santa clara valley water district recycled water committee … · recycled water committee tony...

RECYCLED WATER COMMITTEE

Tony Estremera - District 6, Chair

Barbara Keegan - District 2, Vice

Chair

Gary Kremen - District 7, Member

GARTH HALL

Committee Liaison

EVA SANS

Assistant Deputy Clerk II

Office/Clerk of the Board

(408) 265-2306

[email protected]

District Mission: Provide Silicon Valley safe, clean water for a healthy life, environment and economy.

Note: The finalized Board Agenda, exception items and supplemental items will be posted prior to the meeting in accordance with the Brown Act.

The Recycled Water Committee was enacted to develop long-term proposals with

local agencies on recycled water within district boundaries, and to establish a

collaborative process for policy discussion and information sharing. It meets

individually with other entities (Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, CSJ SC/TPAC) as

required/necessary, and can meet with new entities if needed. Public records for this

Committee are available for inspection in the Clerk of the Board's Office, 5700

Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118. Materials are available to the public at

the same time they are made available to the committee. The District will make

reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities wishing to attend

meetings. Please advise the Clerk of the Board of any special needs by calling (408)

265-2600.

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Recycled Water Committee Meeting

Teleconference Zoom Meeting

REGULAR MEETING

AGENDA

Thursday, August 6, 2020

2:00 PM

Recycled Water Committee


AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

2:00 PMThursday, August 6, 2020 Teleconference Zoom Meeting

IMPORTANT NOTICES

This meeting is being held in accordance with the Brown Act as currently in effect under

the State Emergency Services Act, the Governor’s Emergency Declaration related to

COVID-19, and the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020 that

allows attendance by members of the Committee, staff, and the public to participate and

conduct the meeting by teleconference, videoconference, or both.

Members of the public wishing to address the Committee during a video conferenced

meeting on an item not listed on the agenda, or any item listed on the agenda, should use

the “Raise Hand” or “Chat” tools located in Zoom meeting link listed on the agenda.

Speakers will be acknowledged by the Committee Chair in the order requests are received

and granted speaking access to address the Committee.

Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) in complying with the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access

and/or participate in Valley Water Committee meetings to please contact the Clerk of the

Board’s office at (408) 630-2711, at least 3 business days before the scheduled meeting to

ensure that Valley Water may assist you.

This agenda has been prepared as required by the applicable laws of the State of

California, including but not limited to, Government Code Sections 54950 et. seq. and has

not been prepared with a view to informing an investment decision in any of Valley Water ’s

bonds, notes or other obligations. Any projections, plans or other forward-looking

statements included in the information in this agenda are subject to a variety of

uncertainties that could cause any actual plans or results to differ materially from any such

statement. The information herein is not intended to be used by investors or potential

investors in considering the purchase or sale of Valley Water ’s bonds, notes or other

obligations and investors and potential investors should rely only on information filed by

Valley Water on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Market

Access System for municipal securities disclosures and Valley Water ’s Investor Relations

website, maintained on the World Wide Web at https://emma.msrb.org/ and

https://www.valleywater.org/how-we-operate/financebudget/investor-relations, respectively.

August 6, 2020 Page 1 of 5

Join Zoom Meeting:

https://valleywater.zoom.us/j/94235782879

Join by Phone:

1 (669) 900-9128, 94235782879#

CALL TO ORDER.1.

Roll Call.1.1.

TIME OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA.2.

Notice to the Public: Members of the public who wish to address the Committee on any

item not listed on the agenda should access the ”Raise Hand” or “Chat” tools located in

Zoom meeting link listed on the agenda. Speakers will be acknowledged by the

Committee Chair in order requests are received and granted speaking access to

address the Committee. Speakers comments should be limited to three minutes or as

set by the Chair. The law does not permit Committee action on, or extended discussion

of, any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee

action is requested, the matter may be placed on a future agenda. All comments that

require a response will be referred to staff for a reply in writing. The Committee may take

action on any item of business appearing on the posted agenda.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:3.

Approval of Minutes. 20-05953.1.

Approve the minutes of the January 21, 2020 meeting.Recommendation:

Michele King, 408-630-2711Manager:

Attachment 1: 012120 Meeting MinutesAttachments:

ACTION ITEMS:4.

Review P3 Project Cost and Financing Sensitivity Analysis. 20-05944.1.

Receive information on the P3 cost and financing sensitivity

analysis.

Recommendation:

Darin Taylor, 408-630-3068Manager:

Attachment 1: PowerPoint

*Handout 4.1-A, S. Williams email

Attachments:


http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=6589

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=1929198d-60da-40d1-a607-db6d8ff26c52.pdf


http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=66a9ef25-0918-4639-b8f6-446810cc3c0a.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=3dd9b7f8-2583-4a5c-83c3-0adb99e66e45.pdf

Public/Private Partnership Implementation Approach. 20-06714.2.

A. Recommend to the Board that it approve the

Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain

Implementation/Procurement procedures for

Public/Private Partnership (P3) proposed in this agenda

item for procurement of the necessary facilities and

services to accomplish purification and delivery to

groundwater recharge ponds of the product water;

B. Recommend that the Board direct staff to return for Board

approval to launch a P3 procurement plan as soon as the

necessary elements for a proposed project including (a)

agreement for long-term supply of treated wastewater, (b)

agreement enabling management of reverse osmosis

concentrate, and (c) agreement for siting of the

purification facilities, are sufficiently secured for the

proposed project; and

C. Review a schedule for implementation of the P3

procurement process.

Recommendation:

Garth Hall, 408-630-2750

Roslyn Fuller, 408-630-2379

Manager:

Attachment 1: Consultant Biographies


*Handout 4.2-A, S. Williams email

Attachments:

Public/Private Partnership Staffing Plan. 20-06724.3.

A. Receive information on Public/Private Partnership (P3)

staffing plan; and

B. Provide feedback to staff.

Recommendation:

Garth Hall, 408-630-2750

Roslyn Fuller, 408-630-2379

Manager:

Attachment 1: PowerPointAttachments:



http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e360ada5-0613-4b6e-949a-e0f1056de43b.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=985aa57c-8400-446b-9b6f-c54581eb2103.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=3547c7c1-6707-45d8-af5b-493e1a278c8f.pdf


http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=904c25b5-fdb7-4fad-af20-13de879aedb0.pdf

Update on the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan. 20-05894.4.

A. Receive information on the status, findings, and next

steps for the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan; and

B. Recommend the Board of Directors authorizes the Chief

Executive Officer to negotiate and execute an

amendment (Amendment No. 3) consistent with staff

recommendations to the Agreement with Brown &

Caldwell for the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan

Project (Agreement No. A4120A).

Recommendation:

Jerry De La Piedra, 408-630-2257Manager:


Attachment 2: Deliverable Summary

Attachment 3: Draft Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (D9)

Attachment 4: Key Portfolio Characteristics

*Handout 4.4, D. Muirhead Email

Attachments:

Update on Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management (ROCM) Plan. 20-05904.5.

Receive information and discuss next steps.Recommendation:


Attachment 1: PowerPointAttachments:

Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Opportunities. 20-05914.6.




*Handout 4.6-A, D. Muirhead Email

Attachments:

Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Governance. 20-05924.7.





http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=8a44c35a-c786-4f8a-a01b-c95f6dad3f0b.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e17ad5b0-0a2d-47fe-985e-c06d4914c529.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=abd27e4b-d034-4f25-a52a-554f33f44345.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=d01ef777-ef01-45a7-a3f0-4f8109c5c9cc.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=81487f07-1c6b-4147-818f-70592f3128bf.pdf


http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=cf60dd4b-caa7-4f1b-9577-6f5a43182685.pdf


http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e4d517ef-f84a-4693-a5b3-255c2ace5298.pdf

http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=d5f8c1c3-b80f-4fcc-a78f-7fd0f07063e9.pdf


Discuss the 2020 Recycled Water Committee Work Plan and Meeting

Schedule, Consider the Need to Schedule the Committee’s Next Meeting

Date, and if Necessary Consider Authorizing the Committee Chair to

Discuss the Future Recycled Water Committee Meeting Date with the

Board Chair.

20-06224.8.

A. Discuss the 2020 Recycled Water Committee Work

Plan;

B. Consider the need to schedule the Committee’s next

meeting date; and

C. If necessary, consider authorizing the Committee Chair to

discuss the future Recycled Water Committee meeting

date with the Board Chair.

Recommendation:

Michele King, 408-630-2711Manager:

Attachment 1: 2020 Work Plan SummaryAttachments:

INFORMATION ITEMS:5.

None.

CLERK REVIEW AND CLARIFICATION OF COMMITTEE REQUESTS.6.

This is an opportunity for the Clerk to review and obtain clarification on any formally

moved, seconded, and approved requests and recommendations made by the

Committee during the meeting.

ADJOURN:7.

Adjourn.7.1.



http://scvwd.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=01fcc8f5-1647-4281-ae79-832e27e2e026.pdf


File No.: 20-0595 Agenda Date: 8/6/2020Item No.: 3.1.

COMMITTEE AGENDA MEMORANDUM

Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Approval of Minutes.

RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes of the January 21, 2020 meeting.

SUMMARY:In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, a summary of Committee discussions, and details of allactions taken by the Committee, during all open and public Committee meetings, is transcribed andsubmitted to the Committee for review and approval.

Upon Committee approval, minutes transcripts are finalized and entered into the District's historicalrecords archives and serve as historical records of the Committee’s meetings.

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment 1: 01212020 RWC Minutes

UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER:Michele King, 408-630-2711

Santa Clara Valley Water District Printed on 7/30/2020Page 1 of 1

powered by Legistar™

http://www.legistar.com/

RECYCLED WATER COMMITTEE MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020

1:00 PM

(Paragraph numbers coincide with agenda item numbers)

es:0203a-mn 01/21/20 1

1. CALL TO ORDER:

A regular meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) Recycled Water Committee (Committee) was called to order in the Valley Water Headquarters Boardroom at 5700 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California, at 1:00 p.m.

1.1 Roll Call.

Committee members in attendance were District 2 Director B. Keegan, District 7 Director G. Kremen, and District 6 Director T. Estremera, Chairperson presiding, constituting a quorum of the Committee.

Staff members in attendance were H. Ashktorab, H. Barrientos, T. Bramer, M. Burton, R. Callender, G. De La Piedra, M. Gloria-Dalton, G. Hall, L. Hong, N. Hawk, E. Latedjou-Durand, E. Sans, M. Silva, M. Sinaki, C. Sun, D. Taylor, S. Tran, D. Tucker, and B. Yerrapotu.

Also in attendance were Valley Water consultant contractors P. Daniel, Liquisti, LLC, and D. Chen, HDR, Inc.

2. Time Open for Public Comment on Any Item Not on the Agenda.

Chairperson Estremera declared time open for public comment on any item not on the agenda.

Mr. Stan Williams, Poseidon Water, congratulated the Committee on their 2019 accomplishments, and requested information on the status of the Committee’s consideration of Public Private Partnerships (P3).

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

3.1 Approval of Minutes.

Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the August 14, 2019, meeting.

The Committee considered the attached minutes of the August 14, 2019, meeting. It was moved by Director Kremen, seconded by Director Keegan, and unanimously carried that the minutes be approved as presented.

ems:0203a-mn 01/21/20 2

4. ACTION ITEMS:

4.1 Election of 2020 Recycled Water Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.

Recommendation: Nominate and elect the 2020 Recycled Water Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.

It was moved by Director Kremen, seconded by Director Keegan, and unanimously carried, to nominate and elect Director Estremera as 2020 Chairperson, and Director Keegan as 2020 Vice Chairperson.

