The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s

150 Million Gallons a Day 

Regional Recycled Water Project -

Pure Water Southern California 

Title: Large-Scale Water Recycling Planning for 

Pure Water Southern California 

Date: February 28, 2023 

Applicant: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

700 Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Project Contact: Raymond Jay 

700 North Alameda Street 

Los Angeles, California 90012 

RJay@mwdh20.com 

(213) 217-5777 

i 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ..............................................................................................1 

A. Executive Summary..................................................................................................1 

B. Project Location ........................................................................................................1 

C. Project Description ...................................................................................................2 

Applicant Category .....................................................................................................2 

Eligibility of Applicant:..............................................................................................2 

Goals ...........................................................................................................................2 

Approach.....................................................................................................................2 

D. Evaluation Criterion.................................................................................................4 

Evaluation Criteria 1: Project Planning and Analysis ................................................4 

Subcriterion No.1a-Water Recycling Needs and Opportunities (15 Points) ........4 

Subcriterion No.1b-Evaluation of Project Alternatives (15 Points).....................8 

Evaluation Criteria 2: Stretching Water Supplies (20 points) ..................................10 

Evaluation Criteria 3: Environment and Water Quality (20 points).........................14 

Evaluation Criteria 4: Department of the Interior Priorities (15 points)...................16 

Evaluation Criteria 5: Watershed Perspective and Stakeholder Involvement 

(15 points) .................................................................................................................19 

E. Budget Proposal ......................................................................................................21 

F. Budget Narrative.....................................................................................................22 

Budget Form .............................................................................................................23 

II. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE................23 

Surrounding Environment.........................................................................................24 

Species and Habitat...................................................................................................25 

Wetlands and Waters ................................................................................................25 

Construction of Water Delivery System...................................................................25 

Irrigation System Modifications ...............................................................................26 

National Register of Historic Places.........................................................................26 

Archeological Sites...................................................................................................26 

Low Income and Minority Populations ....................................................................26 

Tribal Lands..............................................................................................................26 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species ......................................................................27 

III. REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS................................................................27 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act & Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899: .........................................................................................................................27 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act .................................................................27 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.............................................27 

Title 22 California Code of Regulations...................................................................27 

Basin Plan Objectives ...............................................................................................28 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit........................................28 

IV. OFFICIAL RESOLUTION ............................................................................................28 

V. LETTERS OF SUPPORT...............................................................................................28 

VI. OVERLAP OR DUPLICATION OF EFFORT............................................................28 

VII. UNIFORM AUDIT AND REPORTING STATEMENT .............................................28 

i 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

List of Tables 

Table 1: List of Analyses Conducted.............................................................................................. 9 

Table 2: Major Tasks and Milestones During the Grant Period ................................................... 10 

Table 3: Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources ............................................... 21 

Table 4: Total Project Cost Table ................................................................................................. 21 

Table 5: Total LSWR Feasibility Study and Preliminary Breakdown ......................................... 21 

Table 6: Estimated Preliminary Design Phase Budget Expenditures ........................................... 22 

Table 7: Budget Narrative Descriptions ....................................................................................... 23 

Table 8: Environmental Impacts and Typical Mitigation Measures............................................. 24 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Pure Water Southern California Program ....................................................................... 3 

Figure 2: Preliminary Design Services ........................................................................................... 4 

Figure 3: Frequency of Net Shortage by 2045................................................................................ 6 

Figure 4: Location Map of Joint Water Pollution Control Plant ................................................... 7 

Figure 5: Preliminary Pure Water Program Schedule................................................................... 10 

Figure 6: Benefit of Pure Water to Frequency of Net Shortage in 2045 ...................................... 12 

Figure 7: Benefit of Pure Water to Groundwater.......................................................................... 12 

Figure 8: Location of Pure Water Relative to the San Andreas Fault .......................................... 13 

Figure 9: Disadvantaged Communities in the Service Area......................................................... 17 

Figure 10: Economic Benefits ...................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 11: Program Partners ......................................................................................................... 20 

ii 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Abbreviations 

AWP Advanced Water Purification plan 

AF Acre-foot 

CRA Colorado River Aqueduct 

DAC Disadvantaged Community 

DPR Direct Potable Reuse 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System 

IPR Indirect Potable Reuse 

IRP Integrated Water Resources Plan 

JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant 

LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District 

LRP Local Resources Program 

MAF Million Acre-feet 

MBR Membrane bioreactor 

Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

MGD Million gallons per day 

NdN Nitrification-denitrification 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

Program Pure Water Southern California 

Project WS: WR&DP grant 

PWSC Pure Water Southern California Program 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

RO Reverse osmosis 

RRWP Regional Recycled Water Program 

RWA Raw Water Augmentation 

sMBR Submerged Membrane bioreactor 

SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority 

SOW Scope of Work 

TAFY Thousand Acre-feet per year 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

UWMP Urban Water Management Plan 

iii 
 

I. 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Technical Proposal 

This section includes the executive summary, technical project description, and the responses to 

the evaluation criteria for the Pure Water Southern California Program (PWSC or Program) and, 

specifically, the Feasibility Study/Preliminary Design Project (Project). 

