In addition to the presentations, several tours were offered at the beginning of the conference and I had the opportunity to not only see some great wetland mitigation sites and how they are being managed, but I was also able to view the Euclid Creek/Dugway Storage Tunnels and tunnel dewatering pump station project site.

Back at the conference, presentations ranged from the latest in LID and retrofitting practices, regulations and policies, sustainable development, stormwater treatment and more.

One subject that received a lot of emphasis was stormwater asset management. Several speakers discussed how their communities are approaching stormwater asset management and shared the lessons they have learned. Another key focus area at the conference was the integration of CSOs and stormwater and how communities are working on integrated planning.

Judging from my conversations with attendees, the conference's presentations were well received and productive networking opportunities were widely available to everyone throughout the annual event.

Outgoing AMWA President Pat Mulroy, general manager for the Las Vegas Valley Water District, provided a welcome and opening comments. She will be missed by all. Chuck Murray, general manager for Fairfax Water, is the incoming AMWA president.

The conference opened with a panel discussion on enhanced workforce engagement. The panel members were Terry Brueck, CEO, EMA; Sue McCormick, director, Detroit Water and Sewerage Department; Glen Gerads, assistant director, Minneapolis Water Works; Cathy Bailey, transition manager, Greater Cincinnati Water Works; and Pat Maxwell, HR director, Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Employee engagement was a highly rated topic in a recent AMWA survey of members, as well as six years of survey by AWWA and great interest to the attendees judging by the number of audience questions. A few of the many ideas shared included:

• Involve a wide range of employees and other shareholders, such as other divisions in the strategic planning process, as well as the design of the engagement program. Empower employees to help shape the utility organization and business model.
• Consider significant organizational change — new business processes, job classifications, leverage technology. This provides more opportunities for personal development, which leads to better engagement.
• Eliminate roadblocks to engagement, such as silos that tend to pigeonhole staff. Create job cross-over opportunities.
• Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Dan Roberts, director for the City of Palm Bay Utilities, presented a "roadmap" for effective utility management. The goals of EUM, such as promoting sustainable water services to support local economies, improve service, increase employee development, address infrastructure resiliency, etc., are important to our industry. I found it interesting (but not surprising) that the principles behind EMU were woven into many of the discussions throughout the conference.

Smart technology, taking data and technology use/deployment to the next level in essentially all areas of a utility from optimization of asset of operations, business management, revenue generation, maintenance prioritization, etc.., was presented by Biju George, interim director at Greater Cincinnati Water Works, and Michael Koenig, technology director for Qualcomm Technologies. Implementation of smart technology systems has taken hold in other industries, such as health care and energy, and is growing in the water field. We will see it more broadly deployed and likely extended to create smart cities in the near future.

The close-out panel topic was on infrastructure resilience in response to extreme events. We all remember the devastation cause by Hurricane Katrina and the Colorado floods and forest fires. Sea level rise is on the mind of many coastal communities as well. Marcia St Martin, executive director for the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board, Doug Yoder, deputy director for Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, and Kevin Gertig, manager of water resources and treatment at Fort Collins Utilities, provided their insights on this subject.

Although each utility's situation is unique, continuously planning for extreme weather events and applying lessons learned were conveyed as top priorities. Take these plan outputs and apply them when evaluating and mapping out new infrastructure needs. Harden facilities, design and site new infrastructure with extreme events in mind, leverage technology around automation and communicate. The importance of water comes to center stage when there is none.

As always, the value of networking with others in the water business was active and productive. It was another great event.

In addition to the usual, important discussions on the Delta, the meeting took on several other pressing issues – from dealing with nitrate in groundwater, to small-scale storage options, to fracking in California, and beyond.

With a nod to one of the original founders, Dorothy Green, who believed in the importance of engaging young minds in California water policy discussions, a new session was hosted by a panel of college students. Their session — "Room With a View: Opportunity for Change" — was a huge hit. Six students from the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management presented their vision of what they would like to see for California water in 50 years, including groundwater, stormwater reuse, recycled water, water use efficiency, infrastructure renewal and public education aspects.

The panel members, raised during the '90s with a new water ethic, were realistic about our current state and optimistic about the future. Each panelist presented their vision and ideas, many of which weren't particularly new, but were delivered with a fresh energy and sense that a more optimistic future is feasible and, in fact, is to be expected of us all.

One of my favorite comments was that they're way past "toilet to tap" and now embrace "showers to flowers" and a "use, reuse, reuse, reuse" mentality. Another perspective shared by one of the panelists was appreciation for the conversations that are occurring on California water, but also real surprise to learn that there isn't more agreement among public water agencies, which ultimately serve the same California public. Many of these same students developed the groundbreaking Water Action Plan for UC Santa Barbara.

Another great session was a panel of journalists who have covered California water for decades. The moderator teed up the discussion by referencing comments by state DWR Director Mark Cowin, who recently made a plea for more "peace, love, and understanding" in California water.

Panel members noted their impression of a growing "no can do-ism" when it comes to Delta options and asked: "Will everyone be willing to give something up" to get there? They also reflected upon the poor water IQ of the public and pointed out that although the media cannot fill the minds of the public, we need to embrace a new sense of how we treat water – "Be proudly dry and proudly western" — recognizing the lack of water we have in California and moving toward a place where we "all become appropriate for our sense of place."

Interestingly, the general view coming out of the discussion was "No, we are not running out of water, but we are running out of water to waste."

This is one conference you won't want to miss next year.

Lee talked about the Los Angeles County Seawater Intrusion Barriers. The LACDPW operates a seawater barrier made up of injection wells to prevent seawater intrusion into Los Angeles County groundwater basins.