4.2 Update on Countywide Reuse Master Plan (Reuse Master Plan).

Recommendation: Receive information and discuss next steps.

Mr. Garth Hall, Deputy Operating Officer, reviewed the information on this item, per the attached Committee Agenda Memo, and the corresponding presentation materials contained in Attachment 2 were reviewed by staff as follows: Mr. Hall reviewed Slides 1 and 2; and Mr. Dave Tucker, Associated Civil Engineer, reviewed Slides 3 through 12.

In response to Director Kremen, Mr. Tucker confirmed that a ratepayer advocate was included among the stakeholders in the Countywide Reuse Master Plan’s Project Partner Group.

The Committee made the following requests:

• Staff is to provide the Committee with information on the ratepayer advocate participant in the Project Partner Group; and

• Staff is to identify and include in the Countywide Reuse Master Plan, constraints and obstacles in making strategic decisions; and

• Staff is to provide clear definition of the limits that affect timelines, and affordability of implementing the recycled water program projects.

Mr. Williams expressed frustration with the six-month extension to complete the Countywide Reuse Master Plan indicated on Slide 2, Attachment 2, and requested clarification on whether the August 2020 final draft indicated therein was for presentation to the Committee, or for public comment.

4.3 Update on Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management (ROCM) Plan.


The Committee continued Item 4.3 to a future meeting.

4.4 Roadmap for Potable Reuse Development.


Mr. Hall reviewed the information on this item, per the attached Committee Agenda Memo, and the corresponding presentation materials contained in Attachment 1 were reviewed by staff as follows: Mr. Hall reviewed

ems:0203a-mn 01/21/20 3

Slides 1 through 6 and Slides 10 and 11; and Ms. Nina Hawk, Chief Operating Officer, reviewed Slides 7 through 9.

It was moved by Director Keegan, seconded by Director Kremen, and unanimously carried that the Committee authorize staff during their January 28, 2020 presentation to the full Board of Directors regarding water rate scenarios, to also present the Committee’s recommendation that a letter be drafted to the Cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale and the south county water recycling partner agencies, regarding the commitment needed to reach the December 2020 completion date of the Countywide Reuse Master Plan.

The Committee made the following requests:

• Staff is to come back with an update on the rate-setting scenarios described in Attachment 1, Slide 9, that incorporates the P3 program and includes the Cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale and South County on a reduced program, and with a $200 million placeholder for potential additional investments; and

• Staff is to update the Project Partners Group on out-of-county recycled water projects, such as desalination, brackish water, and recycled refinery water projects, and include them in the rate setting scenarios.

The Committee considered Item 4.5 without a staff presentation.

4.5 Review and Authorize the Chair to Present the 2019 Recycled Water Committee Accomplishments Report to the Board and Discuss the 2020 Recycled Water Committee Work Plan and Meeting Schedule.

Recommendation: A. Review the 2019 Recycled Water Committee Accomplishments Report;

B. Authorize the Chair to present 2019 Recycled Water Committee Accomplishments to the Board;

C. Identify items to carry forward to 2020 Work Plan; and D. Accept the 2020 Recycled Water Committee regular

meeting schedule.

The Committee approved, without formal action, the proposed meeting schedule for 2020 with comments that some meeting dates may be rescheduled due to external commitments by some Committee members; and made the following requests:

• Staff is to agendize Centralized and Decentralized Reuse in February 2020, and a P3 program update on April 2020; and

• Staff is to invite P3 short-listed entities to the April 2020 Committee meeting.

Mr. Williams requested that the Committee include a P3 program update on one of its 2020 agendas, and suggested that Poseidon Water was available to contribute in the discussion with ideas and subject matter experts for regulatory issues.

ems:0203a-mn 01/21/20 4

7. ADJOURN:

7.1 Chairperson Estremera adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 12:00 p.m. on February 26, 2020, in the Santa Clara Valley Water District Headquarters Boardroom, 5700 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California.

Eva Marie Sans Assistant Deputy Clerk II Approved: Date:




Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Review P3 Project Cost and Financing Sensitivity Analysis.

RECOMMENDATION:Receive information on the P3 cost and financing sensitivity analysis.

SUMMARY:At the June 16, 2020 Board meeting, Staff presented several North County Municipal and Industrial(M&I) groundwater charge projections with Purified Water Program scenarios as the variableincluding size of project, delivery method (design-bid-build or progressive design-build with ValleyWater financing vs progressive P3 with private financing), construction start date, duration, and low-cost financing (e.g., Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)).

The scenarios were modeled based on the following assumptions:

• 0% increase to North County (Zone W-2) M&I Groundwater charge for entirety of FY 2021

• WIFIA loan funded alternatives assume repayment of 49% of capital costs 5 years after facilityis operational

• P3 (private financing) alternatives assume payments begin when facility is operational, lessValley Water 30% share of debt financing

• Alternative water rate projection results expressed in terms of annual % increase in NorthCounty M&I Groundwater charge for FY 2022 thru FY 2030

• All alternative water rate projections are based on the FY 21 adopted budget and CIP with theexception of the Purified Water Program scenarios as the variable

After presenting the results, the Board requested staff to run additional sensitivity analyses inconsideration of the construction bid climate and the current low interest rate environment.

The purpose of this agenda item is to present this additional sensitivity analysis, which is based onthe “Path A with construction year start of FY 2025 and an operation year start of FY 2028” scenariothat was shown to the Board on June 16, 2020. For the construction bid climate sensitivity, staffprepared an analysis that shows the impact of a capital cost that is 20% less or 20% more than thecurrent $500M estimate (in 2019 $’s). The sensitivity was based on the P3 alternatives only and





results in a North County M&I groundwater charge % increase for FY 22 to FY 30 ranging from 9.2%to 10.2% per year.

To address the current low interest rate environment, staff prepared an analysis based on an“aggressive” borrowing rate forecast. This analysis results in a North County M&I groundwatercharge % increase for FY 22 to FY 30 ranging from 8.7% to 9.3%.

The results are summarized in Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment 1: PowerPoint*Handout 4.1-A, S. Williams Email

UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER:Darin Taylor, 408-630-3068




vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

Review P3 Project Cost and Financing Sensitivity AnalysisAugust 6, 2020

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4

vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

2Water Rate Projection Assumptions• Assumes 0% increase to North County (Zone W-2) M&I Groundwater

charge for entirety of FY 21

• Based on FY 21 Adopted Budget and CIP

• WIFIA loan funded alternatives assume repayment of 49% of capital costs 5 years after facility is operational

• P3 (private financing) alternatives assume payments begin when facility is operational, less VW 30% share of debt financing

• Alternative results expressed in terms of annual % increase in North County M&I Groundwater charge for FY 22 thru FY 30


vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

3Project Size 11.2 TAF 11.2 TAF 11.2 TAF 11.2 TAF 20.2 TAF 20.2 TAF

Capital ($M) $500 $500 $500 $500 $650 $650

Annual O&M ($M) $12.30 $12.30 $12.30 $12.30 $20.20 $20.20

Construction Year Start

2025 2025 2027 2027 2027 2030

Operations Year Start

2031 2028 2033 2030 2030 2033

DBB 9.6% 10.2% 9.0% 10.0% 10.5% 9.2%P3 9.0% 9.9% 8.6% 9.5% 10.0% 8.8%DBB + WIFIA 8.8% 9.4% 8.3% 9.2% 9.6% 8.5%P3 + WIFIA 8.7% 9.5% 8.3% 9.2% 9.6% 8.4%

Path A Path B

FY 22-FY 30 annual % increase Zone W-2 M&I GW charge

Water Rate Projection Estimates - SUMMARY

DBB = Design/Bid/BuildP3 = Public Private PartnershipWIFIA = Water Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act (low cost Federal loan)

No financial advantage for P3 over DBB if WIFIA loan is assumed

Current CIP


vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

4Water Rate Projection Sensitivity

DBB = Design/Bid/BuildP3 = Public Private PartnershipWIFIA = Water Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act (low cost Federal loan)

• Construction bid climate sensitivity based on 20% better or worse than current capital project estimate

• Aggressive SCVWD borrowing rate forecast based on AA+ rating

• P3 aggressive weighted borrowing rate at 6% vs 7% (BBB rating)

Notes: • Future rates are mathematically calculated based on market-standard

approach for calculating forward rates using current rates as of 7/8/2020.• Actual future borrowing rates may differ from those shown.

SCVWD Borrowing Rate ForecastCurrent Aggressive Variance

Tax Exempt

FixedTaxable

Fixed

Tax Exempt

FixedTaxable

Fixed

Tax Exempt

FixedTaxable

FixedFY 21 3.7% 4.2% 2.7% 3.0% -1.0% -1.2%FY 22 4.0% 4.7% 3.0% 3.3% -1.0% -1.4%FY 23 4.3% 5.2% 3.3% 3.6% -1.0% -1.6%FY 24 4.6% 5.7% 3.6% 3.9% -1.0% -1.8%FY 25 5.0% 6.2% 3.9% 4.3% -1.1% -1.9%FY 26 5.4% 6.7% 4.2% 4.6% -1.2% -2.1%FY 27 5.5% 6.9% 4.5% 5.0% -1.0% -1.9%FY 28 5.5% 6.9% 4.9% 5.3% -0.6% -1.6%FY 29 5.5% 7.0% 5.2% 5.7% -0.3% -1.3%FY 30 5.5% 7.0% 5.6% 6.2% 0.1% -0.8%

Path AConstruction Bid

Climate Sensitivity

Aggressive Borrowing

Rate Scenario

Project Size 11.2 TAF

Capital ($M) $500 $400 $600 $500

Annual O&M ($M) $12.30

Construction Year Start

2025

Operations Year Start

2028

FY 22-FY 30 annual % increase Zone W-2 M&I GW charge

DBB 10.2%P3 9.9% 9.6% 10.2% 9.3%DBB + WIFIA 9.4%P3 + WIFIA 9.5% 9.2% 9.7% 8.7%


From: Stan Williams <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 4:41 PM To: Michele King <[email protected]>; Board of Directors <[email protected]>; Tony Estremera <[email protected]>; Barbara Keegan <[email protected]>; Gary Kremen <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Melanie Richardson <[email protected]>; Garth Hall <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Santa Clara Valley Water District Recycled Water Committee August 6, 2020 meeting Dear Chair Estremera, Directors Kremen and Keegan: I have participated with this Recycled Water Committee (RWC), Valley Water Board, staff and consultants for over four years related to the Purified Water Program. I want to commend the RWC for conducting this virtual meeting when most other committee meetings have been suspended during the COVID 19 Pandemic. I plan on participating in your meeting Thursday the 6th of August as you review the status of various program elements. At your January 2020 meeting the RWC put an update on the P3 program on your April 2020 agenda for discussion and directed staff to include the P3 approach as a scenario in the Board discussions on budget and water rates. That meeting of could not take place, but the full Board did conduct a work session on June 16th with considerable discussion and direction to staff. Board Chair Hsueh wrapped up the work-session with a clear statement of Board direction moving forward:

1. Move forward working with the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara to get an agreement in place and then through the RWC.

2. The Board is still, consistent with past direction, P3 is still approach is still the way to forward with whatever the program is going to be. And Progressive P3 implementation (bringing the P3 Partner in the planning phase) is the way to go.

3. Board members are asking for more information to be reviewed by the RWC. That is the staffing plan for implementing a Progressive P3 program and also that Director Kremen’s request to revisit the cost and projections for the overall program.

The future of the South County Recycled Water Program needs us to reschedule a meeting. With this kind of explicit Board direction, I look forward to the RWC meeting. I do, however have a couple of comments on the meeting agenda items that I would like to share. COMMENTS Agenda Item 4.1 Review P3 Project Cost and Financing Sensitivity Analysis. Recommendation 1. The RWC should consider requesting analysis of a scenario of VW not contributing to the debt financing (which is industry standard practice) and obtaining a recommendation from David Moore who is the consultant financial advisor for the Purified Water Program.