A. Executive Summary 

Applicant: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

City/County/State: Los Angeles/Los Angeles County, California 

Date: February 27, 2023 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is making a major investment in a new, 

drought-resilient water supply. The Pure Water Southern California program (PWSC) will 

produce 150 million gallons per day (mgd), enough water for more than half a million 

households per year, making it one of the largest recycled water projects in the world. The 

PWSC is a partnership with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Sanitation Districts). It 

will purify treated wastewater from the Sanitation Districts’ Joint Water Pollution Control Plant

(JWPCP) and deliver recycled water to groundwater basins within Metropolitan’s service area

for indirect potable reuse (IPR) and eventually to two Metropolitan treatment plants for direct 

potable reuse (DPR). By connecting to Metropolitan’s treatment plants, the PWSC leverages the 

delivery infrastructure already in place and provides a new supply to most of Metropolitan’s

5,200 square-mile service area, serving 19 million people. This funding request is to complete 

the feasibility study requirements of WTR TRMR-128, including a project alternatives analysis, 

economic analysis, and independent peer review to ensure the project will be eligible to apply for 

Large-Scale Recycled Water (LSWR) program funding. Additionally, funding is requested for 

preliminary design work for initial reaches of the PWSC conveyance pipeline and modifications 

to the JWPCP to manage nitrogen in the new water supply. This planning grant proposal will 

help evaluate alternate water supplies and reuse alternative strategies for Southern California, 

assess options to sustainably address drought and climate change, assist Reclamation and local 

communities secure drought-resistant supplies, and help expedite planning and design work for 

future PWSC construction. The proposed Project work will be completed by October 2025 and 

will facilitate full-scale PWSC construction by 2032. This Project is not a federal facility and 

will not involve federal land. For this application, “PWSC” typically refers to the overall/full 

scale Program while “Project” describes the work being contemplated for this grant. 

B. Project Location 

PWSC facilities are located in Los Angeles County in Southern California. The PWSC begins at 

the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant in the city of Carson near the Los Angeles Harbor. An 

Advanced Water Purification plant (AWP) is planned at this site. A proposed conveyance 

pipeline will extend from Carson to spreading grounds in the cities of Irwindale and Azusa about 

40 miles to the northeast, generally following the San Gabriel River. DPR facilities will carry 

recycled water 12 miles to the east of the spreading grounds to the Weymouth Water Treatment 

Plant (WTP) in La Verne and Diemer WTP in Yorba Linda. See Figure 1 on page 3 for a PWSC 

map showing the Program’s major components. 

1 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

C. Project Description 

Applicant Category: Funding Group II 

Eligibility of Applicant: 

The PWSC is estimated to cost about $4 – $5 billion dollars, well above the $500 million 

Group II threshold. The PWSC is located in California and a joint effort of Metropolitan a public 

water system and special district in California with water delivery authority and the Los Angeles 

County Sanitation Districts, a regional public agency that collects and treats wastewater. 

Metropolitan is made up of 26 member agencies serving 19 million people in Los Angeles, 

Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The Sanitation Districts 

consists of 24 independent special districts that collectively treat wastewater for over 5.5 million 

people in Los Angeles County. Metropolitan and PWSC partners will provide the required 

75 percent local match. 

Goals 

Metropolitan imports about half of Southern California’s water supply from the Colorado River

and Northern California via the State Water Project (SWP). While the Sanitation Districts have 

been at the forefront of water recycling since the 1960s, wastewater in many areas was not 

recycled and discharged to the Pacific Ocean. This is a legacy of when many urban communities 

and regulatory agencies considered sewage a waste rather than a precious resource central to the 

water portfolio. The region is rapidly attempting to reshape this legacy and the PWSC represents 

a paradigm shift in water development that can help transform the Southwest’s water portfolio. 

This approach acknowledges the steep new challenges facing the water industry. Climate change, 

water quality degradation, increasing salinity, and regulatory impacts all threaten water supply 

reliability. In the face of these challenges, the PWSC will create a new local supply of water to 

help meet Metropolitan’s member agency demands, replenish groundwater basins, protect 

against earthquakes and natural disasters, and alleviate strain on imported supply and water 

supply challenges in other states. Southern Nevada Water Authority, Arizona Department of 

Water Resources, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District are all investing in the 

environmental planning phase of this PWSC with an eye towards a potential exchange of 

supplies on the Colorado River when implemented, offering a truly regional water supply 

solution. The PWSC will also facilitate the reuse of effluent from the Sanitation District’s 

JWPCP, their only ocean discharge facility. 

