Shasta Dam and reservoir. Photo: UC Davis.

“Reservoir rule curves” help manage when water should be released or held back.

Mountain snow is a factor in the timing and quantity of reservoir releases; the frozen snowpack serves as water storage that gradually melts and provides a predictable flow of water into the reservoirs.

Over recent years we have seen a gradual trend where more precipitation falls as rainfall instead of snow, and the snow that does fall tends to melt earlier in the season. This means that larger water flows into the reservoirs in a short period may threaten to exceed storage capacity, which in turn means more water needs to be released than would be desirable. The unwanted outcome can be that later, during the dry season, with insufficient snowmelt to help restore water levels, reservoirs could be unable to meet demand. The report Climate Change and Reservoir Rule Curves discusses that business in some detail.

In considering the collective needs of environmental, agricultural, and urban/rural interests over the long term (say 50 years), one viewpoint is that we need to increase storage capacity throughout the state in order to have more flexibility in managing the alternating flow requirements. In other words, build more dams or raise the height of existing dams.

San Vicente Reservoir August 2010. Water level is currently drawn down to allow dam raise construction. Most water in the reservoir is piped in through the San Diego Aqueduct, although it does receive some local runoff. Photo taken from a trail on the Oak Oasis Open Space Preserve.

In San Diego, we’re only indirectly affected by changing precipitation patterns elsewhere but we’re still raising the San Vicente Dam in order to more than double the capacity of its reservoir. That’s being done because of San Diego’s meager local water resources and very limited emergency reserves. In this we’re fortunate to have a reservoir that was suitable for enlargement. Keeping it filled will partly depend on an increasingly variable amount of imported water. Eventually a small amount of IPR water may also be a source for the reservoir.

For the state as a whole, in the face of changing precipitation patterns and growing demand, should we or could we increase reservoir storage on a large scale? Or can we adequately meet our needs by further refining reservoir rule curves and trying to make better use of existing resources? Funding for additional infrastructure proposed in the California Water Bond suggests increased storage is a priority although it’s looking like the bond may not make it to the ballot this year. One outcome seems easy to predict: whatever we end up doing, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people.

More background: Managing an uncertain future: climate change adaptation strategies for California’s water / California Department of Water Resources.

Take a look to the east of Las Vegas with Google or Bing satellite images and you can find lakeside developments and boat launch ramps near Lakeshore Rd. that are stranded far from the water (and those images could be years old, it was better then). I sometimes wonder if Lake Mead will ever again look full; indeed, if everybody doesn’t cut back on their withdrawals, I wonder if it will ever stop dropping. Las Vegas doesn’t seem optimistic about that.

Northern California and the Delta are another unpleasant thought. Natural disasters and political and legal warfare between statewide environmental, agricultural, and urban/rural interests are a constant threat to a stable supply of water for San Diego.

Either way, San Diego clings to the extreme end of a couple of long, worn, tenuous, lifelines — with lots of hangers-on above us.

So, in the spirit of reducing reliance on outside water, the San Diego City Council just approved a small-scale demonstration IPR water treatment facility. For one year it will produce 1 million gallons per day while limnology models are studied and water quality is analyzed. After the demonstration is finished, San Diego will face a bigger decision — whether to expand that into a full-scale IPR reservoir augmentation system producing 16 million gallons per day.

That’s not very much water. During the debate over the demonstration facility, one of Councilmember Sherri Lightner’s stated reasons for opposing the plan was that it’s too small to make a difference. In that I think she’s right. It’s not much water, and I suspect the modest parameter of the current project reflects political timidity about IPR more than a realistic appraisal of our situation and feel sure that many regional water agency planners would agree. Certainly the just-released Equinox Center report would agree.

The output of the Carlsbad desalination plant will be 50 million gallons per day. That’s a fair amount of water. Why don’t we aim higher for IPR as well? While there’s still time for us to make adjustments to the design plan, I think it would behoove us to instead at least match that 50 mgd. If we’re going to do IPR, we should do it in serious volume.

I don’t think it can be repeated enough: San Diego’s in no position to relax about developing local water sources, and our options are limited. It certainly doesn’t look good for us if a drain under Lake Mead is now needed for Las Vegas as the water level drops below their “drinking straw.” In San Diego we’ve pursued desalination, we’ve pursued conservation, we’ve pursued more groundwater, but we’ve hesitated about IPR. What we should do is pursue even more IPR.

A bathtub ring reveals low level at San Vicente Reservoir while the dam is being raised to increase capacity. When that's finished, IPR could help keep it full.