Handout 4.1-A, 4.2-A 080620 RWC Meeting

mailto:[email protected]









Valley Water staff has done a great job providing additional sensitivity analysis on a number of scenarios. I did not see any discussion or analysis of the staff concept of Valley Water contributing 30% of debt financing. Since this issue was brought up at the work session by Directors Kremen and Estremera (who are also on this committee), I expected it to be part of the staff analysis. Agenda Item 4.2 Public/Private Partnership Implementation Approach Recommendation 2. The RWC should not accept or support the staff recommendations on this item, but should instead direct staff to: Move forward with the RFP process that was suspended in 2018 with a Progressive P3 approach, and since it has now been over two years since the District finalized the selection of Shortlisted Respondents, request that each respondent team affirm qualifications and interest in remaining in the P3 procurement process. The VW staff memo includes as part of the background this information:

The first five bullet points appear to be similar to the Board Direction summary provided by the Board Chair at the June 16th work session. I cannot find any reference to the last three bullet points from that work session or anywhere else in the program development over the past four years. It could be that they are appropriate objectives, but I question whether they can be labeled “Board Key Objectives”. More problematic is that these new objectives are then relied on to support a staff recommendation to abandon the Progressive P3 approach and go back to a more traditional approach. This change in direction gave me whiplash as it would erase all of the decisions and work effort made that resulted in having five shortlisted P3 entities that reviewed and commented on a draft term sheet with VW staff and consultants. Here is how VW staff and consultants presented the history of the program at an industry conference:

As you know the project was progressing in the development of the RFP when it was suspended due to a number of issues. Below is that schedule which clearly was well on the way to implement a Progressive P3 approach which included a Development Period in which a P3 partner would be selected to work with Valley Water staff and consultants to complete the planning and permitting of the project.

Now the staff recommendation is to go back to one of the options rejected on the basis of both staff and RWC recommendations to the Board in February 2018. The basis for this reversal could be that with the extensive staff changes at VW there may not be an understanding of the Board decision in 2018. At that time, I commented that the early selection of the P3 partner, as recommended by the RWC and Staff in Option B -Progressive P3, was critically important to capture the benefits of this type of collaborative approach, including: • The P3 partner can propose innovative development plans, and the District can select the most desirable before the scope and costs are completely defined; • The Parties can work together and share costs by cooperating on feasibility studies, environmental studies, preliminary engineering, investigation of construction methodologies, regulatory compliance, permitting, financial planning, and developing an open-book costing model; and • Early involvement allows the private partner to co-invest in project planning and design, technical studies, and environmental clearance. Nothing has changed since then except that the project has been downsized. I suggest that the selection of a P3 Partner, with significant experience working in a progressive P3 approach (early involvement in the development process) and with an understanding of the complexities of the water issues in Silicon Valley is still critically important to continue to advance the partnership project




Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Public/Private Partnership Implementation Approach.

RECOMMENDATION:A. Recommend to the Board that it approve the Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain

Implementation/Procurement procedures for Public/Private Partnership (P3) proposed in thisagenda item for procurement of the necessary facilities and services to accomplish purificationand delivery to groundwater recharge ponds of the product water;

B. Recommend that the Board direct staff to return for Board approval to launch a P3procurement plan as soon as the necessary elements for a proposed project including (a)agreement for long-term supply of treated wastewater, (b) agreement enabling management ofreverse osmosis concentrate, and (c) agreement for siting of the purification facilities, aresufficiently secured for the proposed project; and

C. Review a schedule for implementation of the P3 procurement process.

SUMMARY:This agenda item proposes a P3 procurement plan for implementation using a completed optionagreement with in-County cities for long-term supply of treated wastewater.

BACKGROUND:In December 2019, Valley Water reached agreement with the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain viewfor a long-term supply (option) for approximately 9 MGD of treated wastewater. The PaloAlto/Mountain View agreement included general provisions for management of reverse osmosisconcentrate as well as identification of at least one site for a purification plant on City lands. Furtherwork and agreement are needed to secure a site for the proposed plant if the option is exercised.

Recently, staff initiated negotiations with the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara to receive, for a longterm, approximately 9 MGD of treated wastewater to be purified by Valley Water at a proposed siteadjacent to the existing Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. The agreement to securesuch water is anticipated to be an option agreement of similar structure to that of the PaloAlto/Mountain View agreement.

At the June 16, 2020 Board meeting, staff received from the Board its key objectives related to the





Purified Program P3 approach. These are primarily:

· Implement a project of nominal capacity 9 million of gallons per day (MGD) as soon aspossible.

· Advance a “progressive” P3 approach to deliver the Projecto Leverage private sector innovation and expertiseo Accelerate project implementationo Reduce project burden on staff by allocating risks and responsibilities to a private

partner

· In deploying P3 procurement:o Ensure price certainty/budget predictability at time of contract awardo Maximize competitive pressures on pricing and terms to lock-in best possible deal for

Valley Water

PROPOSED APPROACH:In terms of implementation approach, based on further review an input from industry experts, staffproposes implementing P3 procurement through an industry, best-practice approach, which willaccomplish the Board’s objectives above and has additional advantages over a “progressive”approach, including firm pricing and committed financing. This approach maximizes competitivepricing pressures; promotes private sector innovation; accelerates private sector involvement viacommercially confidential meetings and collective negotiations during the Request for Proposals(RFP) process; enables a best-value award (considering both technical approach and pricing);maximizes transparency, as definitive terms and conditions known at time of bidding (equal footingfor all proposers); and optimizes staff involvement by focusing efforts on the definition of performancestandards (as opposed to being actively involved in design development).

The earliest possible implementation timeline is as follows:

· Q4 2020 - Request for Qualifications process, with shortlisting by early 2021

· Q1 2021 - Launch RFP Process (approximately 4 to 8-month process)

· Q2 2022 - Board approval of P3 Agreement with selected proposer

This schedule requires early firming up on site selection for the new purification plant, either in thevicinity of Palo Alto in the case of proceeding with the Palo Alto/Mountain View option or adjacent tothe existing SVAWPC in the case of successful conclusion of an option agreement currently undernegotiation with San Jose and Santa Clara. This schedule is, further, contingent upon Board approvalof one of these two specific project concepts (i.e., a Palo Alto/Mountain View or a San Jose/SantaClara source water agreement, specific sizing and key project elements), in Q1 2021, prior to therelease of the RFP.

Staff presentation of the proposed approach and early-implantation schedule at the Committeemeeting will be assisted by HDR subconsultants Jill Jamieson, CEO of Illuminati Infrastructure





Advisors, and Phillippe Daniel of Liquisti, whose biographies are attached.

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment 1: Consultant BiographiesAttachment 2: PowerPoint*Handout 4.2-A, S. Williams Email

UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER:Garth Hall, 408-630-2750Roslyn Fuller, 408-630-2379




Jill Jamieson CEO Illuminati Infrastructure Advisors

Jill Jamieson is the CEO of Illuminati Infrastructure Advisors, an advisory firm specializing in providing infrastructure advisory services to public sector and governmental entities. She is a globally recognized leader in infrastructure finance and public-private-partnerships (P3), having worked extensively in the United States, Latin America, Europe and Asia for a wide variety of public and private sector clients. With nearly 30 years of experience managing complex mega-project transactions and advising public sector clients in all activities

relating to innovative finance and delivery, specific areas of expertise include innovative project delivery and performance-based contracting; P3 program and framework development; structuring and implementing asset optimization and monetization / value-capture strategies; government transformation; and P3 transaction advisory assistance. Successful transaction experience encompasses work across multiple infrastructure sectors, ranging from transportation and water to energy and higher ed, with a total capital investment portfolio in excess of US$25 billion. Ms. Jamieson currently advises a wide range of federal, state, and local public authorities across the U.S. and the globe on innovative finance and delivery. A frequent keynote speaker on issues relating to infrastructure finance and delivery, Ms. Jamieson has also been called to testify as an independent expert before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on P3 and other forms of alternative finance and delivery for public works. Ms. Jamieson’s professional background includes investment banking, law, and management.


1

EDUCATION M.S. - Environmental Engineering,University of California, Berkeley.

B.S. - Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley.

REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer: Oregon (1990), and Washington

American Academy of Engineers Board Certified Environmental Engineer (BCEE)

PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENTS Water Research Foundation, Expert Panel, Strategic Initiative on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (2007 to 2009)

Water Research Foundation, Research Advisory Council, Member (2006 to 2011)

Water Research Foundation, Expert Panel, Strategic Initiative on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (2007 to 2009)

CALFED Science Program, Peer Review, Water Quality Program – Stage 1 Final Assessment Report (2008)

National Academy of Engineering German-American Frontiers of

Phillippe Daniel Principal

In over 32 years in consulting, Phillippe has been most energized providing insights and facilitating strategic decision-making for water infrastructure investments, both nationally and internationally. Currently heading Liquisti LLC, he has held senior leadership roles with major consulting firms. He has worked on over 150 different projects. He is currently working on Valley Water’s Purified Program as a subconsultant to HDR.

Phillippe is a broad, integrative thinker who appreciates complex systems and interdependency. He is a quick study and excels in structuring decision problems, identifying critical information, integrating and translating information across disciplinary lines, understanding organizational structures and dynamics and facilitating deliberation and consensus. His excellent listening skills coupled with a comfort in leaning into conflict makes him effective in fostering collaboration and achieving consensus amongst diverse stakeholders – essential for implementing large, complex infrastructure projects.

Phillippe combines extensive experience in all aspects of water – treatment, resources and policy – with an educational background in public health and decision sciences. He is fluent in issues regarding microbial and chemical risks.

Planning. With experience in strategic planning, master planning and capital planning, Phillippe has consulted with various public and private agencies in addressing complex system issues. These range from directing infrastructure assessments for post-disaster reconstruction in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to developing infrastructure master plans for several districts of a large, private water company and managing the start-up plan for San Francisco’s regional water system (involved integration of technical, operational and institutional issues, including coordinating across over 30 separate local, regional and state agencies). He has worked with major agencies across the US and internationally to develop strategies for their capital programs, including developing tools to enable setting risk-based priorities.

Design. Phillippe’s design involvement has focused mainly on the conceptual phases (i.e., studies, process selection, design criteria development) for over 30 water treatment plant upgrades (e.g., addition of ozone to the 80-mgd Bollman water treatment plant (WTP), the 40-, 75-, and 100 mgd water treatment plant’s of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and chemical system upgrades at the LA Department of Water and Power 600 mgd plant), expansions (e.g., 150 mgd for the Everett WTP, 330 mgd for the Dallas Elm Fork WTP, and 180 mgd for the Harry Tracy WTP), and new plants (e.g., the 28 mgd plant of the Alameda County Water District, the 1 mgd Craig Alaska WTP, the 5 mgd Saratoga Microfiltration


2

Engineering Symposium. Potsdam, Germany (May 2005)

National Academy of Engineering US Frontiers of Engineering Symposium. Irvine, CA (September 2002)

AWWA Risk Management Technical Advisory Workgroup, Chairman (1994-2002)

EPA Expert Panel Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Disinfection By-Products Produced by Drinking Water Systems. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Cincinnati, OH. (June 2000)

EPA Expert Panel Evaluation of Epidemiological Studies of Adverse Reproductive and Development Effects Associated with Disinfected Drinking Water. Research Triangle Park, NC (July 1997)

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Peer Review of World Health Organization book: Disinfection By-Products: Chemistry, Toxicology and Epidemiology (December 1997)

EPA Expert Panel Comparing the Risks of Disinfection By-Products and Microbes. Cincinnati, OH (May 1997)

International Life Sciences Institute Expert Panel Assessing the Risks of DBP Mixtures. Research Triangle Park, NC and Washington DC (1996 - 1998)

American Academy of Microbiology Colloquium on Global Issues: Microbiological Water Quality for the Next Century. Cosponsored by EPA and the World Health Organization. Guayaquil, Ecuador (April 1995)

EPA Expert Panel Feasibility of Conducting Epidemiological Studies for Cancer and Disinfection By-Products. Cincinnati, OH (July 1994)

INDUSTRY TENURE 32 years

Plant, and the 30 mgd Lawton, OK). He has participated in several value engineering evaluations including those for three membrane plants.