Approach 

Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts began exploring the possibility of building a regional 

recycled water project in 2010 and began operating demonstration plant since 2019 to inform the 

design of the PWSC. This work laid the foundation for the development of the PWSC, which is 

now in the environmental planning phase. As part of environmental planning, Metropolitan is 

evaluating the PWSC’s potential impacts to communities and the environment, assessing the 

feasibility of mitigation measures and developing reasonable alternatives. In parallel to the 

environmental review, Metropolitan is ready to begin design of some PWSC elements. 

Overview of Pure Water Southern California 

PWSC will provide a new source of water to Southern California and enhance the region’s 

operational resilience, and reliability. The PWSC will produce approximately 150 mgd, or nearly 

2 
Q ~~T-,_~11 

0 

---·--

-~""'" c.t~ ... Pwifluillu" SAn Gllbntl c.tyon Spfudfltg Grc,unch 

"'~ tinT,,_,_._. :•·-., b•'"Cl~Polo­

•J •~r__,.,,..........,_ 

ContnlSa 

w..troa r Ba 

. . ... "' • ' . 

Drantc-.Countr GnllUndw•lff 

Wle•tCoa.l , t Basin Sc,rt-adtflO G«M.ll'ldA 

GroundWatltl' &n,n , lnfecuonW•II• 

.IWPCP' Advanced Walk PUfftlc.ationF~ 

- ___ .., ___ _ W?_ 

Figure 1: Pure Water Southern California Program 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

155,000 acre-feet per year (AFY), of sustainable, high-quality water for IPR and DPR. Once 

implemented, it will be one of the largest recycled water facilities in the world. Metropolitan 

currently receives about 25 percent of its water supply from the Colorado River (CR). The 

PWSC would reduce reliance on the CR supply by up to 13 percent since approximately 60 mgd 

(62,000 AFY) of the purified water from the PWSC will supplement the CR supply. The PWSC 

will also reduce Southern California’s reliance on the SWP by up to 12 percent; making 

Metropolitan’s regional storage portfolio more resilient. About 60 percent, or about 90 mgd of 

the 150 mgd full-scale PWSC yield, will reduce demands on the SWP. 

The PWSC consists of the following major components: (1) modifications to the JWPCP; 

conveyance pipelines; 

(5) recharge facilities; 

(2) nitrogen management processes; (3) a new advanced water treatment plant; (4) backbone 

(6) direct potable reuse 

treatment; and (7) and 

ancillary facilities. The 

backbone facilities would 

extend from the city of 

Carson in Los Angeles 

County northeast to near the 

city of Azusa. Figure 1 

shows the project area, 

groundwater basins, and 

other components associated 

with the PWSC. 

Scope of Grant Services 

The scope of work to be funded by the grant includes completion of a Feasibility Study that 

meets the requirements of Reclamation’s Directive and Standard WTR TRMR-128; and the 

preliminary design of initial reaches of the backbone conveyance pipelines and a sidestream 

centrate treatment system at the JWPCP. 

Feasibility Study 

The PWSC has an approved Title XVI Feasibility Study that meets the requirements of 

Reclamation’s Feasibility Study Directive and Standard WTR 11-01. This request for funding is 

to help complete a new Feasibility Study that meets Reclamations Directive and Standard WTR 

TRMR-128 for Large Scale Water Recycling (LSWR) projects. The funding will be used for the 

additional requirements of WTR TRMR-128 including: (1) a description of alternatives; (2) an 

economic analysis; and (3) an Independent Peer Review. 

Description of Alternatives. A description of viable alternatives is needed. These alternatives will 

include baseline conditions, alternative plans to clearly identify and evaluate the trade-offs 

among stakeholders and resources, and a comparison of the impacts of climate change. 

Economic Analysis. The economic analysis will include a description of existing conditions and 

provide projections of what the future would be with and without the PWSC. The analysis will 

emphasize the benefits and of the PWSC in meeting future water demands in an efficient and 

economical manner. 

3 
D n n

n a : t g d s

n r g s d s 5 )

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Independent Peer Review. The PWSC’s independent peer review will be described, including 

QAQC analyses and technical review information. 

Preliminary Design 

The Preliminary Design work is the 

beginning of the design phase for the PWSC 

(Figure 2). This proposed Project work 

includes the preliminary design for the two 

initial reaches of the conveyance pipeline 

and modifications to the JWPCP to manage 

nitrogen in the purified water and in the 

discharges to the ocean. 