The region has an inland-flowing hydraulic gradient that brings seawater into the freshwater basins. Freshwater injection wells are used to create a mound of freshwater that creates hydraulic pressure that blocks seawater intrusion along the barrier’s line. Injection wells are mostly underground in vaults under city streets. The typical injection well is designed to inject water to a specific aquifer or, occasionally, two aquifers.

The barrier program consists of three projects, including over 290 injection wells and 780 observation wells. The West Coast Basin Barrier Project consists of 154 injection wells injecting 16,000 acre-feet of fresh water per year, the Dominguez Gab barrier Project consists of 93 injection wells injecting 8,000 acre-feet of fresh water per year, and the Alamitos Barrier Project consists of 54 injection wells injecting 6,000 acre-feet of fresh water per year.

Water for the injection wells is procured from a variety of sources, including imported water from the Metropolitan Water District, and recycled water from West Basin MWD, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Long Beach Water Department. Oversight and regulation of injection is provided by the Water Quality Control Board and Los Angeles County.

Monitoring is done to detect chloride concentrations to identify the need to increase or decrease recharge operations along the barrier. Contours of chloride are created to identify the general extent of intrusion and the effects of the barrier. Maintenance of injection wells is done by well redevelopment, including surging, swabbing, and some acid treatment. Well redevelopment discharge waters are discharged under a Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The LACDPW is working to install telemetry on the injection well system so it can change injection to match conditions detected in monitoring more quickly.

The second presentation, by Whitehead, focused on Case Studies of Successful Injection Recharge in Roseville.

The City of Roseville provides full services to its residents, including water, wastewater and electricity, which makes it a strong candidate to use Aquifer Storage and Recovery. The Roseville ASR project uses treated drinking water and injects it into the ground for future recovery. Roseville is investing in ASR due to expanding water demands, unreliability of the surface water supply and to gain operational flexibility.

The Roseville ASR project spent six years with the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board, spending $1.5 million to obtain a permit. The CVWQCB required a discharge permit for the treated drinking water, which the board characterized as waste. The city fought this designation, and conducted legislative efforts to put pressure on the board to get a general order, which was eventually released Sept. 19. Because ASR has been inconsistently regulated at the state level, the issuance of the state’s general order made ASR easier to perform.

The general order required the State water quality control boards to:

• Provide consistent statewide regulations for ASR
• Implement BMPs for ASR
• Provide a streamlined permitting process for ASR
• Outlines project eligibility (use of treated drinking water)
• Addresses groundwater concerns (all injected water must meet drinking water standards)

The project conducted two pilot tests, consisting of 30 days of injection, and a two-year extraction process. The project also developed a regional groundwater model to perform anti-degradation analysis, as well as an environmental impact report. During the second pilot test, they tested for treatment by product HAA (haloacidicacid) and found that it degraded over time.

The Roseville ASR project also developed a model that has a domain from the foothills in the east to the Sacramento River in the west, by the Bear and Feather rivers in the North, and the Mokelumne River in the south. They used the model to identify the regional gradient, then used it for transport analysis on the disinfection byproducts.

The ASR system provides a number of benefits to Roseville, including backup emergency supplies, operational flexibility to treatment and distribution systems and inexpensive storage. The program also positions the city to be part of a regional conjunctive use program, thereby positioning it to be part of the regional solution for the Delta. The current operation has been injecting since April 2012 and has been operating under a requested permit under the general order. Two new wells are under construction and 1,500 acre-feet have been injected.

GRA's webcast series on groundwater recharge

The status of the new perchlorate standard was discussed. The perchlorate legislation is being considered by the science advisory board, which had a webinar a couple of weeks ago. A draft MCL is anticipated for early 2013 and it may be lower than the California standard.

Rep. John Garamendi’s bill, the SAFE Levee Act, would consider canal conveyance facilities as flood control levees. The possible impact is that many canals would not be in compliance. The levee bill includes rehabilitation of levees in the Delta and requires a cost-benefit analysis for infrastructure investments in the Delta. It would undermine the comprehensive package prepared in Sacramento, in the opinion of Tim Quinn, director of ACWA. He said the CVP contractors should not have to pay for Delta levee improvements.

The AB 685 Right to Water legislation was discussed. David Breninger, general manager of Placer County Water Agency, asked whether there would be any conflicts with Proposition 218. The right to water guidelines are being prepared and was the subject of a recent letter to the journal. Breninger is concerned about having to provide free water to certain customers and whether that would run afoul of Proposition 218.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is reported to be leaving soon and may be running for governor of Colorado. The secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense may be changing as well. Sen. Dianne Feinstein remains as chair of the Energy and Water Committee. This is her last term in office and she may be looking for a legacy project, perhaps the Delta. Rep. Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania will chair the Infrastructure Committee, where the WRDA bill is being considered.

The Federal Affairs Committee also discussed some upcoming legislation and issues, which include simplifying approval of small hydropower projects. Legislation regarding the South San Diego Water Reclamation Project and the Bureau of Reclamation was mentioned.

Groundwater Committee

The requirement for 2014 salt nutrient salt nutrient management plans was mentioned and a webinar series is being planned.

The Groundwater Management Planning subcommittee chaired by Jay Jasperse of Sonoma County Water Agency discussed looking into river and groundwater interactions and preparing an inventory of groundwater management plans done in the state, as well as exploring a partnership with GWRA.

The California Water Plan will discuss a groundwater enhancement effort. The administrative draft is due out in January and the public draft in June. There will be a groundwater caucus meeting in February and a North Sacramento Valley meeting Feb. 22; conjunctive use is the topic and speakers are being looked for. They need ideas to discuss the good, the bad and the ugly.

Standards for geothermal heat exchange wells are being developed for release in June and a stakeholder meeting was held last week. The State Water Resources Control Board will adopt the standards, while DWR develops the standards.

Regarding the recent groundwater grant applications, DWR is behind schedule and plans to announce the results in January, with final recommendations in February.