Alternative Project Delivery. For the Santa Clara Valley Water District, he has guidied evaluation of progressive design-build versus design-build-operate-maintain-finance. Currently, he is serving as the Program Manager for implementation of this $1B potable reuse program. For the Seattle Public Utilities, he led efforts for alternative design criteria development on the 120-mgd Tolt Filtration Plant, a design-build-operate project with a 25-year duration. For the San Jose Water Company, Phillippe was the project manager for a fast track design, build and startup of a 5-mgd microfiltration plant.

Decision Making. Phillippe has been involved in decision making for technology and water resource projects including those for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the Portland (OR) Water Bureau. Given the distinctive features of each setting, success has been achieved through application of various analytic tools, streamlined analysis, an understanding of organizational structures and culture, and facilitation of consensus.

International. Phillippe has been involved in projects in Australia, Canada, Colombia, Jordan, Malaysia, Tanzania and Singapore. For Tanzania, he was the engineering-construction lead for the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s due diligence evaluation of Tanzania’s $800M infrastructure proposal (compact signed in February 2008). He has lectured in Ecuador, France, Germany, Kenya, Uganda, Singapore and South Africa.

Water Resources. Phillippe has been involved in water resource decision making projects for the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (Boston), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Association of Bay Area Governments (integrated regional planning for seven Bay Area water utilities) and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency. Each project has involved extensive technical analysis and, in many cases, public outreach. He has also consulted on a number of water resource projects as a senior advisor.

Emergency Response. Phillippe has worked for the Department of Homeland Security (i.e., FEMA) in responding to Hurricane Katrina assessing infrastructure needs and hazard mitigation approaches. For San Francisco, he aided in developing their Emergency Response Plans. In addition, working with representatives from fire, police, public health and the Office of Emergency Services, he developed a strategy for supplying potable water after a major disaster. He worked jointly with four large California water utilities and the California Department of Health Services in developing strategies for responding to a terrorist event.


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Recycled Water CommitteeAugust 6, 2020


vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

2Staff Recommendations to the Committee:

A. Recommend to the Board that it approve the Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain Implementation/Procurement procedures for Public/Private Partnership (P3) proposed in this agenda item for procurement of the necessary facilities and services to accomplish purification and delivery to groundwater recharge ponds of the product water

B. Recommend that the Board direct staff to return for Board approval to launch a P3 procurement plan as soon as the necessary elements for a proposed project including (a) agreement for long-term supply of treated wastewater, (b) agreement enabling management of reverse osmosis concentrate, and (c) agreement for siting of the purification facilities, are sufficiently secured for the proposed project

C. Review a schedule for implementation of the P3 procurement process


4.2 P3 Approach


vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

4• Implement a 9 MGD Project* as soon as possible• Advance P3 to deliver the Project

• Leverage private sector innovation and expertise

• Accelerate Project implementation

• Reduce Project burden on staff by allocating risks and responsibilities to a private partner

• Ensure price certainty / budget predictability at time of contract award

• Maximize competitive pressures on pricing and terms to lock-in best possible deal for Valley Water

• Board direction best met through a competitively procured fixed price Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain

June 16, 2020 Meeting Outcomes

* Assumed project will be either with Palo Alto/Mountain View or with San Jose/Santa ClaraAttachment 2 Page 4 of 6

vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

5P3 Process Timeline

Completion to this timeline depends on clear project definition and launch of the RFP in early 2021, as indicated to the left


vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

6Alignment with Board ObjectivesBoard Objectives How process aligns

Leverage private sector innovation and expertise

• Valley Water establishes output standards and minimal technical requirements

• P3 to develop technical approach and design• Extensive early engagement with shortlisted P3

teams during RFP process

Accelerate project implementation • Use of at-risk capital and other incentivizes timely delivery of project.

Maximize competitive pressures on pricing and terms to lock-in best possible deal for Valley Water

• Best-value contract award with firm pricing, committed financing and definitive contract terms ensures all parties are bidding on same terms.

• Industry standard (best practice) approach to P3 procurement.

Reduce project burden on staff by allocating risks and responsibilities to a private partner

• Process reduces overall staff time by concentrated effort during procurement, while leveraging strategic oversight and inputs

Ensure price certainty / budget predictability at time of contract award

• Board has full understanding of pricing and terms at time of award.

1. Implement 9 MGD project as soon as possible• With Board approval, staff will release an

RFQ. Credibility of the procurement process depends on project certainty before release of RFP in Q1 2021. Requires early resolution of foundational issues including land rights.

2. Advance P3 to Deliver Project• Private Sector engagement with release of

RFQ• RFP can be released after definitive approval

of Project Concept (which includes certainty regarding property rights, water source, etc.).

• RFP process involves extensive interaction with shortlisted firms on technical design and negotiation of deal terms.


From: Stan Williams <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 4:41 PM To: Michele King <[email protected]>; Board of Directors <[email protected]>; Tony Estremera <[email protected]>; Barbara Keegan <[email protected]>; Gary Kremen <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Melanie Richardson <[email protected]>; Garth Hall <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Santa Clara Valley Water District Recycled Water Committee August 6, 2020 meeting Dear Chair Estremera, Directors Kremen and Keegan: I have participated with this Recycled Water Committee (RWC), Valley Water Board, staff and consultants for over four years related to the Purified Water Program. I want to commend the RWC for conducting this virtual meeting when most other committee meetings have been suspended during the COVID 19 Pandemic. I plan on participating in your meeting Thursday the 6th of August as you review the status of various program elements. At your January 2020 meeting the RWC put an update on the P3 program on your April 2020 agenda for discussion and directed staff to include the P3 approach as a scenario in the Board discussions on budget and water rates. That meeting of could not take place, but the full Board did conduct a work session on June 16th with considerable discussion and direction to staff. Board Chair Hsueh wrapped up the work-session with a clear statement of Board direction moving forward:

1. Move forward working with the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara to get an agreement in place and then through the RWC.

2. The Board is still, consistent with past direction, P3 is still approach is still the way to forward with whatever the program is going to be. And Progressive P3 implementation (bringing the P3 Partner in the planning phase) is the way to go.

3. Board members are asking for more information to be reviewed by the RWC. That is the staffing plan for implementing a Progressive P3 program and also that Director Kremen’s request to revisit the cost and projections for the overall program.

The future of the South County Recycled Water Program needs us to reschedule a meeting. With this kind of explicit Board direction, I look forward to the RWC meeting. I do, however have a couple of comments on the meeting agenda items that I would like to share. COMMENTS Agenda Item 4.1 Review P3 Project Cost and Financing Sensitivity Analysis. Recommendation 1. The RWC should consider requesting analysis of a scenario of VW not contributing to the debt financing (which is industry standard practice) and obtaining a recommendation from David Moore who is the consultant financial advisor for the Purified Water Program.











Valley Water staff has done a great job providing additional sensitivity analysis on a number of scenarios. I did not see any discussion or analysis of the staff concept of Valley Water contributing 30% of debt financing. Since this issue was brought up at the work session by Directors Kremen and Estremera (who are also on this committee), I expected it to be part of the staff analysis. Agenda Item 4.2 Public/Private Partnership Implementation Approach Recommendation 2. The RWC should not accept or support the staff recommendations on this item, but should instead direct staff to: Move forward with the RFP process that was suspended in 2018 with a Progressive P3 approach, and since it has now been over two years since the District finalized the selection of Shortlisted Respondents, request that each respondent team affirm qualifications and interest in remaining in the P3 procurement process. The VW staff memo includes as part of the background this information:

The first five bullet points appear to be similar to the Board Direction summary provided by the Board Chair at the June 16th work session. I cannot find any reference to the last three bullet points from that work session or anywhere else in the program development over the past four years. It could be that they are appropriate objectives, but I question whether they can be labeled “Board Key Objectives”. More problematic is that these new objectives are then relied on to support a staff recommendation to abandon the Progressive P3 approach and go back to a more traditional approach. This change in direction gave me whiplash as it would erase all of the decisions and work effort made that resulted in having five shortlisted P3 entities that reviewed and commented on a draft term sheet with VW staff and consultants. Here is how VW staff and consultants presented the history of the program at an industry conference:

As you know the project was progressing in the development of the RFP when it was suspended due to a number of issues. Below is that schedule which clearly was well on the way to implement a Progressive P3 approach which included a Development Period in which a P3 partner would be selected to work with Valley Water staff and consultants to complete the planning and permitting of the project.

Now the staff recommendation is to go back to one of the options rejected on the basis of both staff and RWC recommendations to the Board in February 2018. The basis for this reversal could be that with the extensive staff changes at VW there may not be an understanding of the Board decision in 2018. At that time, I commented that the early selection of the P3 partner, as recommended by the RWC and Staff in Option B -Progressive P3, was critically important to capture the benefits of this type of collaborative approach, including: • The P3 partner can propose innovative development plans, and the District can select the most desirable before the scope and costs are completely defined; • The Parties can work together and share costs by cooperating on feasibility studies, environmental studies, preliminary engineering, investigation of construction methodologies, regulatory compliance, permitting, financial planning, and developing an open-book costing model; and • Early involvement allows the private partner to co-invest in project planning and design, technical studies, and environmental clearance. Nothing has changed since then except that the project has been downsized. I suggest that the selection of a P3 Partner, with significant experience working in a progressive P3 approach (early involvement in the development process) and with an understanding of the complexities of the water issues in Silicon Valley is still critically important to continue to advance the partnership project




Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Public/Private Partnership Staffing Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:A. Receive information on Public/Private Partnership (P3) staffing plan; andB. Provide feedback to staff.

SUMMARY:Staff received directions from the Board at the June 16, 2020 Board meeting to develop a staffingplan to address the P3 procurement approach. Two of the related drivers identified by the Board inthat meeting were:

· Accelerate Project implementation

· Reduce Project burden on staff by allocating risks and responsibilities to a private partner

The Project selected is assumed to be either (1) a project of nominal capacity 9 MGD, consistent withthe quantity of source water secured as an option in the December 2019 agreement between ValleyWater, Palo Alto and Mountain View, or (2) a project of similar scope located adjacent to the existingSilicon Valley Advanced Purification Center, involving a potential treated wastewater supplyagreement between Valley Water and the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.

The proposed Valley Water staffing approach relies heavily upon consultant assistance for a range oftasks, cost ground-truthing, environmental documentation and cultural resources, finance strategy,and possibly legal as well. The proposed P3 approach, discussed in a separate agendamemorandum for the same meeting of the Committee, places responsibility on the private partner toundertake design and construction, among other functions, so the proposed Valley Water staffingplan is designed to prepare for and interface with the candidate private partners, not to duplicate ordirect their work.

Consistent with the schedule in the proposed P3 approach (separate agenda item for the sameCommittee meeting), the organization structure depicted in the attached PowerPoint will beimplemented for the early tasks.