Pipeline Reaches 1 and 2. In 

December 2022, Metropolitan’s Board 

authorized staff to begin work on the PWSC, 

including the design of the initial 

conveyance pipeline segments through the 

cities of Carson, Long Beach, and Lakewood. The Reach 1 alignment is approximately six miles 

long starting at the AWP and extending northeast to the Carson city boundary. The Reach 2 is 

approximately eight miles long, continuing eastward and northward through the cities of Long 

Beach and Lakewood. 

Pure Water Southern California Program 

Planning and 

Testing 

Feasibility Study 

Conceptual 

Study 

Demonstration 

Testing 

Environmental 

Planning Phase 

Services 

Environmental 

Evaluation 

Engineering 

Design 

Preliminary 

Design 

Final Design 

Construction 

and Start-up 

Construction 

Startup and 

Testing 

Begin Operation 

Support Services 

Public Outreach Bidding/ 

Procurement 

Figure 2: Preliminary Design Services 

Planned preliminary design activities generally include: (1) evaluations and analyses; 

(2) engineering investigations; (3) preliminary design drawings; and (4) a Preliminary Design 

Report. 

Sidestream Centrate Treatment. Nitrogen management is a key factor to protect public health 

and the environment; and to ensure a safe, reliable supply of recycled water for beneficial reuse. 

To meet the potable reuse standards, nitrogen management facilities are needed at the JWPCP. 

One approach to nitrogen management facilities is to remove nitrogen from the wastewater 

centrate. A sidestream centrate treatment process known as deammonification could remove s 

ammonia and nitrogen from the centrate. It would lower the amount of nitrogen being recycled 

back into the JWPCP, reduce the chemical addition requirements for the AWP, and reduce the 

nitrogen load discharged to the ocean. Preliminary design for the Sidestream Centrate System 

includes: (1) a feasibility evaluation and establish design and operational parameters; (2) site 

investigations and utility engineering; (3) background drawings and a facility model; and (4) a 

Preliminary Design Report. 

D. Evaluation Criterion 

Evaluation Criteria 1: Project Planning and Analysis 

Subcriterion No.1a-Water Recycling Needs and Opportunities (15 Points) 

1. Describe the problems and needs in the project area. 

Drought conditions in the Southwest have led to a dramatic reduction in Colorado River runoff 

while variable weather in Northern California and stressed ecosystems have resulted in 

unprecedented low imports from the SWP. In Southern California, drought has caused less 

4 
 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

stormwater to recharge groundwater basins, reducing local water supplies. Threats to 

Metropolitan’s water supply include: 

• Risk of regional shortages, especially in the SWP dependent areas, SWP reservoirs, and in 

the CR system due to climate change, regulatory issues, and policy changes; 

• Potential loss of groundwater production capabilities due to declining water; and 

• Inability to meet local supply targets. 

The PWSC is more important than ever as the region struggles with how to adapt to a hotter, 

drier future. In August 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom released a report detailing how 

rising temperatures greater weather extremes throughout the state, will result in the loss of 

10 percent of the state’s water supplies in just 20 years. His California Water Supply Strategy to 

combat climate change calls for increasing recycling statewide to 0.8 million acre-feet (MAF) by 

2030 and to 1.8 MAF by 2040. While the Strategy does not specify a specific goal for 

Metropolitan, meeting this target simply cannot happen without proactive efforts to accelerate 

recycling by Metropolitan and its member agencies. The PWSC increases water recycling by 

155,000 AFY, which represents one of the most significant proposals in California to help meet 

this target. 

2. Describe the current and projected water supplies and demands in the project area; 

include a discussion on supply and demand imbalances. Additional consideration will be 

given to proposals that explain how the problems and needs in the area may be impacted 

by climate change, and/or if supply and demand projections will include climate change 

information. 

Total Retail Demand in Metropolitan Service Area 

With a service area spanning 5,200 square miles in six counties, the current annual total retail 

demand within Metropolitan’s service area is 2.9 million AFY and projected to range from 3.4 to 

4.8 million AFY by 2045. The total retail demand includes municipal and industrial demand, 

agricultural demand, seawater barrier demand, and replenishment demand. 

Local Supplies 

Local supplies are an integral part of Metropolitan’s service area and critical to many member 

agencies. Local supplies can include groundwater production, surface water, recycled water, 

seawater desalination, and Los Angeles Aqueduct supplies. Local supplies total about 2 million 

AFY and are projected to range from 2.1 to 2.7 million AFY by 2045, largely driven by increases 

in recycled water use throughout the service area. 

Demand on Metropolitan 

Demand on Metropolitan equals Metropolitan’s total retail demand minus total local supplies. 