The grants from DWR for stormwater and flood will be issued next year. The awards of the grants will be done by August.

Proposition 84 implementation grant applications for integrated regional water management projects will be available in March. Workshops will be Feb. 12–14, and the grants awarded in October.

A strategic plan for integrated regional water management is being prepared. A work plan has been released and there will be goal-setting workshops in April.

Attorney Steve Hoch mentioned he is seeing several legal cases that are affecting water utilities dealing with their wells and how the wells could transport contaminants. Issues include moving the plume by groundwater pumping and how wells serve as vertical transport conduits. Water utilities may be facing liabilities that they are not aware of regarding contaminants they are not responsible for.

Townhall: State Water Project: The Next 50 years

Carl Torgersen of DWR described some of the challenges the State Water Project will face during the next 50 years. At present, there’s a lack of qualified tradespeople to take care of the large equipment that they have in the State Water Project. The cost of maintaining the system is $200 million a year and is projected to increase to $400 million per year. The system is aging.

The question was asked about what would you do to meet the new challenges. Torgersen said that changes to the governance structure are needed. He thinks that having the State Water Project as part of the state government was good for building the project, but into the future the best for the State Water Project is to be treated as a water utility and function as separate public water district. He said the ability to maintain the existing infrastructure is at risk and needs to be addressed.

Energy Committee Program: California's Water Energy Nexus Next Steps

Groundwater pumping in California in the summer uses more energy than the energy used by the CVP Colorado River system in the State Water Project combined.

A recent report — "California's Water-Energy Nexus: Pathways to Implementation" — was written by GEI Consultants on behalf of the Water-Energy Team of the Governor's Climate Action Team (aka "WET-CAT"). In 2006, a multi-agency Water-Energy Team was established to assist the WET-CAT in identifying and promulgating statewide strategies for reducing water-sector greenhouse gases. The single largest barrier to full integration of the water and energy sectors is the separate regulation of these two resources. California policymakers are seeking electric reliability measures that can be implemented in energy-stressed Southern California before the summer. One of the potential opportunities may be to provide incentives to water agencies to convert pumps to dual-fuel (electric and natural gas).

Another report of interest, "An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States" prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, with inputs from the Idaho National Laboratory, identifies 54,000 NPDs with most of this potential at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers locks and dams facilities on the Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas rivers.

Water Industry Trends Program: Water Supply Reliability — What Do We Mean and How Do We Get Public Buy-In?

Mary Anne Dickinson, president of the Alliance For Water Efficiency, discussed a water pricing primer they have prepared that can be accessed at their website. She also discussed the use of risk derivatives for water and new concepts for revenue, including a revenue model that has cell phone pricing concepts for water service.

Region 10 Issues Forum: Storm in Urban Water Capture —
A New Water Source For Californians

Richard Atwater and several other panel members gave an interesting discussion on the use of stormwater as a water resource. They mentioned the SoCalWater.org website and a recent APWA study. MS4 for permits were discussed; 500,000 acre-feet per year of stormwater is currently captured. There is underground storage ground to hold 3 million acre-feet per year. A webinar was held on Nov. 9 and a workshop on June 28. Centralized and decentralized storm water systems were discussed. Decentralized systems include the use of rainwater capture barrels and other similar systems.

Exhibitor Technical Presentation: California Department Of Water Resources and the US Geological Survey — From Near-Term Weather And Climate Forecasting To Long-Term Climate Change Implications For Water Management System

This workshop included a presentation of DWR’s experimental winter outlook for the water year 2013 with the purposes of developing an experimental forecast for this winter’s water supply outlook. The prediction is that there will be drier than normal conditions for the northern two-thirds of California and southeastern California for the remainder of the winter through April, near-normal conditions are forecasted for the central south coastal regions, and drier than normal conditions are forecast for the Colorado River basin.

One of the things I liked best about Rwanda was the resourceful and self-reliant nature of the people. They are not waiting for others to come in and solve their problems, but are eager to bring in resources and ideas to enable them to build local capacity and solve their own challenges.

	Newly running water in one of the new Rulindo District taps.

Water For People is partnering with the Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure and Mayor Justus Kangwagye of the Rulindo District on the Rulindo Challenge, with the aim of providing water to every school, clinic and home by 2014. Specifically, they are working to locate water taps within 500 meters and to provide 20 liters of water per person per day. This is one of the most complex, costly assignments WFP has taken on to date and it is estimated to cost nearly $22 million.

Whenever WFP goes into an area, they require local partners to enter into formal contracts document their cost sharing agreement. In the case of the Rulindo Challenge, the Rwandan MININFRA is providing 30 percent, the Rulindo District 10 percent and local communities 5 percent. That leaves $15 million for Water For People to raise. Charity: Water, another fund-raising organization that works closely with WFP, has already committed $8 million toward the cause. Water For People still needs our help to raise the remaining $7 million.

At this point, you may be asking yourself: What can I do? Here’s my short list:

• Learn more about Water For People and their work (they have a website rich with information).
• Consider a payroll deduction or giving program within your organization — small, consistent donations can add up quickly to make a big difference.
• Tell three influential friends about worldwide challenges with water and sanitation and share Water For People with them.
• Plan a trip to a part of the world that is struggling with water and sanitation — tourism dollars are an important source of income to these developing countries and you’ll never look at life in quite the same way again.

The government, through the national Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority, has decided that it wants to pursue Sanitation as a Business as the primary strategy to address its wastewater needs. Entrepreneurs are encouraged to develop micro-businesses to provide sanitation services of one sort or another, with the hope that many can be employed in the process. It appears that much of the emphasis today is on marketing and business development, and not so much on technology, which could present some problems. 

	All over the countryside, we saw handwashing stations — simple, but effective.