Illustration courtesy of Sweetwater Authority

Yesterday I visited the Sweetwater Reservoir and dam located near Bonita and Spring Valley in southern San Diego County. This is one of two large reservoir/dam combos (Loveland is the other) on the Sweetwater River which starts out near Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. This illustration of the watershed should give you a good idea of the river’s course (many thanks to the Sweetwater Authority for permission to copy it from their website).

Unfortunately a recent bird die-off occurred around the reservoir causing the closure of fishing access to the reservoir and a halt to treating water from the reservoir until more is known about the cause. Here’s the Sweetwater Authority’s press release with further information about that.

I have photos of the reservoir and dam to share. I got some shots from the southwest side of the reservoir by hiking up a hill on the Sweetwater River Trail starting at the gated north end of Conduit Road. The trail features a specially padded horse bridge (the Mary Augustine Bridge) to cross the California 125 freeway and then continues upwards for about 3/4 mile farther where it branches in several directions. A nice touch is an adjacent concrete step to facilitate remounting your horse after walking it across the bridge.

Exploring those trail offshoots I found some good views overlooking the reservoir with the mountains to the east. You can see San Miguel Mountain in several pictures; prominently in the dam photos. The pictures of the dam were taken near Quarry Road. Picture no. 10 has just part of the dam visible on the left, with the Robert A. Perdue Water Treatment Plant next to it on the opposite shore. I also went to the northeastern end of the reservoir near Jamacha Road and found a few places with a view. Click images for enlargements.

It has been painfully obvious that such a high degree of reliance on distant water sources places the county in a dangerously vulnerable position and our water managers continually struggle to find ways to reduce that dependence. One agency, the Helix Water District — San Diego County’s second-largest water agency — imports water on the higher end of the scale mentioned above, and they may finally get to change that.

Although water conservation efforts inside the Helix district have resulted in a reduction to about 112 gallons per capita per day as of June 2010, and even more is hoped for, conservation alone won’t resolve supply and reliability issues. With that in mind, Helix has announced the beginning of an environmental review process for a new venture, the El Monte Valley Project.

El Monte Valley looking east. El Capitan Dam is around the bend. The ribbon of green trees in the valley center marks the San Diego River Bed. On the right you can make out where the flume used to be (built in the 1880s to bring water 33 miles from Cuyamaca Dam).

El Monte Valley is located in Lakeside just west of El Capitan Dam, north of Lake Jennings, and east from Mapleview St (near where the freeway segment of Highway 67 begins).

The multi-faceted El Monte Valley Project aims to generate an additional 5 million gallons of water per day (that much can supply up to 15,000 families in their service area, which means about 15% of the district’s needs). That’s a big improvement over the 3.3% that local sources now provide.

In addition to producing a supplemental water supply, the Helix plan envisions extensive riverbed restoration with native plants, public recreational space for hiking and equestrian use, and wildlife habitat. A portion of the valley previously zoned for mining will be tapped for sand and gravel which will be sold to help defray project expenses and to help re-contour the riverbed for the restoration.

The new water source is beneath El Monte Valley. An existing groundwater aquifer in the valley is currently being pumped by residents and the Helix District, but only a very limited amount can be withdrawn without seriously lowering the water table — in fact, the district has observed the water table dropping since the 80s. Although it is responsive after rains, the general trend is a subsiding water table. The groundwater is becoming saltier and other contaminants are appearing as well.

The El Monte Valley Project would add new clean water to the underground aquifer, raise the water table, and permit the water district to add more wells for large withdrawals.

The new water would come from the Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) process.

The IPR process takes wastewater that has been previously treated to tertiary standards for recycled water, and puts it through an advanced treatment facility where it is purified by microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and UV + peroxide conditioning.

[Orange County already has such an operation in place, the City of San Diego is pursuing a major IPR project, and Singapore has successfully used the process for years under the moniker NEWater and even sells it in bottles]

San Diego’s North City Water Reclamation Plant was considered as a possible source of the purified water, but San Diego’s demonstration project is lagging and its advanced IPR purification facility hasn’t been approved yet, so its timeline looked well beyond the time Helix thinks it might take for its own project. However, an advanced IPR treatment facility is being built at Santee Lakes by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, so Helix is negotiating with them for the water.

R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant

The purified water will go into large recharge ponds on the north side of El Monte Valley, percolate into the soil, mix with existing groundwater, and raise the water table (some water might also be directly injected into the aquifer). Over about six months the underground water will make its way to the southern side of the valley, where it will be pumped out and routed to the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant in Lakeside (which uses a cutting-edge ozonation purification process) before delivery to customers.