Demand on the SWP and the CR supplies is expected to range from 1.3 to 2.1 million AFY by 

2045. At a production rate and delivery rate of approximately 155,000 AFY, the PWSC will 

provide 3.2 to 4.6 percent of the total retail demand within the service area through 2045. 

Supply and Demand Imbalance 

Regional Needs Assessment. Metropolitan’s 2020 IRP Regional Needs Assessment identified 

supply and demand imbalances facing Southern California’s water supply reliability through 

successive qualitative and quantitative analysis steps. It provided a high-level evaluation of the 

types of resource development that would improve water supply reliability in four scenarios, 

5 
Scenario A 

Scenario B 

Scenario C 

Scenario D 66% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Frequency of Net Shortage in 2045 (%) 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Figure 3: Frequency of Net Shortage by 2045 

which are characterized by different assumptions related to imported supply stability, population 

and economic growth, climate change, and water demands on Metropolitan. The assumptions for 

the impacts of climate change were an integral part of this evaluation. Assumptions for 

scenarios A through D ranged from (A) no climate change impacts; (B) climate change is 

manageable; (C) climate change impacts affect imported supplies more drastically than local 

supplies; and (D) severe climate change impacts to both imported and local supplies. 

Figure 3 shows the frequency of a net 

shortage in forecast year 2045. A net 

shortage occurs anytime that demands 

exceed supplies. As shown in this figure, a 

net shortage may occur up to 66 percent of 

the time in Scenario D, which assumes 

extreme climate change, higher demand 

from population and economic growth, 

underperforming new local supplies, and 

losses of imported supplies. Under 

Scenario D, the region needs up to 

650 thousand acre-feet (TAF) of 

additional supply annually to prevent the shortage conditions. If new supplies are not developed, 

the likelihood of future net shortages increases. 

Loss of groundwater production capability. More than 1/3 of Metropolitan’s regional demand is 

met by groundwater pumped from local groundwater basins, with current groundwater 

production at about 1.1 million AFY. Maintaining groundwater storage levels within the basin’s 

operating range is key to sustaining groundwater supplies and preventing loss of groundwater 

pumping capability. By 2040, with climate change, the percentage of groundwater basins below 

the critical level could exceed 17 percent. About 700,000 people currently live in a basin that is 

below the critical level. By 2040, more than 5 million people (or about 25 percent of the entire 

population of Metropolitan’s service area) could be relying on a groundwater basin that is below 

critical levels. PWSC will help to meet the replenishment needs of the groundwater basins. 

Need for additional local supply development. The average local supply production constitutes 

about 42 percent of the water supply. Local supply forecasts in 2045 range from 2.1 MFY to 

2.7 MAF. Metropolitan would need to develop an additional 0.1 MAF to 0.6 MAF of new supply 

to meet these forecasts. If additional supplies are not developed, it is anticipated that the deficit 

would result in increased imported water demands on Metropolitan’s member agencies.

3. Describe how the planning activities will investigate potential uses and markets for 

reclaimed or desalinated water (e.g., environmental restoration, fish and wildlife, 

groundwater recharge, municipal, domestic, industrial, agricultural, power generation, 

and recreation). 

Industrial Demands 

The LSWR Feasibility Study will evaluate the demands for PWSC purified water by industrial 

customers in the vicinity of the JWPCP. Industrial customers could include the Sanitation 

Districts (JWPCP), refineries, and the Port of Long Beach. 

6 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Groundwater Recharge Demands 

The LSWR Feasibility Study will evaluate the demands on PWSC for groundwater recharge in 

four regional groundwater basins: Central, West Coast, Main San Gabriel, and Orange County 

that are used by Metropolitan member agencies for potable water and require replenishment. 

Municipal and Domestic Potable Water Demands 

The LSWR Feasibility Study will evaluate the DPR water demands, through raw water 

augmentation (RWA) at Metropolitan’s Weymouth and Diemer WTPs. The purified water would 

be blended with raw water (10 – 25 percent recycled water: surface water) from the SWP and/or 

the CR. The blended water would undergo additional treatment before entry into Metropolitan’s 

treated drinking water distribution system. 

Other Demands 

Because of the high quality and cost of purified recycled water projects like PWSC, this water is 

not typically used directly to meet environmental restoration, fish and wildlife, power generation 

or recreation demands. Use of this water can, however, replace other sources of water such as 

imported water, that can be used to meet these demands and will be further evaluated. 

4. Describe the source water that will be considered for the project, including location, 

capacities, existing flows, treatment processes, and quantities of impaired water available 

The source water for the PWSC is the Sanitation 

Districts’ JWPCP facility. The JWPCP provides 

both primary and secondary treatment for 

approximately 260 mgd of wastewater and has a 

total permitted capacity of 400 mgd. The 

JWPCP is located at 24501 S. Figueroa St., 

Carson, CA 90745, as shown in Figure 4. A 

high purity oxygen activated sludge biological 

secondary treatment system (HPOAS) is used to 

clean the primary effluent before it is clarified, 

disinfected, and discharged through an outfall to 

the Pacific Ocean. The PWSC would advance 

treat up to approximately 180 mgd of the 

JWPCP’s effluent.

to meet the new reclaimed, recycled, or desalinated water demands. 