The country relies heavily on a new type of pit toilet known as Ecosan, with the intention that solid waste be collected regularly, dried for six months, then used as compost or “humanure” on crops. Some digester toilets have been tried, with the idea that they can help to meet some of the energy needs, although we didn’t get to see any.

Another emerging strategy is to develop community-based package plants, using a German process known as DEWATS, and Water For People is working with the Gates Foundation on a pilot system.  

A real bright spot is the progress that Rwanda has made with hygiene, another area in which Water For People has been active.  All over the countryside, we saw handwashing stations — simple, but effective.  Schools are educating children, who in turn are educating their families. And communities regularly engage in “hygiene clubs,” where neighbors check on each other’s cleanliness according to several standards. 

The next few years will be critical for Rwanda to balance public safety and effectiveness with the development of sanitation a business. 

Next: What we can do to help

Systems to capture, store and move water are key. Schools and some homes are being outfitted with tanks to collect rainwater from rooftops for livestock and washing. And larger tanks and pumps are being built to supply water points within communities. Through their Everyone Forever initiative, Water For People aims to provide water within 500 meters of every school, clinic and home in the areas that it works. One Rwandan told us that WFP “goes to places where no one else will go,” extending systems to reach remote, poor hilltop communities. One such place we visited was the Kisaro Sector of the Rulindo District.

	Users of this water point pay 20 Rwandan francs for each Jerry Can filled. The local water seller stores the proceeds in this locked vault until the next visit by the system operator.

It took us nearly two hours over a very rough dirt track to reach the Kisaro Sector, where we found running water. Water For People, working with the local community and a private contractor who will run the system, has just completed a series of several 50-cubic-meter tanks (about 13,000 gallons) and two pump stations to serve a new clinic, school and the village of Byumba. The system is low-tech, as it needs to be, but effective. Water is collected in a tank from one hillside spring, piped across the valley to another tank, and pumped twice over more than 1000-foot vertical gain and a few miles. Water For People provided the equipment and technical guidance, and the local community hand-dug the lines, carried rocks and other material for the tanks and helped with the construction.

We were there to witness some of the first water to come from the community tap as they were testing the system. Once word got out, people came running from all around. It’s clear that the new water taps will make a huge difference in the lives of that community.

Next: Sanitation is Rwanda's greatest unmet challenge

Although poverty is widespread, the country has nearly eradicated malaria — almost all of their 11 million people appear to be well fed, and they have a national healthcare plan. They have largely left the terrible chapter of genocide behind them, forgiving, but not forgetting, coming together and learning from their past to create a new society built on the concept of “restorative justice,” where offenders work to make things right to their victim’s families. Rwanda has a strong national security force and is now judged one of the safest countries in Africa.

The people seem to love their leader, President Kagame, and loyally follow his strategies for population control, reforestation and economic growth, among other things. On the last Saturday of every month, neighbors gather for “Community Day” and work together on a project for a few hours before sitting down to meet and discuss national and community issues. Each member of Parliament, more than 50 percent women, works on an annual performance contract. And, once a year they hold “Dialogue Day,” when anyone can call or e-mail members with their questions and complaints. They are moving forward together.

	Running water is rare outside the capital city of Kigali, so people of all ages carry water in yellow 20-liter Jerry Cans, often up to two hours one way.

In traveling around the country, you see people everywhere, up and moving, working from dawn to dusk. Rwanda is highly agrarian, and more than 80 percent of the population works the fields, from young to old. Across their “Land of a Thousand Hills,” they have built endless, sometimes impossibly steep terraces, and little land goes unused. With two rainy seasons, there is no need for irrigation and the highly productive land provides two to three crops every year. Their fields are extraordinary — well tended and beautiful.

Water and sanitation are huge remaining issues for Rwandans. Water-borne diseases are the number one health problem in rural areas. Running water is rare outside the capital city of Kigali and you see all manner of people carrying water in yellow 20-liter Jerry Cans, often up to two hours one away. All the time and energy spent on something as basic as water takes away from their ability to go to school, to work and to climb their way out of poverty. The national Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority and individual district governments are working with a number of NGOs to address these issues, with the ambitious goal of water and sanitation for everyone by 2020.

After spending several days with them, I believe the Rwandans have a good chance of achieving this goal, but they’ll need more help to get there.

Next: Water is plentiful in Rwanda, but capturing it is the key

The Delta Council is also an appeals agency and needs to review the Bay Delta Conservation Plan by April 18. The Council’s consultant, Arcadis, is preparing a draft comment letter.

Council staff and audience members listen while members of the Delta Stewardship Council discuss the Delta Plan on March 15.

The BDCP draft EIR is expected to be released at the end of June and certified next year, but Joe Grindstaff said he does not expect that to happen by June. The main goal is to have the proposed project selected by June so it can be announced by the governor and the Secretary of Interior. Grindstaff said there is a desire to select the proposed project by June. This project is challenging in that it is the most controversial and complex project the state has attempted. It’s more challenging than high-speed rail.

BDCP’s goal is to see if water exports can be returned to 5.9 million acre-feet per year (maf) while protecting the 60 species of concern. The final flow might be 5.5 or 5.7 maf. An independent science board made up of seven scientists will review the project. Isenberg asked that the consultant prepare an overview paper on the BDCP and how it relates to the Delta Plan.

Grindstaff described an online report that summarizes the 485 Calfed projects that have been done or are in progress. The staff and Delta Council presented the schedule for completing the Delta Plan for a Council vote in May or June.

Craig Wilson, Delta Watermaster, described water rights enforcement in the Delta, which has 3,000 diverters. He said they have just started their inventory process, and talked about stored bypass water issues. Term 91 applies mostly to entities with post-1965 water rights. Term 91 specifies that when “stored water” is released from facilities like Folsom Dam in order to meet a flow standard, applicable downstream users must let this water go.