As already mentioned, there are two other parts to the project. One part is riverbed restoration, and one part is a limited duration (ten year) sand mining operation. The sand mining operation would re-contour the riverbed for the restoration project, and sales of sand and gravel (in short supply in the San Diego area) would generate funding to help defray project expenses.

The project will be reviewed, approved, and permitted by the California Department of Health Services, the California Regional Water Quality Resources Board to ensure compliance with drinking water standards, and an independent National Water Research Institute panel will provide oversight.

To coincide with beginning the environmental review process, a stakeholders meeting was held yesterday at the Lakeside Christian Church on El Monte Rd. to introduce the project to residents of the valley. Mark Weston, General Manager of Helix Water District, made the presentation. A number of other directors and staff members were present to mingle and help answer questions.

Lake Jennings is southwest of El Monte Valley

About 40 property owners in the valley have wells drawing water for domestic and ranching needs (and it looked like most of them were at the meeting) and they will definitely be impacted. With this project, they will no longer be permitted to use their well water for potable purposes (no rule against any other use, including water for animals). That’s because even though IPR water is technically pure, California Dept. of Public Health regulations mandate a minimum six-month detention time before it may be used for drinking.

For a suitable layout, the District will place the recharge ponds in northern sections of the valley, and extraction pumps on the south side to ensure a six-month migration. That means that residents with wells on the north side or who are otherwise inside the “6-month boundary” will only be able to use their well water for irrigation, but no longer for drinking.

Mr. Weston had not even gotten to that part of the presentation, though, before people started peppering him with questions and comments.

From the residents viewpoint, they now get water from their wells for free, why should their groundwater be taken away and sold back to them? Weston replied that the District proposes to pay all costs of hooking up their homes to new distribution pipelines, as well as negotiate with them on the price for indoor potable water. An arrangement on water pricing could range from a significant discount to no charge over a specified period of time.

Many people asked other questions, some with strong feelings, and a few had water complaints unrelated to the project.

“I’m bothered that our simple way of life is going to be ruined.”
“It’s not going to be good water.”
“We’re going to lose all our wells.”
“I read that the process will make all frogs turn into females.”
“Why won’t you install a fire hydrant in my neighborhood?”
“I’m a science teacher and I know some Nobel Laureates who are very concerned so naturally I’m worried.”
“What about water constituents that don’t get filtered out?”
“After the last heavy rains we had 6 feet of flooding in some places. If you raise the water table, won’t that mean worse flooding?”
“Before, if a rainstorm eroded sand and land from my property, we could go down to the riverbed and get some back. Now we can’t do that any more.”
“There’s going to be trucks, machinery, noise, dust, traffic, it’s going to be a big mess.”
“What about Valley Fever?”
“If there’s more water available, won’t that stimulate lots of new development?”
“We’re being assaulted by PowerLink on one side, and this project on the other.”
“What will prevent you from taking out more water than you’re putting in?”
“Would YOU drink that water?”

For nearly two hours Weston fielded such questions and comments while an aide recorded them on a flipchart. I’m paraphrasing some answers here:

I HAVE drunk that water and it tastes just fine…We’re hoping the riverbed restoration and other elements of the project will result in a valley that is even more lovely and enjoyable than it is now…The water is definitely going to be better than the water you’re pumping now (which, by the way, lies below all your septic systems)…We’re looking to reduce the need to import water for existing users, not for the new water to encourage new development…We’ll strictly enforce rules to minimize traffic, dust, and noise during the construction phases…There’s no reason to believe that rainy season flooding would be worsened by the project…The advanced water treatment eliminates virtually all contaminants (at least those for which there are tests) and meets or exceeds regulatory standards…Nobody’s wells will be taken away, you can still pump water and use it for everything except your own drinking…Although we believe this area is at low risk for Valley Fever, we’re going to be very careful to control dust, which is a primary method by which it can be spread, and we’ll be monitoring the situation closely.

Last question: “I understand everything you’re talking about, the project is well-intentioned, it is for the good of the many, but really, when you look at everything in perspective, just how good a chance is there that this project will ever happen?” All grow silent.

Weston smiled, paused, hesitated, and then replied: “Probably about 75%.” (general laughter)

On that optimistic note, after noting that regular meetings to keep everyone informed will be scheduled, the meeting ended amicably.

