demand reduction
measures, demand has not been reduced to reflect those measures. Depending on when in the
next 20+ years another single dry year occurs, additional supply sources (water transfers and
desalination) may have been developed and be available to offset any reductions in existing
sources.
Three Consecutive Dry Years
During a 3 years dry period, supplies will be less than normal demand by a range from 14% to
22% in 2040 depending on which dry year it is and the projected future date. Again, Cal Water
will assess any supply reduction notifications from SFPUC, the availability of water from its
treated surface source in Bear Gulch District and whether it can continue to pump groundwater at
its historically normal rate. Westside Basin groundwater supplies would likely continue to be
pumped at current rates although that would result in a reduction in basin storage and a lowering
of groundwater levels. During years of above normal rainfall, it is expected that groundwater
storage would increase as has been the case in past decades.
Depending on when in the next 20+ years successive dry years occur, additional supply sources
(water transfers and desalination) may have been developed and be available to offset any
reductions in existing supply sources. If not, Cal Water will determine what additional demand
reduction measures will be needed to reduce demand to match available supplies. As previously
noted, Cal Water exceeded its goal of reducing demands during the most recent (2010 - 2015)
severe drought.
44
If in the first dry year, demand reduction responses do not appear to be sufficient, Cal Water
will implement additional conservation measures in the second and third dry years. This is
expected to result in an adequate supply for all three Cal Water peninsula districts from 2020 to
2040.
Conclusions
Based on:
I. Current Westside Basin groundwater supplies and Cal Water's current and projected
groundwater production rates from its active wells,
2. Generally adequate long -term normal hydrologic supplies provided by the SFPUC, but
recent significant proposed reductions in supply during multiple dry year periods,
3. An effective demand reduction program to meet requirements of state laws,
4. Future Cal Water plans to develop additional supply sources including
transfers /exchanges of supplies from outside the peninsula area and development of local
desalination facilities,
5. The prospect of longer term additional local supplies being obtained from SFPUC's
proposed conjunctive use program for the Westside Basin,
6. Possible recycled water projects being developed collaboratively among local
wastewater and water utilities in the SSF District area,
7. Cal Water's ability to achieve additional drought driven reductions in demand (15% to
26 %) during single dry year and multiple dry year periods through its established in-
place water programs,
8. Historical performance which demonstrates Cal Water's ability to both increase supply
sources and effectively achieve demand reductions if required,
Cal Water's concludes that for the next 20+ years, its SSF District will be able to provide
adequate water supplies to meet existing and projected customer demands, which includes full
development of the Haskins Project for normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions.
Cal Water will ensure that the required water facilities are designed consistent with the proposed
development plan and will coordinate with the developer, its planners and engineers, the City of
South San Francisco, and the California Division of Drinking Water in the design, construction
and operation of the proposed water distribution system.
End of WSA Document
45
References
1. California Water Service 2015 Urban Water Management Plan South San Francisco
District (Adopted June 2016) 341 North Delaware Ave San Mateo, California 94401
2. California Water Service Company 2010 Urban Water Management Plan South San
Francisco District (Adopted June 2011) 341 North Delaware Ave San Mateo, California
94401
3. California Water Service Company, Long Term Water Supply Plan for Three
Peninsula Districts (2011), 1720 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112
4. California Water Service Company South San Francisco District Water Supply
and Facilities Plan 2009, 1720 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112
5. California Water Service Supply Water Demand and Supply Data 2010 — 2016 (May
— June 2017), 1720 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112
6. California Water Service Company, Potential Climate Change Impacts on the Water
Supplies of California Water Service January 2016, 1720 North First St, San Jose, CA
95112
7. California Water Service SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For the 2017 Genentech
Master Plan Update, November 21, 2017
8. California Water Service SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For Oyster Point
Development Project, August 1, 2017
9. California Water Service SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For South San Francisco
Downtown Station, June 19, 2014
10. California Water Service SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For 2008 Gateway Business
Park, December 1, 2008
!9