The key controversy is if Term 91 will be expanded to apply to more senior water rights as the Delta process moves forward. Currently, 120 permitees/licensees are subject to Term 91, with less than 10 in the legal Delta and under authority of the Delta Watermaster.

DWR presented a Delta Levees Report, which consisted of an in-progress review of levee assessments and improvements that have been completed so far in the Delta. DWR is trying to get all Delta levees to a standard that meets the Hazard Mitigation Plan criteria. The HMP level is basically 1 foot above the 100-year flood plain, with no real specification of structural integrity.

Other evaluations will include trying to get various areas up to the PL84-99 standard. PL84-99 is 18 inches above 100-year flood plain and includes internal/structural criteria for levees and under seepage. FEMA standard for levees is the highest and is 3 feet above 100-year flood plain and contains specific structural criteria. The Delta Council was quite vocal about prioritizing improvements to the levees to protect economic assets of the state, but disagreed on how this could be done.

The rest of the meeting Thursday and most of Friday focused on review and discussion of comments to the fifth draft of the Delta Plan and the associated EIR. Staff summarized several thousand comments into 30 main areas for the Council to discuss and provide guidance, which will be incorporated into the next staff version of the Delta Plan.

Several attendees provided comments during the meeting. Ryan Bezerra of Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan took issue with the wording of Water Resources Policy 5. The policy as written could make it challenging for water agencies to use water covered by an existing water right for innovative purposes such as aquifer storage. The policy states that the “State Water Resources Control Board and/or the Department of Water Resources should require that proponents requesting a new point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use that results in new or increased use of water from the Delta watershed should demonstrate that the project proponents have evaluated and implemented all other feasible water supply alternatives.”

USBR’s Mid-Pacific Regional Director Don Glaser described the progress they are making with environmental and engineering studies for the Shasta reservoir dam raise and the proposed Temperance Flat reservoir. He discussed the next enlargement phase of Los Vaqueros reservoir and the higher cost due to the need to reconstruct the dam foundation. Glaser said that U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar is committed to moving ahead with all of the important water initiatives that the USBR has under way. He remarked that such progress is rare for an election year, and shows the support that these programs have.

Current reservoir storages. USBR

John Tubbs, deputy assistant Interior secretary for Water and Science gave a presentation of issues and challenges that Washington is facing, including an outlook on the USBR’s budget and issues in the Pacific Northwest. He also emphasized that the Delta needed to be fixed and that USBR Commissioner Michael Connor has taken the lead for the bureau.

Lawyers representing CVP water service contractors provided an update on legal issues facing water contractors trying to convey water through the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. Jeffrey Rieker, an engineer with the Lahontan area office, received the Mid-Pacific Region's Engineer of the Year Award.

A presentation on current water supply conditions showed that despite recent rain and snowfall, hydrologic conditions are far below average for the season. As of Dec. 31, DWR reported that the Northern Sierra 8-Station Precipitation Index Water Year total was 6.9 inches, which is about 39 percent of the seasonal average to date. During December, the total precipitation for the northern region was 0.3 inches, which is about 4 percent of the monthly average and the third driest December on record.

The final snow-water content statewide for 2011 was a near-record 152 percent of the seasonal average. As a result, the CVP’s carryover storage into WY 2012 was the third-highest on record at 9.3 million acre-feet. Additionally, with two months remaining in California’s traditional “rain season,” the USBR anticipates that precipitation totals will improve.

View the water supply conditions presentation.

The CDPH is mandated by Senate Bill 918 to “adopt uniform water recycling criteria for groundwater recharge by Dec. 31, 2013,” and to “adopt uniform water recycling criteria for surface water augmentation by Dec. 31, 2016.” This draft revision deals only with groundwater replenishment (or recharge). Surface water augmentation (by recycled water) regulations will be drafted later.

The workshop presentations included three parts: a historical perspective of the regulations by Cindy Forbes, CDPH Southern California branch chief; the detailed criteria of the draft regulations by Bob Hultquist (retired) and Brian Bernados of CDPH’s Technical Program Branch; and the procedures for permitting and implementation of groundwater replenishment projects by Kurt Souza, Southern California section chief.

Early drafts

California’s existing groundwater replenishment regulations took effect in 1978 and consist of only three paragraphs — and without any detailed criteria. In 1986, the CDPH formed a Groundwater Recharge Committee to develop a regulation package (which was first proposed in 1988) that dealt only with groundwater recharge by spreading. A later draft in 1989 included groundwater injection projects.

Revisions of the draft regulations in 2001–02 involved type of organics treatment and total organic carbon (TOC) levels needed to deal with NDMA and 1,4-Dioxane. From 2002–11, minor revisions have been added to deal with chemicals of emerging concern (CEC), such as endocrine disruptors and personal care products.

According to a 1996 Memorandum of Agreement, the CDPH sets standards and requirements for wastewater reuse to protect public health. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards have permitting and oversight authority of “Groundwater Recharge Reuse Projects (GRRP),” which are defined as projects using recycled municipal wastewater to replenish groundwater that is a source of water supply in a Water Quality Control Plan, or which has been identified as such by the RWQCB. The CDPH reviews recycled water proposals for compliance with Title 22 criteria, and provides requirements and recommendations for permit approval, which are to be incorporated into RWQCB permits.

At present, six groundwater recharge projects are in operation — all in Southern California: Montebello Forebay County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, West Basin Municipal Water District, Harbor Recycling Project, Alamitos Barrier, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System. Several other projects are in the planning stage.