Figure 4: Location Map of 

Joint Water Pollution Control Plant 

Solids collected in primary and secondary wastewater treatment are processed in anaerobic 

digestion tanks where bacteria break down organic material. The digested solids are then dried 

and the centrate returned to the JWPCP. The methane gas produced from the solid’s treatment is 

used to produce power allowing the JWPCP to produce most of its electricity onsite. The 

sidestream centrate treatment process would lower the amount of nitrogen being recycled back 

into the JWPCP, reducing the chemical addition requirements for the AWP, and reducing the 

nitrogen load discharged to the ocean. The PWSC also significantly reduces effluent discharge 

from the JWPCP to the ocean. 

7 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Subcriterion No.1b-Evaluation of Project Alternatives (15 Points) 

1. Describe the objectives that all alternatives will be designed to meet. What other water 

supply alternatives and project alternatives will be investigated? 

Program Objectives 

Project alternatives will be evaluated based on the following objectives: (1) provide a new local 

source of reliable, cost-effective, high-quality, and climate-change resilient water to meet water 

supply demands in the region; (2) contribute to the water supply of local groundwater basins to 

increase groundwater aquifer and storage to sustainable levels; (3) diversify Metropolitan’s water 

supply portfolio and increase operational flexibility; (4) reduce reliance on imported water; and 

(5) maximize reuse and expand environmental benefits from reduced ocean discharges. 

Alternatives to Pure Water Southern California 

Local Water Supply Source Alternatives. The local supply alternatives to the PWSC include 

stormwater development and seawater desalination/brackish groundwater development. 

Stormwater. A median of about 500,000 acre-feet per year of stormwater currently flows to the 

ocean in Metropolitan’s service area, about 85 percent of which occurs in Los Angeles and 

Orange Counties. This alternative will evaluate the potential to achieve 155,000 acre-feet per 

year of stormwater capture, recharge, and reuse in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. 

Seawater Desalination. Seawater desalination is an untapped resource for development in 

Southern California. About 20 percent of the groundwater produced in Metropolitan’s service

area requires some form of treatment as much of it is brackish groundwater. This alternative will 

be investigated by evaluating the potential to achieve 155,000 acre-feet per of seawater 

desalination or brackish groundwater development in lieu of PWSC. 

Reuse Strategy Alternatives. The Reuse Strategy Alternatives evaluation includes local agency 

development of recycled water projects. Metropolitan established the Local Resources Program 

(LRP) in 1982 to provide incentives for local agencies to develop recycled water projects that 

offset potable demand. This alternative requires local agencies to develop the recycled water 

projects rather than rely on Metropolitan. Although LRPs are beneficial, several, smaller reuse 

projects are typically less efficient, cost more per gallon, and often costs aren’t shared between 

agencies. It is also unlikely that these smaller reuse projects would be able to provide the 

regional benefits for multiple groundwater basins like the PWSC. 

2. Describe how the planning activities will develop project alternatives (water supply 

sources, reuse strategies, or treatment technologies) that have been or will be investigated. 

The planning activities analyzed as part of the LSWR Feasibility Study will identify and develop 

alternatives based upon the following process: 

1. Identify local supply and reuse alternatives and prepare descriptions 

2. Evaluate the water supply potential of the alternative and assess fatal flaws 

3. Develop costs for each alternative and compare to PWSC 

4. Rank alternatives compared to PWSC and perform independent peer review and finalize 

the LSWR Feasibility Study 

8 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

3. Provide a general description of the selected project, including project features, benefits, 

anticipated costs, and analyses conducted. 

Description and Features of Pure Water Southern California 

The PWSC consists of the following major components: (1) modifications to the JWPCP; 

(2) nitrogen management processes; (3) a new advanced water treatment plant; (4) backbone 

conveyance pipelines; (5) recharge facilities; (6) direct potable reuse treatment; and (7) and 

ancillary facilities. A PWSC description along with specific features is provided above in 

Section C, Project Description. 

Benefits of Pure Water Southern California Program 

Metropolitan’s purpose and focus has always been to provide regional benefits for all the 

District’s member agencies. A White Paper (MWD 2020) prepared by Metropolitan summarized 

the many benefits as follows: (1) increases regional storage and reduces the probability of 

shortage; (2) improves operational flexibility to Metropolitan’s conveyance and distribution 

systems; (3) provides supplies during a major earthquake emergency; and (4) benefits water 

supply by implementing DPR. 