ATTACHMENTS:






UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER:Garth Hall, 408-630-2750Roslyn Fuller, 408-630-2379




P3 Organizational Framework


va

lle

yw

ate

r.o

rg

3P3 Management and Reporting Framework –Procurement PhaseSummary• Steering Committee provides strategic oversight

• No new staff additions anticipated at this time

• Heavy use of consultants – have the critical agreements in place

Detail• Steering Committee -- senior management

• Procurement and Water Utility Enterprise – senior staff leads

• Transaction team -- P3 and Program experts – mainly consultants

• Engineering, environmental – mainly consultants

• Planning – staff

• Financial – staff and consultants

• Legal – staff and consultants

• Communications – staff and consultants

Red font represents consulting


va

lle

yw

ate

r.o

rg

4P3 Implementation Management and Reporting Framework

CEO/Assistant CEOChair, Project

Steering Committee

Technical Lead

Legal (Staff/

Consultants)

Financial (Staff/

Consultants)

Eng./Technical (Consultants)

Recycled Water Committee

ProcurementLead

Communications (Staff/

Consultants)

P3 Transaction Team, major elements:

Board





Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Update on the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:A. Receive information on the status, findings, and next steps for the Countywide Water Reuse

Master Plan; andB. Recommend the Board of Directors authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and

execute an amendment (Amendment No. 3) consistent with staff recommendations to theAgreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan Project(Agreement No. A4120A).

SUMMARY:This item provides an update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley Water) CountywideWater Reuse Master Plan (Reuse Master Plan), an integral component of Valley Water’s WaterSupply Master Plan, and presents staff’s recommendation for an amendment (Amendment No. 3) tothe agreement with Brown & Caldwell (Consultant) for the Countywide Water Reuse Master PlanProject (Agreement A4120A).

The goal of the Reuse Master Plan is to identify and evaluate future reuse opportunities incollaboration with recycle water producers, wholesalers, retailers, users, and other interested parties.Valley Water has set a policy objective to meet at least 10% of the County’s total water demand usingrecycled and purified water. To achieve this goal, Valley Water is developing a Reuse Master Planthat will provide up to 24,000 acre-feet per year of potable water reuse by 2028. The plan’s analysesand findings will directly influence the water supply investment strategies in the Water Supply MasterPlan 2040, which is used to ensure long-term supply reliability for Santa Clara County. The ReuseMaster Plan is scheduled to be completed in Spring 2021.

RESULTS:

Since January 25, 2018, the Reuse Master Plan has produced 15 critical engineering reports(Attachment 2) that represent the planning foundation and has incorporated key stakeholder input(>40 stakeholder meetings) into the Draft Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (Attachment 3)presented today. Key building blocks for the Reuse Master Plan are summarized below:

· Project Definition Technical Memorandum





· Baseline Analysis Technical Memorandum

· Conceptual Alternatives Technical Memorandum

· 1% Conceptual Alternatives Design

· Feasible Project Portfolios Technical Memorandum

The Draft Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan represents the assemblage of these criticalengineering and planning documents into a comprehensive water reuse planning compendium thatdescribes available source water, relevant institutional arrangements, existing reuse systems,expanded (both Direct and Indirect potable) reuse potential, feasible project portfolios, and costimplications. Highlights of the Draft Reuse Master Plan include:

· A total of seven feasible potable reuse portfolio combinations have been developed for theNorth County and costed out with 100-year lifecycle unit cost ranging from $2,000 to$3,000/AF (2019$).

· Three Non-Potable Reuse (NPR) and Potable Reuse (PR) options were developed for theSouth County with resulting 100-year lifecycle unit cost ranging from $1,700 to $6,100/AF(pending RO Concentrate Management Plan updates).

· Capital Expenses (CAPEX) for portfolios range from $555M to $814M with OperationalExpenses (OPEX) varying between $20.2M and $23.2M.

Attachment 4 summarizes key portfolio results, characteristics, costs, benefits, and limitations forNorth County (Portfolios 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, and 4) and for South County (Options 1, 2 and 3).Note that although the original intent (Consultant agreement scope) was to identify projects toproduce up to 24,000 AFY of potable reuse, these results are scalable and subject to input to DraftReuse Master Plan, such as ongoing negotiations with San José and updated water demandprojections.

Table 1 - Potable Water Reuse Portfolio Cost Estimate Results (North County)

Portfolio: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 4AWPFLocation

San José (SJ) Palo Alto(PA)

Sunnyvale (SV)

PA & SV

Type &Delivery

GWR RWA toPWTP

TWA toSJ, SC,MPL

TWA toSC, SJ,EPL

GWR

Yield (TAFY) 19- 24 19.8- 24 24 24 17- 23 17- 23 17- 23

CAPEX($Million)

$650 $635 $555 $605 $770 $795 $814

OPEX($Million)

$20.2 $20.7 $23.2 23.2 $21.0 $20.2 $21.9

100-Yr UnitCost($1000/AF in2019$)

$2- $2.5 $2.1-$2.5

$2.1 $2.2 $2.3- $3 $2.3- $3 $2.4-$3.2





Portfolio: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 4AWPFLocation

San José (SJ) Palo Alto(PA)

Sunnyvale (SV)

PA & SV

Type &Delivery

GWR RWA toPWTP

TWA toSJ, SC,MPL

TWA toSC, SJ,EPL

GWR

Yield (TAFY) 19- 24 19.8- 24 24 24 17- 23 17- 23 17- 23

CAPEX($Million)

$650 $635 $555 $605 $770 $795 $814

OPEX($Million)

$20.2 $20.7 $23.2 23.2 $21.0 $20.2 $21.9

100-Yr UnitCost($1000/AF in2019$)

$2- $2.5 $2.1-$2.5

$2.1 $2.2 $2.3- $3 $2.3- $3 $2.4-$3.2

Notes: All costs include estimates for RO concentrate management based on preliminary findings; TAFY =Thousand Acre-Feet per Year; GWR = Groundwater Augmentation to Los Gatos Recharge Ponds; RWA =Raw Water Augmentation; SC = Santa Clara; MPL = Milpitas Pipeline; EPL = East Pipeline; PWTP =Penitencia Water Treatment Plan; AWPF = Advanced Water Purification Facility; Yield is the annual volume ofwater produced by a facility or natural system, it is generally lower than the maximum production (design)capacity due to source water availability, maintenance, and other factors that affect AWPF efficiency.

NEXT STEPS:

The Reuse Master Plan has experienced unanticipated delays due to the technical nature andregulatory complexities of reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) management integration concerningROC discharge in South (San Francisco) Bay. Compounding delays from the unforeseen COVID-19Pandemic have also contributed to schedule impacts and stakeholder inaccessibility. Staff is workingdiligently with our consultants to minimize these negative impacts to Reuse Master Plan schedule.Additional resources, however, will be needed to complete the Reuse Master Plan. Staff hascoordinated with our stakeholders and consultant team to develop a set of resource requests tocomplete the Reuse Master Plan cost effectively and expeditiously. The total cost of this amendmentis not to exceed $285,000 (see Table 2).

Table 2 - Funding Recommendation for Amendment No. 3 (Agreement A4120A)

Task Description CurrentAgreementNTE Fees

Proposed AmendmentNo. 3

RequestedFees

RevisedNTE Fees

1 Project Management & Engagement:Administrative Services to provide contractimplementation resources and expandedstakeholder support.

$712,300 $135,000 $847,300

2 Project Definition $83,900 $0 $83,900

3 Baseline Analysis $148,400 $0 $148,400

4 Conceptual Alternatives (Portfolios) $188,100 $0 $188,100

5 Feasible Project Alternatives (Portfolios) $924,800 $0 $924,800

6 Recommended Project Alternatives &Implementation: Engineering support fortechnical review, evolving potable reuseregulations, early project implementation(CEQA) support, state regulatorydevelopment and permitting groundwork.

$288,100 $100,000 $388,100

7 Rate Impacts $6,500 $0 $6,500

8 Master Plan $269,300 $0 $269,300

9 SBWR System MP Updates $304,300 $0 $304,300

10 Supplemental Services: SupplementalServices to address unanticipated technicalrequests, TWA complexity and earlyimplementation activities.

$125,000 $50,000 $175,000

Total Not-to-Exceed (NTE)Fees

$3,050,700 $285,000 $3,335,700





Task Description CurrentAgreementNTE Fees

Proposed AmendmentNo. 3

RequestedFees

RevisedNTE Fees

1 Project Management & Engagement:Administrative Services to provide contractimplementation resources and expandedstakeholder support.

$712,300 $135,000 $847,300

2 Project Definition $83,900 $0 $83,900

3 Baseline Analysis $148,400 $0 $148,400

4 Conceptual Alternatives (Portfolios) $188,100 $0 $188,100

5 Feasible Project Alternatives (Portfolios) $924,800 $0 $924,800

6 Recommended Project Alternatives &Implementation: Engineering support fortechnical review, evolving potable reuseregulations, early project implementation(CEQA) support, state regulatorydevelopment and permitting groundwork.

$288,100 $100,000 $388,100

7 Rate Impacts $6,500 $0 $6,500

8 Master Plan $269,300 $0 $269,300

9 SBWR System MP Updates $304,300 $0 $304,300

10 Supplemental Services: SupplementalServices to address unanticipated technicalrequests, TWA complexity and earlyimplementation activities.

$125,000 $50,000 $175,000

Total Not-to-Exceed (NTE)Fees

$3,050,700 $285,000 $3,335,700

Amendment No. 3 Recommendation:Staff recommends additional resources proposed in Table 2 that will improve stakeholderparticipation under recent and future COVID-19 operating mode(s) and will make better informeddecisions for future water reuse projects. Staff proposes the Recycle Water Committee recommendthat the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and execute an amendmentconsistent with above to the Agreement with Consultant for the Countywide Water Reuse MasterPlan Project (Agreement No. A4120A).

Staff plans to finalize the CEQA scope-of-work and begin the Programmatic CEQA review andevaluation process in August 2020. This work is critical to help Valley Water better compete for stateand federal grants and loans (such as Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program)opportunities for Water Reuse Project implementation.

Staff plans to complete the Final Reuse Master Plan in early 2021 after engaging and seekingfeedback from the Project Partner Group, Executive Leadership Group, Regulators, Stakeholdersand Independent Advisory Panel.

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment 1: PowerPointAttachment 2: Deliverables SummaryAttachment 3: Draft Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (D9)Attachment 4: Key Portfolio Characteristics*Handout 4.4-A, D. Muirhead Email

UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER:Jerry De La Piedra, 408-630-2257




vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

1

Draft Results: Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan



vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

2Over 15 Critical Engineering Reports Completed


vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

3Stakeholder Engagement - Over 40 external Meetings Completed

• Partner Agencies• Environmental Groups• Regulators• Rate Payer Advocacy• Water Retailers• Business Groups• Planning/Policy Groups


vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

4Results: Seven Feasible Portfolios Developed at 10% Design

Indirect PotableReuse (Portfolio 2a

$2,300/AF - $3,000/AF)*

Raw Water Augmentation(Portfolio 1b

$2,100 - 2,500/AF)*

Treated Water Augmentation(Portfolio 1d $2,200)*

*100-year unit cost basis in 2019$Attachment 1 Page 4 of 6

vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

5Next Steps

CEQA Scoping and Costing

Review Draft Water Reuse Master Plan by:

Recycled Water Committee Independent Advisory Panel Project Partners Regulators Task Force Valley Water Staff

Draft Final Master Plan by fall 2020

Final Master Plan by spring of 2021Attachment 1

Page 5 of 6

vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

6Amendment No. 3 – Funding Details

Request $135K for Administrative Services to provide contract implementation

resources and expanded stakeholder support.

Request $100K for engineering support for technical review, evolving potable

reuse regulations, early project implementation (CEQA) support, state

regulatory development and permitting groundwork.