Groundwater replenishment projects are also called indirect potable reuse projects, which produce a source of drinking water stored in an aquifer with some natural treatment and retention time to identify and respond to a treatment failure (if one occurs). The requirements for surface spreading and subsurface application (injection) projects are different in that the former is without full advanced treatment (FAT) but relies on soil aquifer treatment (SAT), while the latter relies on continuous advanced treatment of the entire flow. The FAT includes reverse osmosis (RO) and advanced oxidation process (AOP) as multiple barriers.

Key provisions

Some of the key revisions in the GRRP criteria include:

• Pathogen control requirements will use a scientific approach by establishing log reductions of pathogens from raw sewage to usable groundwater (12-log for virus, 10-log for Giardia cysts, and 10-log for Cryptosporidium oocysts), rather than a six-month retention time.
• A new minimum retention response time of two months, which must be verified with added tracer study or a CDPH approved intrinsic tracer.
• Total nitrogen (TN) concentration in recycled water limit is 10 mg/L.
• Maximum recycled water contribution (RWC) has been increased for surface spreading projects from 50 percent to 75 percent, with the averaging period increased from 60 to 120 months to allow more flexibility in deriving the RWC.
• For subsurface injection projects, maximum RWC is to be determined by CDPH on a case-by-case basis; for a project using FAT, the RWC could be up to 100 percent. The RWC averaging period is also increased from 60 to 120 months.
• A more stringent reporting requirement regarding exceeding Notification Levels (NLs) for contaminants such as NDMA.
• An additional quarterly monitoring requirement of SAT process using at least 3 indicator CEC compounds based on an occurrence study for surface spreading projects.
• Specified RO performance criteria for NaCl (ASTM standard) and TOC removal (bench scale testing to achieve =0.25 mg/L).
• Design AOP to provide NDMA and 1,4-Dioxane reduction to NLs; allow two options to demonstrate AOP performance compliance by pilot testing; ozone-based AOP may be more applicable than UV-based AOP in certain cases.
• Require at least one additional monitor well at least 30 days up gradient of the nearest drinking water well.

The CDPH’s Kurt Souza advised that a successful GRRP needs a good public outreach program. The project proponent should contact CDPH as soon as possible because many lessons can be learned from previous GRRP projects. The sequential steps to have a project reviewed and approved include:

• Discussion of concept of a project
• Pre-meetings
• Pilot studies
• Technical memos
• Engineering report
• Public hearing
• Findings of facts
• RWQCB permit
• Operations, maintenance and monitoring plan
• Ongoing compliance monitoring reports

MORE ON THE WORKSHOP
> CDPH workshop presentation outlines
> November Revised Draft Groundwater Replenishment Regulations

Water rights in California are primarily used during adjudication, water supply assessments (SB 610 and SB 221) and CEQA. Adjudications are a civil action that determine and quantify rights to the basin water supply (the safe yield). The court determines water rights (quantities) for each party, determines the “safe yield,” and appoints a watermaster to administer the judgment.

California has four types of groundwater rights: overlying, appropriative, prescriptive and “dormant” overlying:

• Overlying rights apply to landowners who use their groundwater for beneficial use, with the exception of most public use. Overlying rights are superior to appropriative rights, meaning an overlying right will be fully filled prior to any water going to an appropriative right in an adjudication. If two or more overlying rights are in dispute, they are co-equal, and share the decrease in water proportionally.
• Appropriative rights are pumped and used on a different parcel (the water use is appropriative). This applies to most aspects of most water districts, cities, CSDs, etc. Appropriative rights are second to overlying, and in a dispute don't receive water until the overlying rights are filled. Multiple appropriative rights under dispute are determined in a “first in time, first in right” methodology, so earlier established appropriative rights are filled in their entireity before later established.
• A prescriptive right is identified only during adjudication. It is established by using an appropriative right in an “open and notorious,” “adverse and hostile” for a specific use, and during overdraft for five years. A prescriptive right is co-equal to overlying rights, so, during adjudication, a prescriptive right would share in the supply equally with overlying rights.
• A dormant overlying right is an overlying right that is not currently in use. Case law has not yet been conducted that establishes the court’s direction in handling these rights in the case of an adjudication, although it is likely that they could be placed at the lowest priority.

Aladjem described how to acquire water rights and how to conduct water transfers. Hitchings talked about recycled water rights and Water Code 1485 (City of Stockton) and Water Code 1486 (AB 134 and SRCSD), and said that recycled water is “foreign” water and therefore not subject to riparian water rights. His case studies were the EID Deer Creek case, the City of Riverside and Sacramento Regional.

Nicole Granquist (Downey Brand) concluded the morning session with water quality consideration, the State Board’s recycled water policy and the State Board's General Order. On the latter, she said that Delta Diablo spent about $160,000 chasing one molecule.

Case Study No.1 was Pleasanton and DERWA, presented by Jim Bewley, and focused on whether recycled water should be reused in the San Ramon Valley or piped over the hills into San Francisco Bay.

Case Study No.2 was Modesto, Turlock and Ceres providing water to the Del Puerto Water District. The issues are whether to use either the Delta Mendota Canal or the San Joaquin River to transport recycled water from Modesto and Turlock (eastside) to the 45,000 acres of Del Puerto Water District on the west side of the river. Piping the recycled water from Modesto and Turlock would be an order of magnitude more expensive than using the existing water courses.

Case Study No.3 was Sacramento Regional, presented by Stan Dean, who described the approval of AB 134 as allowing the kind of water marketing that could use the Sacramento River to transport recycled water to downstream users.

More than 80 people attended the one-day workshop and asked questions until 3 pm. Dave Smith ended the day with a recap of WateReuse California activities.

At this month’s workshop, state Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, addressed about 160 people and mentioned that the water bond was approved by a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, which demonstrated bi-partisan support for the measure. The key role of the commission, he said, is to come up with criteria to quantify the public benefits of water infrastructure projects.

Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, said that intelligent water infrastructure plays a significant role in meeting these co-equal goals. (Co-equal means blurring the lines between projects and beneficiaries.) He described several water intake projects that were more expensive because they were designed to address co-equal goals that included the use of fish screens.

Storage is essential for fish, Quinn said, and recent storage projects have the characteristics of being off-stream, closer to the end user, and able to fill and store water during wet periods.

The analysis and quantification of public benefit will be a challenge, he said. Public benefits will be defined in terms of ecosystem, Delta water quality, flood, emergency response and recreation. “We will have to put numbers to things we never have put numbers to,” Quinn said.

The commission will have to adopt methods of quantification of public benefit by December 2012. Eligible projects will have to be developed by 2018.

Paul Robershotte of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said that an integrated perspective is needed, using a coordinated system-based approach. Optimization of operations and rule curves has room to improve, he said. The Corps has responsibility for its own facilities, plus 20 Section 7 reservoirs.

The Corps has 21 million acre-feet of storage in California, with 6 million acre-feet reserved for floods.

Don Glazer, director of the Mid-Pacific Region for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, said that we have to meet this interim challenge until more storage is built by making better use of the storage we have. The amount of storage in California is low compared to other watersheds, such as the Colorado and Missouri rivers, he noted, pointing to the amount of storage vs. annual yield. The state has limited ability to handle drought with the California system, he said.

The bureau’s water contractors have been encouraged to grow high-value and permanent crops, he said, to ensure payment for federal water; however, USBR has not been able to reliably supply water at all times for those crops. “The question is whether we can develop new storage fast enough to mitigate the erosion of existing storage,” Glazer said.

Mark Cowin of the state Department of Water Resources said that California storage has between 143 million and 450 million acre-feet of groundwater storage. Jay Lund of UC Davis later said that the state has more than 150 million acre-feet of groundwater and uses 30 million acre-feet. Surface water storage amounts to 42 million acre-feet, and the Sierra snowpack provides 15 million acre-feet, with projections that 25 percent will be lost by 2050.

Jeff Kightlinger of the Metropolitan Water District described how MWD serves 19 million people, about half the population of California. During the drought, it took four years to fill Diamond Valley Lake, which holds 800,000 acre-feet. The completion of the inland feeder allowed MWD to recently fill Diamond Valley Lake in only two years.

During the latest drought, Diamond Valley Lake dropped to half its storage capacity in three years. This last wet year has allowed Colorado River reservoirs to partially fill, thereby pushing back the need to limit supplies to Las Vegas, Arizona and others by several years.

MWD’s use of imported water has been stable at 2 million acre-feet per year, Kightlinger said. The district’s goal is to have the amount of imported water remain flat, while its service area grows at 165,000 people per year. He said the district’s emphasis will be on desalination, conservation, groundwater and recycled water. The goal is to have recycled water use grow from 10 percent to 20 percent, he said. MWD will not be adding storage for the next 10 years, he said, adding that upstream storage is needed in California.

Ellen Hanak of the Public Policy Institute of California said that ecosystem objectives must be identified. “It will be difficult to measure ecosystem benefits and put a dollar value on it,” she said. Projects could be compared on the basis of the costs to achieve a given benefit, she said.

A webcast recording of the Sept. 14 workshop will be available on the CWC website; the second workshop is scheduled for Oct. 25 at the California Auto Museum, 2200 Front St., Sacramento.

Orange County Water District in Fountain Valley hosted the Aug. 9 workshop; East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland was the setting for the Aug. 16 workshop.

About 90 attendees packed the OCWD boardroom to hear experts talk about various ways to control reverse osmosis fouling and scaling, minimize and possibly recycle brine waste, and test membrane integrity to ensure consistent treated water quality. After the presentations, many participants toured the CSM Woongjin membrane manufacturing facility in Anaheim to learn about the process of assembling and quality testing of RO membranes, the heart of a desalination system.

The following week, most of the presentations were repeated in EBMUD’s boardroom, with an EBMUD engineer sharing the optimization experience of the pretreatment system at the newly constructed Richmond Advanced Recycle Expansion facility. The RARE facility treats municipal effluent with microfiltration and RO, then pumps it to the Chevron refinery for use as boiler feed water after further polishing there.

About 60 people attended the Oakland workshop, and many participated in a tour of the RARE facility after the presentations.

So far, all six workshops have been well attended and the responses were overwhelmingly favorable, according to Joe Wong of Brown and Caldwell, chair of the Desalination Committee for the past three years. The first year’s workshop focused on various aspects of seawater desalination; the second year looked at brackish water desalination.

“Apparently, the interest in desalination and water recycling is very high due to the dire long-term water supply situation in the state,” Wong said, “and people appreciate the fact that they don’t have to travel too far to attend these workshops.”

Wong said he hopes the committee will continue this successful tradition in serving the water community with up-to-date information.

Besides Wong, planning committee members included Heidi Luckenbach of City of Santa Cruz and Judith Millard of Brown and Caldwell, who helped plan and execute the workshop details; Dr. Bill Faisst of Brown and Caldwell, Jack Bebee of Fallbrook Public Utility District, Greg Wetterau of CDM, Rick Zimmer of MWH and Peter Shen, an independent consultant, also were instrumental in the workshop preparations.

Speakers included Jim Vickers of SPI, David Faber of CSM, Dr. Shane Trussell of Trussell Technologies, Bill Hunt of OCWD, John Hake of EBMUD, Charlie He of Carollo Engineers, Zakir Hirani of MWH, Greg Wetterau, Peter Shen and Wong.

“Without people like Joe Wong and his team voluntarily sharing their knowledge, often gained from firsthand experience, the progress that the water community has made over the decades would not have happened,” said Timothy Worley, Ph.D., executive director of the CA-NV Section of AWWA. “You have our very sincere and heartfelt appreciation.”