Responses to the criteria and questions in this application highlight many of other benefits 

described below for Evaluation Criteria 2 through 5. 

Anticipated Costs 

In 2018, Metropolitan completed a Conceptual Planning Studies Report (MWD 2019) where a 

Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) was prepared for alternative scenarios 

for PWSC phasing. The proposed PWSC capital cost was estimated to be $3.4 billion in 2018 

dollars. Since the completion of this report, there have been updates to the PWSC as well as 

higher inflation and supply chain issues. To account for the burden of these additional costs, a 

projected PWSC cost of approximately $5 billion can be assumed. The PWSC cost will be 

re-evaluated as part of the both the Environmental Planning effort as well as for the LSWR 

Feasibility Study that will be completed to meet Reclamation’s requirements for future LSWR 

construction funding. 

Analyses Conducted 

Metropolitan has prepared and completed the following analyses shown in Table 1 since 2010. 

These reports and studies are available on Metropolitan’s PWSC website: MWD | Pure Water 

Southern California (mwdh2o.com). The Sanitation Districts also prepared a Technical Analysis 

of Biological and Advanced Water Treatment Processes at the Joint Water Pollution Control 

Plant in 2021 to investigate and evaluate alternative nitrogen treatment processes to be 

implemented in the PWSC to manage nitrogen concentrations efficiently and cost-effectively. 

Table 1: List of Analyses Conducted 

No. Title Year 

1 Pilot Study of Advanced Water Treatment Processes 2012 

2 RRWP Feasibility Study 2015 

3 Conceptual Planning Study Report 2019 

4 White Paper No. 1 – Program Implementation and Delivery 2019 

5 White Paper No. 2 – Planning, Financial Considerations, and Agreements 2020 

6 Backbone Conveyance Feasibility Level Design Report 2020 

7 Economic Impact Study 2021 

9 
1 

2020□ 2021 □ 2022□ 20230 I 2024□ 2025□ 

, 

2026

r

□ 

, 

2027

1

□ 

' 

2028□ 

tl 

29□ 

1 

203 □ 203 □ 2032

r 

□ 

I 

a c I ] C D 10 C d a" I tj C D 9. cl 9_ c I 1 C ! ! 

I I I I I I I 11 1 1 I, I 

I ll I 

• 

I ] 

i I I I I nvironmental· lanning·Phase· not·included·as·part of·appli cati □ 

• • 

I 1 LSWRP·Feasibility·Studya 

Preliminary-Design□ 

UJ • 

Final esigo not·included ·as·part·ofapplication □ 

Constructio no inc luded·as part·of-appli ation □ 

USBR·WaterSMART:·Water·Recycling·and·Desalination·Planning-Granto 

Figure 5: Preliminary Pure Water Program Schedule 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

4. Include a preliminary schedule showing major tasks, milestones, and dates for the 

planning, design, and construction activities related to the project. 

Preliminary Program Schedule 

Figure 5 shows the overall 

program schedule for planning, 

design, and construction 

activities for the PWSC. 

Task and Milestone Schedule 

The planned use for the grant 

funds is to complete a LSWR 

Feasibility Study and preliminary 

designs for initial conveyance 

reaches and the sidestream 

centrate treatment system. Table 

2 below shows major tasks and milestones that will be completed within the two-year grant 

period. Note that preliminary design for the initial conveyance will start prior to grant funding. 

Table 2: Major Tasks and Milestones During the Grant Period 

LSWR Feasibility Study 

1 Project alternatives analysis November 2023 May 2024 6 

2 Economic analysis March 2024 September 2024 6 

3 Project selection May 2024 August 2024 3 

4 Feasibility Study Report August 2024 February 2025 6 

Preliminary Design Initial Conveyance Reaches 

1 Evaluation and analyses April 2023 December 2023 8 

2 Engineering investigations April 2023 December 2023 8 

3 Preliminary design drawings November 2023 March 2025 16 

4 Preliminary Design Report November 2023 March 2025 16 

Preliminary Design of Sidestream Centrate Treatment System 

1 Feasibility/design parameters November 2023 March 2024 4 

2 Site investigations/utilities March 2024 November 2024 8 

3 Preliminary design drawings November 2024 July 2025 8 

4 Preliminary Design Report November 2024 May 2025 6 

Evaluation Criteria 2: Stretching Water Supplies (20 points) 

1. Describe the potential for the project to reduce, postpone, or eliminate the development of 

new or expanded non-recycled water supplies. 