Request $50K for Supplemental Services to address unanticipated technical

requests, TWA complexity and early implementation activities.

TOTAL - $285,000


Table – Overall Status of Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan Deliverables (Rev. 7/13/20) No. Tasks and Elements per Deliverable Description Status #1 Roles and Responsibilities Framework Establishes the project’s purpose and

describes the roles and responsibilities of Valley Water and its Partner Agencies.

All Completed

#2 Regulations Framework Broadly describes key regulations applicable to non-potable and potable reuse applications that must be considered when developing water reuse projects.

#3 Project Baseline Framework System Information Gap Analysis Baseline Analysis Technical Memorandum (TM) Geotechnical Preliminary Study TM Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Exploration

Work Plan Modeling Plan

Identifies, assess, and consolidates existing and projected countywide water reuse infrastructure, including developing plans to address information gaps.

#4 Conceptual Alternatives TM Establishes up to 17 preliminary project elements and five overall alternatives before narrowing this to three portfolios through a prioritization and assessment methodology.

#5 1% Design High-Level status update as SlideDoc.

#6 Developed and calibrate hydraulic models Hydraulic model simulation results

Calculates infrastructure size, and engineering specification requirements

Nearly Completed

#7 10% Design Feasible Project Portfolios TM • Preliminary (10%) Project Designs• Potable Reuse Technologies TM• Residuals Management Plan• Economic Comparative Matrix • Risk Assessment Matrix • Feasible Portfolios Matrix

Incorporates essential input from Project Partners and other stakeholders received on the 1% Design and develops engineering details. Completed

#8 South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) HydraulicSBWR model simulation results summary

SBWR System Master Plan Updates TM

Updates and calibrates hydraulic models to latest operational conditions. Also, provides an updated planning document for SBWR.

Nearly Completed

#9 Draft Reuse Master Plan (D9)• Regulatory Compliance Strategy TM• Potential Treated Water Augmentation• Development and Feasibility Analysis

Scoping Programmatic CEQA*

Updates and consolidates all deliverables received to date into a single document for review and input. Also completes new 10% level of design for two new TWA portfolios.

Completed (except for CEQA work)

#10 Draft Final Master Plan Report• Rate Impact Evaluation• Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management

Plan (ROCMP) Integration • On-Site Water Reuse Evaluation• Optional Piloting Roadmap to Direct Potable

Reuse (DPR) Final Master Plan Report

These documents will integrate input received from the Board, Project Partners, Regulators, Independent Advisory Panel, Valley Water Staff, stakeholder groups, and other planning efforts identified to the left.

Not Started, final master

plan is expected

completed by early

2021 Notes: *Draft was completed; final version expected in August 2020.


A full copy of this report can be accessed from this link: https://www.valleywater.org/public-review-documents

DRAFT Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan

July 1, 2020

Prepared by: with:

Limitations: This is a draft report and is not intended to be a final representation of the work done or recommendations made by Brown and Caldwell (BC). It should not be relied upon; consult the final report. This document was prepared solely for Valley Water (Santa Clara Valley Water District) in accordance with professional standards at the time the services were performed and in accordance with the contract between Valley Water and BC dated January 25, 2018. This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by Valley Water; it is not intended to be relied upon by any other party except for regulatory authorities contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by Valley

Water and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as to the validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information.


https://www.valleywater.org/public-review-documents

https://www.valleywater.org/public-review-documents

DRAFT Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan Section 6: Project Portfolios

52

DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.D9-Draft Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan.docx

Table 6-11. Summary of North County Project Portfolios and South County Reuse Options

Portfolio 1San José AWPF

Variation

Portfolio 1aDelivers -24,000 to LGRP for GWR

Portfolio 1bDelivers -24,000 to the SBA terminal tank upstream of Penitencia WTP for RWA

Portfolio 1cDelivers total for TWA, including up to 4 mgd directly to Santa Clara and San José (north of Highway 101) and up to 20 mgd to Valley Water’s retailers through Milpitas Pipeline (flowing south) to a blending location near Penitencia WTP

Portfolio 1dDelivers total for TWA, including up to 4 mgd directly to Santa Clara and San José (north of Highway 101) and up to 20 mgd to Valley Water’s retailers through a dedicated purified water pipeline to a blending location near Penitencia WTP

ROC Management Strategy Discharge ROC to a new outfall near existing outfall under a separate NPDES permit

Discharge ROC to a new outfall near existing outfall under a separate NPDES permit



Estimated Costs

Total Capital CostAnnual O&M CostUnit Cost, 30-year Life-cycleUnit Cost, 100-year Life-cycle

$630M (+$20M assumed for ROC)$18.4M (+$1.8M assumed for ROC)$2,500-$2,000 -

$615M (+$20M assumed for ROC)$18.9M (+$1.8M assumed for ROC)$2,600-$2,100-

$535M (+$20M assumed for ROC)$21.4M (+$1.8M assumed for ROC)


Portfolio 2Combined Palo Alto and Sunnyvale Regional AWPF

Variation

Portfolio 2aCombines source flow at a regional AWPF in Palo Alto and delivers -23,000 to LGRP for GWR

Portfolio 2bCombines source flow at a regional AWPF in Sunnyvale and delivers -23,000 to LGRP for GWR

ROC Management Strategy Blend ROC with residual final effluent; discharge at existing outfall

Discharge ROC at a new shallow-water outfall at Guadalupe Slough for enhanced mixing.

Estimated Costs




Portfolio 4Separate Palo Alto and Sunnyvale Regional AWPFs

Portfolio 4Treats source flow at two separate AWPFs and delivers a combined -23,000 to LGRP for GWR

Separate Facility Palo Alto AWPF Sunnyvale AWPF

ROC Management Strategy Blend ROC with residual final effluent; discharge at existing outfall

Discharge ROC at a new shallow water outfall at Guadalupe Slough for enhanced mixing

Estimated Costs



$3,000-$2,400-

Morgan Hill Reuse Options

VariationOption 1Delivers of NPR+ from SBWR to a new Morgan Hill recycled water system

Option 2Delivers from a Morgan Hill satellite WWTP and AWPF to San Pedro Ponds for GWR

Option 3Delivers from a Morgan Hill satellite WWTP and AWPF to Anderson Reservoir for SWA

ROC Management Strategy Not applicable Lined evaporation ponds Lined evaporation ponds

Estimated Costs


$70M$2.6M




From: D. Muirhead <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 7:49 AM To: Eva Marie Sans <[email protected]> Cc: David Tucker <[email protected]>; Clerk of the Board <[email protected]> Subject: comment Recycled Water Committee meeting August 6 Items #4.4 + #4.6 Dear Water District Recycled Water Committee, comments for your meeting on Thursday, August 6: 4.4. Update on Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan 4.6. Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Opportunities. Thank you, Doug Muirhead, Morgan Hill ----- 4.4 Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan [key point] Lack of engagement with public in plan development. [comment] 1) You invest considerable effort from the Communications Team in trying to change the public perception of water reuse from Yuck to Yea. Yet you make no effort to involve the public in the discussion of planning for water reuse. Lots of talk of Project Partner and Executive Leadership Group meetings and reviews by (undefined) stakeholders but no public participation even if just Inform rather than Engage. 2) I really appreciate the visual and textual glossary. ----- 4.6 Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Opportunities. [key points] No cost offset for avoided purchase and/or lack of availability of imported water. No mention of wastewater input allocation in the plans for expansion of SCRWA. Does Morgan Hill retain control of some wastewater for greywater and recycled water reuse? [staff summary] South County Reuse Options Option 1 Imports of NPR+ from SBWR to a new Morgan Hill recycled water system Risk Occurence: Low; Risk Impact: Low Option 2 Delivers from a Morgan Hill satellite WWTP and AWPF to San Pedro Ponds for GWR Risk Occurence: Very High; Risk Impact: Very High Option 3 Delivers from a Morgan Hill satellite WWTP and AWPF to Anderson Reservoir for SWA Risk Occurence: Very High; Risk Impact: Very High Limitations for Option 2 + 3 A Morgan Hill satellite facility would increase solids loads to SCRWA, posing operational issues that may be substantial.


[comment] 1) What is the offset to Lifecycle cost from avoided purchase and/or impacts from lack of availability of imported water? During the previous drought, I argued that the "20th century model" for making decisions about recycled water was that paying as little as possible for water was the primary consideration. (The 2020 Reuse Plan defers Rate Impacts to the next iteration of the document.) I then argued that we should replace that with a "21st century model" that is a choice between having expensive water and having no water. The 2015 Master Plan analysis looked at capital costs ($18M) and operation costs ($1.5M) for a Morgan Hill scalping plant. The 2020 Reuse Plan Potential Future South County Reuse Opportunities (Table 6-8) estimates using purified water from a satellite WWTP and AWPF in Morgan Hill for GWR has Total Capital Cost: $125M* Total Annual O&M Cost: $6.9M* Unit Cost, 30-Year Lifecycle: $6,300/AF* Projected 2040 Yield: 1,900 AFY and for SWA has Total Capital Cost: $145M* Total Annual O&M Cost: $7.4M* Unit Cost, 30-Year Lifecycle: $7,200/AF* Projected 2040 Yield: 1,900 AFY The 2015 Plan section on Value of Recycled Water Supply simply rated alternatives as low or high value. Dollar amounts were not provided to contrast costs. The analysis did not value a drought-proof source of water. We were not shown a value for recharge to keep wells flowing. We were not shown the value of augmenting imported water (when available) or substituting for it (when not available); the District pays real money to import water from outside the County. 2) One 2020 Countywide Reuse Master Plan objective is to: Determine source water availability and reuse benefits. What troubles me is what appears to be a senior-water-rights/ junior-water-rights view which gives SCRWA and Gilroy recycled water but prevents Morgan Hill from using its own effluent (both wastewater and greywater). For both local resiliency and local control, Morgan Hill must be allowed to retain some of our effluent. Note that the 1992 Joint Powers Agreement explicitly empowers Morgan Hill as a member agency to independently plan and/or construct its own wastewater and reclamation facilities. The 2020 Reuse Plan SCRWA WWTP Flow Analysis (5.2.4 Figure 5-5) says During the summer months, a portion of wastewater from Morgan Hill is needed to supply NPR in Gilroy. On average, 3 mgd of remaining effluent is available from SCRWA WWTP. If considering satellite treatment in Morgan Hill, only 2.1 mgd of Morgan Hill's wastewater

would be available on average, assuming some would be needed to supply NPR in Gilroy during the summer months. This is then discounted with a Limitation for Option 2 + 3 A Morgan Hill satellite facility would increase solids loads to SCRWA, posing operational issues that may be substantial. I have seen no mention of input allocation in the plans for expansion of SCRWA. I am concerned that we will be prevented from having an option for recycled water in Morgan Hill because the SCRWA expansion will have already occurred. SCRWA Engineering Projects Report June 3, 2020 TREATMENT CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECT Status: Design development on schedule (July 2020) 100% design underway for plans and specifications CEQA process (Dec 2020) Documentation preparation underway for environmental clearance Board Presentation (July 2020) Board's approval to proceed with bid advertisement Construction bid and award process (Dec 2020) Bid advertisement, Board's approval of contract PG&E service change process (Dec 2021) Application submitted to utility to study system needs BAAQMD permit to operate (Dec 2021) Application in process for submittal to local air district NPDES permit change (March 2022) Adoption of new permit by State Water Board New plant construction and commissioning (2021- 2025) Compliance with NPDES Permit Development of construction bid package is currently underway including: preparation of engineering design drawings and technical specifications, air permit application to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), environmental CEQA documents, and formal notice to PG&E planning department to study system upgrades to accommodate added electrical load. [history] [2015 Master Plan] The Morgan Hill Scalping Plant alternative was not selected due to potential risks of impacting the SCRWA WWTP influent composition (potentially leading to compliance issues), the possibility of lowering flow rates at times to the degree that solids settle out in the sewer trunk line, and the inability to meet existing customer demands during peak periods.




Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Update on Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management (ROCM) Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:Receive information and discuss next steps.

SUMMARY:Following the last Recycled Water Committee (Committee) held in January 2020, Santa Clara ValleyWater District (Valley Water) staff has completed several milestones on the Reverse OsmosisConcentrate Management (ROCM) Plan. These milestones include completing a successfulworkshop with countywide stakeholders, research partners and state regulators; further refiningROCM options; completing additional studies as recommended by state regulators; and updatingcosts for the different ROCM options. In addition, staff is currently reviewing the TechnicalMemorandum No. 6: Evaluation of ROCM Options Final Report (TM6), which will be shared withstakeholders to solicit additional input.

The ROCM options presented in TM6 for a future Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) asdeveloped by the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (Reuse Master Plan) and in collaborationwith existing Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) includes the following:

1. Blending with POTW Effluent: This option is achievable both at the existing Palo Alto RegionalWater Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) outfall, and at the San Jose/Santa Clara RegionalWastewater Facility (RWF) at an alternate outfall location downstream of the existing one. Theformer would require the RWQCP to potentially modify their existing National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NDPES) permit and would limit the amount of purified water(permeate) produced due to several existing NPDES limits. The latter would not limit theamount of permeate produced since it would apply to an independent outfall location to benegotiated with the San Jose/Santa Clara RWF. Both options also require negotiations withthe regulatory agencies.

2. New Outfall Locations: This option applies to both enhanced outfall locations as determinedthrough hydrodynamic modeling, and at a discharge location north of Dumbarton Bridge (i.e.deep-water). As requested by regulators, the hydrodynamic modeling conducted as part of theROCM Plan indicates several discharge areas downstream of existing POTW outfalls thatprovides sufficient dilution for ROC and do not limit the amount of permeate produced.Discharges to a deep-water outfall would require a connection to an existing outfall such as





the one located at Silicon Valley Clean Water in Redwood City or running a separate pipelineinto the Bay. These options also require negotiations with POTWs and regulatory agencies.

3. Evaporation Ponds: This option only applies to a South County AWPF. Due to the lack ofaccess to the San Francisco Bay or other major waterways, the only option for ROCM is bymeans of a lined evaporation pond. The amount of land required is approximately 115 acresbased on projected Water Reuse Plan flows and local evaporation rates.

Staff presented the results of site specific ROCM evaluations to the San Francisco Bay RegionalWater Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on November 18, 2019, with updates presented to both theRWQCB and the California EPA at ROCM Workshop No. 4 held on March 27, 2020. This providedan opportunity to seek feedback and ensure that the proposed ROCM approaches are amenable toregulators. The presented ROCM options were well received by both RWQCB and EPA staff andvaluable comments and important input was obtained.

NEXT STEPS:Staff will finalize the 10% engineering design and financial assessment information based uponcomments received from the Committee and interested stakeholders. The final design and costestimates will be integrated with the Reuse Master Plan project portfolio design packages. Uponportfolio selection staff will work closely with POTWs and regulators to ensure Valley Water can meetits potable reuse goals. In addition, Valley Water staff will continue to explore source control efforts,evaluate alternative treatment options, conduct site specific modeling and conduct toxicity testing forfuture compliance.

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment 1: PowerPoint





Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management UpdateRecycled Water Committee – August 6, 2020Update of ROC Management Options


|

Accomplishments of ROC Management Plan

• Held four workshops to engage and consider Countywide Stakeholders input

• Met over a half-dozen times with State regulators

• Reduced ROC Management (ROCM) options

• Initiated essential studies as recommended by regulators

• Refined costs for ROCM options both maximizing targeted purified water production and meeting regulatory thresholds

2August 6, 2020 – Recycled Water Committee Attachment 1 Page 2 of 9

| 3August 6, 2020 – Recycled Water Committee*Acre Feet per Year; **Range based on lower and upper bound effluent projections


|4August 6, 2020 – Recycled Water Committee Attachment 1 Page 4 of 9

|

CAPEX and Unit Costs for ROCM

5August 6, 2020 – Recycled Water Committee

Portfolio CAPEX Life Cycle Costs*

Portfolio 1- San Jose $19M to $29M $150 to $180/AF

Portfolio 2A -Palo Alto $18M to $75M $130 to $300/AF

Portfolio 2B - Sunnyvale $39M $190/AF

Portfolio 4 – Palo Alto $41M to $85M $200 to $320/AF

South County $50M $1,100/AF


|

Next Steps: ROCM Implementation

• Portfolio selection and work with POTWs and regulators on specific permitting scenarios

• Explore source control efforts with POTWs (beyond NDPES compliance)

• Evaluating alternative treatment options including nature-based solution, piloting different technologies at SVAWPC

• Conduct location specific hydrodynamic modeling

• Increase toxicity testing and analysis as it relates to potential impacts to receiving habitats

6August 6, 2020 – Recycled Water Committee Attachment 1 Page 6 of 9

Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management Update

EXTRA SLIDES


| 9August 6, 2020 – Recycled Water Committee Attachment 1 Page 9 of 9




Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Opportunities.


SUMMARY:The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley Water) Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (ReuseMaster Plan) is reviewing prospective opportunities to expand water reuse in South Santa ClaraCounty (South County). One goal of the Reuse Master Plan is to identify and evaluate future non-potable and potable reuse opportunities which may directly influence water supply investmentstrategies used to ensure long-term supply reliability in South County. To achieve this goal, ValleyWater is conducting a planning assessment that will include an evaluation of water reuse in SouthCounty and emphasize new and/or revised water reuse opportunities for the City of Morgan Hill. TheReuse Master Plan is scheduled to be completed in Spring 2021.

In 1999, the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) and Valley Water entered into aProducer-Wholesaler Agreement for the development and construction of a recycled water system.The agreement included a provision to collaboratively update a South County Recycled Water MasterPlan in 5-year intervals. In 2004, the initial South County Recycled Water Master Plan wascompleted. This Plan identified recycled water capital investment projects to improve the SouthCounty recycled water system’s reliability and to expand the use of recycled water in South County.In 2015, Valley Water prepared an update to the South County Recycled Water Master Plan (2015Master Plan Update) that supported Valley Water’s goal of supplying at least 10% of annual recycledwater production as a percentage of total county water demand by 2025. Of the water reusealternatives considered, the projects selected for preliminary implementation only included baselineconveyance alignments in Gilroy. None of the Morgan Hill alternatives were selected forimplementation because these alternatives did not present sufficient benefit for expansion due tosmall water demands and the high cost of infrastructure that would be required.

The 2015 Master Plan Update evaluated three recycled water alternatives to provide recycled waterservice to Morgan Hill:

ü Alternative 1 - Morgan Hill High Speed Rail Transmission Main: This alignment would extend a





pipeline along the proposed High-Speed Rail easement along Monterey Road to conveyrecycled water from the SCRWA wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Gilroy to Morgan Hill,and to service potential customers in Morgan Hill.

ü Alternative 2 - Joint Trunk Transmission Main: This alignment would extend a pipeline parallelto the existing joint sewer trunk line to convey recycled water from SCRWA WWTP in Gilroy toMorgan Hill, and service potential customers in Morgan Hill.

ü Alternative 3 - Scalping Plant: This alignment would construct a satellite WWTP in Morgan Hillthat would divert flow from the sewer system and then treat the wastewater to recycled waterquality standards for non-potable water recycling in Morgan Hill.

In 2020, the Reuse Master Plan reviewed previous South County water reuse assessments anddeveloped new conceptual alternatives for further consideration, which included two conceptualIndirect Potable Reuse (IPR) alternatives-Ground Water Recharge (GWR) and Surface WaterAugmentation (SWA) from a satellite WWTP and an advanced water purification facility (AWPF):

ü SWA Alternative - The SWA variation assumes a transmission pipeline would convey purifiedwater from a new WWTF/AWPF to the south end of Anderson Reservoir. Using an East DuaneAvenue alignment, the pipeline would traverse up to an elevation of approximately 880 feet.

ü GWA Alternative - The GWR variation assumes a transmission pipeline would convey purifiedwater from a new WWTF/AWPF to groundwater recharge ponds. Due to the large number ofpotable wells in the service area, travel time is likely to be inadequate to meet currentregulations.

ü Non-Potable Reuse (NPR+) Alternative - The NPR+ concept would involve recycled waterservice from the South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) system using a pipeline extension onMonterey Road and continuing about 6 miles to Burnett Road in Morgan Hill. The pipelineextension would connect into the northern terminus of a proposed Morgan Hill NPRdistribution system (MH-6 alignment in 2015 Master Plan Update).

NEXT STEPS:The Reuse Master Plan officially released the Draft Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan Report inJuly 2020 for stakeholder review and comment. Project partner and stakeholder review is anticipatedto take 6 to 8 weeks, however unanticipated COVID impacts may extend the administrative reviewprocess. Valley Water staff will address stakeholder comments and concerns and integrate all priorplanning documents into the Draft Final Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan Report, tentativelyscheduled for October 2020. Valley Water will also conduct follow-up Project Partner and ExecutiveLeadership Group meetings to discuss the Draft Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan Reportcomments and recommendations. These meetings will occur prior to preparing the Draft FinalCountywide Water Reuse Master Plan Report in the fall of 2020.

A Special Meeting of the Valley Water Board of Directors was conducted on June 16, 2020 for aBoard study session on the scope and timing of purified water projects construction. Consequently,the Board directed staff to prepare various projected rate scenarios based upon full and partial





participation of our South County partners. Staff will prepare and subsequently present to the Boardthese rate scenarios based upon the South County water reuse opportunities presented in the ReuseMaster Plan and the 2015 Master Plan Update.

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment 1: PowerPoint*Handout 4.6-A, D. Muirhead Email





vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

1

South County Water Reuse Opportunities



vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

2South County Water Reuse Opportunities (2015)

High-Speed Rail LineCo-Alignment

Joint Trunk Line Scalping Plant1

$55M $45M$55M

$8400/AF$7500/AF$7500/AF

30 Year Life Cycle Cost in $/AF Total Cost of Infrastructure ($M)

1 Does not include Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management (ROCM) Attachment 1

Page 2 of 5

vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

3South County Water Reuse Opportunities (2020)

NPR+ Alternative GWA Alternative1 SWA Alternative1

$70M $95M$75M

$2200/AF*$1700/AF**

$6100/AF*$5400/AF**

$7000/AF*$6000/AF**

*30-Year Life Cycle Cost Basis (2019$) Total Cost of Infrastructure ($M)**100-Year Life Cycle Cost Basis

1 Does not include ROCMAttachment 1

Page 3 of 5

vall

ey

wa

ter.

org

4South County Water Reuse Opportunities

Next Steps

Staff will update projected rate scenarios based upon the South County water reuse opportunities presented.