______________________________

Additional information:

• El Monte Valley Project fact sheet
• Questions and Answers
• Last April, the East County Magazine published this story about the project. I’m told the meeting was actually about SDG&E PowerLink issues in the valley, but with the water project in the same place there was no avoiding the subject.
• The Helix Water District covers an area of nearly 50 square miles, serving the cities of La Mesa, El Cajon, Lemon Grove, and parts of Spring Valley and Lakeside. The R.M. Levy Water Treatment plant also treats some water for the Otay and Padre Dam districts.

A few months ago I went back and took a series of additional photographs in order to supplement the story. I thought I’d share them here in case you missed the story. Click on the picture below to see them in a slide show. I hope you’ll enjoy them.

In his speech, Mayor Sanders proclaimed “Finding more uses for recycled water is an important way to maximize resources.”

Councilmember Sherri Lightner also spoke, saying “I have always and will continue to support the expansion of recycled water in San Diego as a smart reuse of water and as a water conservation measure.”

Was this really a sign of wholehearted support for water reuse, or was it just lip service?

That item should hardly be making the news. It belatedly brings the City a little closer to compliance with a 1989 City ordinance mandating the widespread use of recycled water. It’s a good, but modest project using only 13 million gallons of recycled water per year.

On the other hand, a few Councilmembers (probably with the Mayor’s secret blessings) actively resist implementation of a water reuse project that could produce an additional 16 million gallons of potable water per day, a project that was approved by the full Council years ago.

Quick history:

• On October 29, 2007, after considerable debate and public discussion, the City Council voted to approve the Indirect Potable Reuse Demonstration Project.
• On November 14, 2007, Mayor Sanders vetoed the resolution.
• On December 3, 2007, the City Council voted to override the Mayor’s veto and directed him to develop a plan to begin the potable reuse demonstration project by July 2008.
• On November 18, 2008, the City Council approved a temporary water rate increase to fully fund the Demonstration Project.
• In May 2009, the Public Utilities Department issued a Request for Proposals for Project Management and Public Outreach for the project.
• On Jan. 26, 2010, the San Diego City Council directed the Mayor to execute “an Agreement between the City of San Diego and RMC Water and Environment, to perform the Project Management and Public Outreach for the Demonstration Project.

In summary: the City got so far as to approve the Indirect Potable Reuse Reservoir Augmentation Demonstration Project (aka Water Purification Demonstration Project), then approved a contract for project management and public outreach, and the next step was to approve a contract to build the facility to treat the water. How did that go?

Two weeks ago, at the June 16 Natural Resources and Culture Committee meeting, the contract to build the facility was blocked from going to the full Council because Councilmembers Sherri Lightner and Carl DeMaio still had objections to the basic premise of the project and they forced a continuation of the matter saying they needed answers to more questions.

Today, the Natural Resources and Culture Committee held a special followup meeting to address those questions.

Lightner, for all her earlier interest in continuing the matter so that her questions could be answered, didn’t even show up for the meeting. That left DeMaio. Marti Emerald quickly made the motion to recommend council approval (Donna Frye obviously would vote yes). DeMaio didn’t bother asking questions and only reiterated that he remains steadfastly opposed to the project and would not vote for the committee to recommend approval of the contract. So the vote was taken and that’s how the matter will be sent to the Council.

We’re obviously dealing with foot-dragging by disgruntled politicians intent on hindering an already-approved project.

Please, it’s time to move on.

The San Diego Public Utilities Department has asked the City Council’s Natural Resources and Culture Committee to recommend City Council approval of an agreement for an Advanced Water Purification Facility to be constructed as part of the Indirect Potable Reuse/Reservoir Augmentation Demonstration Project.* The item was placed on the committee’s June 16 agenda as a consent item. Items on the consent agenda are usually considered non-controversial and are typically quickly approved.

The agreement calls for a $6.6 million contract with a private company named Camp Dresser and McKee. The company (and a sub-consultant referred to only as “MWH”) would have authority to “design, procure, install, test, and operate” the purification facility. Work would begin in fall 2010 and take three years to complete. The facility will be located on the grounds of the North City Water Reclamation Plant at Miramar Road & I-805.

Executive summary sheet written for the committee from the Public Utilities Department

Also on the committee’s agenda is the Monthly IPR update for June from the Public Utilities Department. The update mentions that an outreach communication plan for the IPR project is in final draft status, that a database of community leaders is being developed in order to hold stakeholder interviews, and that a speakers bureau will be a large part of the outreach effort.

* I was told by Eric Symons, Supervising Public Information Officer for the Public Utilities Dept. that the committee will also discuss a name change for the project, from Indirect Potable Reuse/Reservoir Augmentation Demonstration Project to Water Purification Demonstration Project.