DWR sought temporary entry permits from landowners in July 2008. DWR wanted unlimited access to private property, a Courtland farmer said, then sought to have the court case heard separately in each of the five Delta counties. The landowners, though, succeeded in consolidating the case in San Joaquin County. The court granted an Order for Entry to conduct environmental surveys in February, but in April denied entry for geotechnical activities.

DWR is appealing the decision, but is moving ahead to obtain rights for geotechnical activities.

Group recommends ag be more involved in water planning
On June 22, the California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply released its ag water stewardship report. Among its recommendations is that the group would like to see farmers participate in integrated regional water management plans.

This set of recommendations was released to shift thinking and spur appropriate action to balance the water needs of both farms and aquatic ecosystems, which Leo Winternitz, Delta Project director for the Nature Conservancy and CRWFS member, addressed in his overview of the report. Winternitz also said that the environmental group realizes that agricultural water conservation is a complex issue that does not always result in saving water overall, and can result in negative consequences (such as less recharge and poorer water quality).

CRWFS is a forum for select leaders in agriculture and water management designed to uncover obstacles, identify strategic and widely accepted solutions, and to generate recommendations to assure a reliable, long-term supply of water to California's specialty crop producers while optimizing other beneficial uses of water.

Water storage workshops being planned
The CWC has scheduled two one-day water storage workshops (Sept. 14 and Oct. 25) that are intended to (1) inform the commission of existing, planned and needed storage projects in the state to ensure reliable water supplies, water quality, habitat protection, conservation and sustainability; and (2) discuss the benefits, costs and consequences of a broad array of storage projects and operational changes, particularly in light of climate change impacts.

Additionally, given the commission's statutory role to develop methods for evaluating public benefits associated with water storage projects, these workshops will provide information and insight on the wide range of public benefits provided by storage projects, as well as criteria to evaluate these benefits.

Ag water measurement regulation hits snag
The Office of Administrative Law has rejected DWR's attempted regulation to have ag water measuring devices be subject to future Bureau of Reclamation amendments regarding water measurement criteria. On June 15, the commission approved the DWR Emergency and Permanent Agricultural Water Measurement. OAL notified DWR that they would reject the regulation in its entirety if DWR failed to remove the “or future amendments” clause from the Central Valley Project/U.S. Bureau of Reclamation provision.

You can watch a rebroadcast of the meeting and review the agenda.

Like much of the West this year, the Colorado snowpack is rich, at about 160 percent of normal in the northern basins, and 130 percent of normal statewide. The Front Range, however, is drier than normal and feeling it. I was struck, though, by how the state’s water policies have shifted. In California, joint approaches to integrated regional planning have been largely prescribed to date, with the state pushing utilities to work together; in Colorado, many of the big water agencies, which have always gone on their own, are now voluntarily joining forces to embark on integrated regional water management plans.

This is quite a development, in a land so torn by water wars of the past.

Water utilities have realized that for water supply reliability, they need to partner with one another, leveraging their collective resources to the greatest benefit. Many are pursuing ideas such as conjunctive use and shared infrastructure. For a closer look, check out these partnerships:

• Northern Integrated Supply Project
• WISE Partnership
• Super Ditch Co.
• Colorado River Cooperative Agreement
• Northern Project

This shift might be the result of the reality check brought on by recent drought years, a changing of the guard in Colorado water leadership, or the wake-up call provided by the Statewide Water Supply Investigation. SWSI projected Colorado’s water demands through 2050 and reviewed municipalities’ planning portfolios to estimate the gap between future demand and planned supplies.

Whatever the reason, it’s great to see the growing collaboration, as agencies look ahead together to overcome their challenges and provide a sustainable supply of water to the people of Colorado.

Since 2005, Louisiana has experienced Katrina and Rita, Gustav and Ike, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and now the “Great Flood of 2011.” Just as the state starts to gain some momentum in defining its path forward, something else happens. It has made for a real planning challenge — trying to engage coastal leaders while operating in nearly constant emergency response mode. Living through multiple worst-case scenarios does expand our planning perspective, though.

Another thing I’ve learned is that the people of Louisiana are incredibly resilient and their passion for this wildly beautiful place spurs them on to find ways to save it. As we flew into New Orleans last week, everyone was leaning toward the windows for a view of the swollen river. It was impressive from the air, but something else from the ground. The Bonnet Carre spillway, a half-mile-wide torrent of water overflowing from the Mississippi River to Lake Pontchartrain slowed I-10 traffic to a crawl. It was quite a sight: more than 300,000 cfs of river water rushing around cypress and tupelo trees, through what is usually a quiet swamp.

As I came down the hill off I-10 into Baton Rouge, the river was at eye level, lapping at the tops of the massive 45-foot tall levees. My hotel window — about 100 yards off the river — had an almost surreal view: a magnificent pulsing river, flanked by emergency personnel guarding the levees, looking for any early signs of failure.

Every morning, the first thing I did was to throw open the curtains to see if the river was still safely in its banks. The usually impressive levees now seem dwarfed by the river.

As the week progressed, there was some bright news. The worst fears haven’t been realized, as opening gates on the Morganza Spillway kept the river from breaching its banks in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Backwater flooding was also less than expected, as overflows have dissipated more rapidly than predicted and a constant north wind helped to push water out of the basin.

Those who are thinking long term are also appreciating the land-building power of all the sediment moving down the river to the Delta — the trick is to have projects in place to better capture it. All the more reason for the state to push forward on its Master Plan for the Coast and get started with some of the ambitious big project concepts being considered.

At one point, the river crested at 44.8 feet in Baton Rouge, but it’s expected to stay at those levels well into June, which marks the beginning of hurricane season. Life always seems to be on the edge in Louisiana. Here's hoping that the levees hold and the hurricanes come late and light this year.