From: D. Muirhead <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 7:49 AM To: Eva Marie Sans <[email protected]> Cc: David Tucker <[email protected]>; Clerk of the Board <[email protected]> Subject: comment Recycled Water Committee meeting August 6 Items #4.4 + #4.6 Dear Water District Recycled Water Committee, comments for your meeting on Thursday, August 6: 4.4. Update on Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan 4.6. Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Opportunities. Thank you, Doug Muirhead, Morgan Hill ----- 4.4 Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan [key point] Lack of engagement with public in plan development. [comment] 1) You invest considerable effort from the Communications Team in trying to change the public perception of water reuse from Yuck to Yea. Yet you make no effort to involve the public in the discussion of planning for water reuse. Lots of talk of Project Partner and Executive Leadership Group meetings and reviews by (undefined) stakeholders but no public participation even if just Inform rather than Engage. 2) I really appreciate the visual and textual glossary. ----- 4.6 Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Opportunities. [key points] No cost offset for avoided purchase and/or lack of availability of imported water. No mention of wastewater input allocation in the plans for expansion of SCRWA. Does Morgan Hill retain control of some wastewater for greywater and recycled water reuse? [staff summary] South County Reuse Options Option 1 Imports of NPR+ from SBWR to a new Morgan Hill recycled water system Risk Occurence: Low; Risk Impact: Low Option 2 Delivers from a Morgan Hill satellite WWTP and AWPF to San Pedro Ponds for GWR Risk Occurence: Very High; Risk Impact: Very High Option 3 Delivers from a Morgan Hill satellite WWTP and AWPF to Anderson Reservoir for SWA Risk Occurence: Very High; Risk Impact: Very High Limitations for Option 2 + 3 A Morgan Hill satellite facility would increase solids loads to SCRWA, posing operational issues that may be substantial.


[comment] 1) What is the offset to Lifecycle cost from avoided purchase and/or impacts from lack of availability of imported water? During the previous drought, I argued that the "20th century model" for making decisions about recycled water was that paying as little as possible for water was the primary consideration. (The 2020 Reuse Plan defers Rate Impacts to the next iteration of the document.) I then argued that we should replace that with a "21st century model" that is a choice between having expensive water and having no water. The 2015 Master Plan analysis looked at capital costs ($18M) and operation costs ($1.5M) for a Morgan Hill scalping plant. The 2020 Reuse Plan Potential Future South County Reuse Opportunities (Table 6-8) estimates using purified water from a satellite WWTP and AWPF in Morgan Hill for GWR has Total Capital Cost: $125M* Total Annual O&M Cost: $6.9M* Unit Cost, 30-Year Lifecycle: $6,300/AF* Projected 2040 Yield: 1,900 AFY and for SWA has Total Capital Cost: $145M* Total Annual O&M Cost: $7.4M* Unit Cost, 30-Year Lifecycle: $7,200/AF* Projected 2040 Yield: 1,900 AFY The 2015 Plan section on Value of Recycled Water Supply simply rated alternatives as low or high value. Dollar amounts were not provided to contrast costs. The analysis did not value a drought-proof source of water. We were not shown a value for recharge to keep wells flowing. We were not shown the value of augmenting imported water (when available) or substituting for it (when not available); the District pays real money to import water from outside the County. 2) One 2020 Countywide Reuse Master Plan objective is to: Determine source water availability and reuse benefits. What troubles me is what appears to be a senior-water-rights/ junior-water-rights view which gives SCRWA and Gilroy recycled water but prevents Morgan Hill from using its own effluent (both wastewater and greywater). For both local resiliency and local control, Morgan Hill must be allowed to retain some of our effluent. Note that the 1992 Joint Powers Agreement explicitly empowers Morgan Hill as a member agency to independently plan and/or construct its own wastewater and reclamation facilities. The 2020 Reuse Plan SCRWA WWTP Flow Analysis (5.2.4 Figure 5-5) says During the summer months, a portion of wastewater from Morgan Hill is needed to supply NPR in Gilroy. On average, 3 mgd of remaining effluent is available from SCRWA WWTP. If considering satellite treatment in Morgan Hill, only 2.1 mgd of Morgan Hill's wastewater

would be available on average, assuming some would be needed to supply NPR in Gilroy during the summer months. This is then discounted with a Limitation for Option 2 + 3 A Morgan Hill satellite facility would increase solids loads to SCRWA, posing operational issues that may be substantial. I have seen no mention of input allocation in the plans for expansion of SCRWA. I am concerned that we will be prevented from having an option for recycled water in Morgan Hill because the SCRWA expansion will have already occurred. SCRWA Engineering Projects Report June 3, 2020 TREATMENT CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECT Status: Design development on schedule (July 2020) 100% design underway for plans and specifications CEQA process (Dec 2020) Documentation preparation underway for environmental clearance Board Presentation (July 2020) Board's approval to proceed with bid advertisement Construction bid and award process (Dec 2020) Bid advertisement, Board's approval of contract PG&E service change process (Dec 2021) Application submitted to utility to study system needs BAAQMD permit to operate (Dec 2021) Application in process for submittal to local air district NPDES permit change (March 2022) Adoption of new permit by State Water Board New plant construction and commissioning (2021- 2025) Compliance with NPDES Permit Development of construction bid package is currently underway including: preparation of engineering design drawings and technical specifications, air permit application to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), environmental CEQA documents, and formal notice to PG&E planning department to study system upgrades to accommodate added electrical load. [history] [2015 Master Plan] The Morgan Hill Scalping Plant alternative was not selected due to potential risks of impacting the SCRWA WWTP influent composition (potentially leading to compliance issues), the possibility of lowering flow rates at times to the degree that solids settle out in the sewer trunk line, and the inability to meet existing customer demands during peak periods.




Recycled Water CommitteeSUBJECT:Update on South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Governance.


SUMMARY:Since 2015, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) Board of Directors and RecycledWater Committee have acknowledged that successful implementation of recycled and purified waterprograms would rely upon partnership agreements between Valley Water and contributing projectpartners. Board and Committee members have asserted that participatory governance waswarranted by the substantial fiscal investment by Valley Water in the development of water reuseinfrastructure in South County. Furthermore, successful partnerships will be key to achieving ValleyWater’s goal for utilizing water recycling to provide at least 10% of total County water supplydemands.

Existing partnerships and agreement terms between Valley Water and recycled water producers,wholesalers, and retailers varies significantly. The Board has established joint committees with theelected officials representing South Bay Water Recycling, City of Sunnyvale, City of Palo Alto, andCity of Mountain View to facilitate progress on these efforts. The Board has also established a JointWater Resources Committee with elected officials from the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy to discussa variety of water resource issues, including how best to further development of water reuse in SouthCounty. Staff is pursuing additional development of relationships and agreements with producersand retailers to support existing recycled water systems and the implementation of recycled andpurified water expansion efforts.

South County Partnership - Valley Water, SCRWA, the City of Gilroy, and the City of Morgan Hill havepartnered to ensure the continued utilization of recycled water in South County and to promote theexpansion of recycled water in the region. Since 1999, SCWRA and Valley Water have endorsed aProducer-Wholesaler Agreement for the development and construction of the South County recycledwater system. The parties subsequently amended this agreement in 2006 to expand SCRWA’srecycled water production. However, this agreement does not allow Valley Water or SCRWA Boardmembers the opportunity to govern policy direction on development and operation of recycled waterin South County.

In 2016, Valley Water staff completed the Recycled Water Governance Survey to collect and





summarize information on the management and operation of recycled and purified water deliverysystems from agencies within the State of California. The objective of this survey was to collect andsummarize information on the management and operation of recycled and purified water deliverysystems from agencies like Valley Water. The Survey concluded there is no set industry standard thatdetermine the roles and responsibilities, procedures, and policies in the delivery of recycled water forwater reuse applications.

Staff will update the Committee on discussions towards a suitable governance structure for SouthCounty recycled water.

ATTACHMENTS:None.







BOARD AGENDA MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:Discuss the 2020 Recycled Water Committee Work Plan and Meeting Schedule, Consider the Needto Schedule the Committee’s Next Meeting Date, and if Necessary Consider Authorizing theCommittee Chair to Discuss the Future Recycled Water Committee Meeting Date with the BoardChair.

RECOMMENDATION:A. Discuss the 2020 Recycled Water Committee Work Plan;B. Consider the need to schedule the Committee’s next meeting date; andC. If necessary, consider authorizing the Committee Chair to discuss the future Recycled Water

Committee meeting date with the Board Chair.

SUMMARY:Under direction of the Clerk, Work Plans are used by all Board Committees to increase Committeeefficiency, provide increased public notice of intended Committee discussions, and enable improvedfollow-up by staff. Work Plans are dynamic documents managed by Committee Chairs and aresubject to change.

The draft 2020 Recycled Water Committee Work Plan was presented to the Committee at itsJanuary 21, 2020 meeting, at which time the Committee adopted a regular meeting schedule on thefourth Wednesdays of the month, throughout 2020.

On March 17, 2020, the California State Governor issued an Emergency Declaration related toCOVID-19. As a result, all regularly scheduled Committee meetings were cancelled by the BoardChairperson. At the July 28, 2020 Board meeting the Board determined that Committees mayresume their pre-COVID-19 regular meeting schedules, so long as meetings were held in compliancewith the Brown Act, as currently in effect under the State Emergency Services Act and the Governor'sExecutive Order N-29-20 that allows attendance by members of the Committee, District staff, and thepublic to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference, videoconference, or both.

For the remaining of CY 2020, staff has indicated on the attached work plan (Attachment 1) agendaitems necessary for the continuation of recycled water projects.

Staff solicits Committee feedback on any additional timeline information for holding discussions on





the assigned Work Plan items, discussion on a potential next meeting date, and if necessary,authorization of the Committee Chair to speak to the Board Chair about the need for a future meetingdate in compliance with the Board Chair’s direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:There is no financial impact associated with this item.

CEQA:The recommended action does not constitute a project under CEQA because it does not have thepotential for resulting in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment 1: 2020 Committee Work Plan

UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER:Michele King, 408-630-2711




Revised 2020 Work PlanRed strikes are new entries after the 01/21/20 Meeting

Task Agenda Item Staff/Lead

Janu

ary

2020

Febr

uary

202

0M

arch

202

0Ap

ril 2

020

May

202

0Ju

ne 2

020

July

202

0Au

gust

202

0Se

ptem

ber 2

020

Oct

ober

202

0N

ovem

ber 2

020

Dece

mbe

r 202

0

1Update on Expedited Purified Water Program including Partnership with Cities of San Jose and Palo Alto

G. Hall

2 Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan G. Hall X X X

3 Joint Mtg Prep/Debrief: TPAC G. Hall

4 Joint Mtg Prep/Debrief: Cities of Palo Alto/Mtn View G. Hall X

5 Joint Mtg Prep/Debrief: City of Sunnyvale G. Hall

6 Update on SFPUC/BAWSCA Collaboration Efforts G. Hall

7 Conceptual Recycled Water Exchange with Contra Costa Water District and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District

G. Hall

8 Update on Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management G. Hall X X

9 IRS Letter C. Sun

10Evaluate and propose policy options related to centralized and decentralized reuse for Committee's consideration

G. Hall

11 Regional discussions on options to meeting the Board’s 10% recycled water goal using either desalination and brackish water

G. Hall

12 Update on Bottling Purified Water at the SVAWPC G. Hall

13 Update on the Independent Advisory Panel Meeting G. Hall

14 Update on Public Private Partnership (P3) Procurement G. Hall X

15 Urban Runoff Study with Stanford University H. Ashktorab

16 Outreach Efforts S. Tran X

17 South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Opportunities G. Hall X

18 South Santa Clara County Water Reuse Governance G. Hall X

MEE

TIN

G C

ANCE

LED

MEE

TIN

G C

ANCE

LED

MEE

TIN

G C

ANCE

LED

MEE

TIN

G C

ANCE

LED

MEE

TIN

G C

ANCE

LED

MEE

TIN

G C

ANCE

LED

W:\COB\Committees\BST COMMITTEES\Committee - Recycled Water Committee\2020 RWC Meetings\2020 Work Plan Summary uploaded in Legistar 20-0622

7/24/20201 of 1

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

santa clara valley water district recycled water committee … · recycled water committee tony...

Documents