Non-Recycled Water Supplies 

The PWSC will reduce and postpone development of new or expanded non-recycled water 

supplies by replacing the existing groundwater replenishment supply source (imported water) 

with purified water. The PWSC will also reduce or delay development of new or expanded non10 
 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

recycled water supplies by replacing the existing imported water sources from the SWP and the 

CR that serve Metropolitan’s Weymouth and Diemer WTPs with advanced purified water. The 

PWSC could reduce imported water deliveries by up to 155,000 acre-feet per year reducing the 

need for new or expanded non-recycled water facilities to supply this amount. 

Imported Water Supplies 

Metropolitan leverages non-recycled water supplies such as imported water supplies by storing 

available water for use when it is scarce. Imported supplies historically provide water for the 

region’s storage portfolio and reliable imported supplies maximize regional investments in 

Metropolitan’s storage capabilities. The 155,000 AFY produced by the PWSC will enable 

additional SWP and CR water use to be optimized between delivery and storage. 

Local Supplies 

Local supply forecasts in 2045 range from 2.1 to 2.7 MAF. If additional supplies are not 

developed, it is anticipated that the deficit would result in increased imported water demands on 

Metropolitan’s member agencies. The PWSC affords Metropolitan the opportunity to fill that 

shortfall with up to 155,000 AFY of a new, local source of water for Metropolitan’s own 

wholesale service and postpone implementation of additional local agency facilities. 

2. Describe the potential for the project to alleviate pressure on existing water supplies and/or 

facilities. Please describe the existing water supplies, identify the supplies and/or facilities 

that will be impacted and explain how they will be impacted by the Project, including 

quantifications where applicable. 

Imported Water 

In recent years, Metropolitan has experienced strain on both the SWP and the Colorado River. 

The past 3 years have been the driest on record for the SWP and the Colorado River system has 

been in drought for the past 23 years. The interconnected nature of Metropolitan’s systems 

means that Metropolitan can address constraints in one area of the system for the benefit of the 

entire system. The integration of its water resources and system flexibility is fundamental to 

Metropolitan’s wholesale water service. However, in recent years, Metropolitan’s system has 

been stretched to its limit as extreme events continue. 

The PWSC helps to alleviate that strain on Metropolitan’s system and on both sources of 

imported water. On average, Metropolitan receives about 20 percent of its supply from the 

Colorado River, through the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA). Approximately 60 mgd, or about 

40% of the total PWSC yield, can help reduce California’s reliance on the CRA. The PWSC will 

also reduce Southern California’s reliance on the SWP, which on average supplies about 

30 percent of Metropolitan’s water supply. Approximately 90 mgd, or 60% of the PWSC yield, 

could benefit the SWP system, replacing up to 12 percent of the total SWP supply. Full 

implementation of the PWSC would free up to 155,000 AFY of capacity in the existing SWP and 

CRA aqueducts and provide Metropolitan the opportunity and flexibility to capture additional 

imported water through transfers, exchanges, or other agreements. In addition, Metropolitan 

would also have the flexibility for capturing more excess water available during wet years. 

Groundwater 

More than 72 percent of the groundwater basins in the service area are in decline. Without 

continued replenishment, groundwater storage is expected to continue to decline due to increased 

demand and limitations on other sources for natural and incidental recharge. For the basins to 

11 
Scenario A 

Scenario B 

Scenario C 

Scenario O 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Frequency of Shortage (%) 

• Frequency of Net Shortage • Benefit of Pure Water Southern California • No shortage 

Below Critical 2040 

Below Critical 2022 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 

Percentage of Groundwater Basins 

• Below Critical • Benefit of Program • Not Below Critical 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

continue providing benefits for regional reliability, they require reliable water deliveries for 

recharge. The PWSC will help to meet that need by providing a stable year-to-year delivery of 

up to 93,000 AFY year of a new supply for groundwater replenishment to improve the supply 

reliability for the region. 

3. Describe the potential for the project to make water available to address a specific concern. 

Explain the specific concern and its severity. Also explain the role of the project being 

investigated in addressing that concern and the extent to which the project will address it. 

Water Supply Shortages 

Per Scenario D from the Regional Needs 

Assessment study highlighted above, the 

PWSC will reduce the frequency of net 

shortages by about 10 percent as shown by 

the green bar in Figure 6. 

Water Supply Reliability 

The PWSC would also deliver water to 

Metropolitan’s Weymouth and/or Diemer 

WTPs via raw water augmentation for 

DPR. This DPR approach would directly 

serve many member agencies as treated 

water from Weymouth and Diemer is 

delivered to most of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. As an increased source within 

Metropolitan’s distribution system, other imported sources can be made available for use in the 

rest of Metropolitan’s service areas and for additional storage. 

Groundwater Depletion 

The PWSC will help support groundwater aquifers in Los Angeles and Orange counties by 

sustaining groundwater levels, maintaining groundwater as a major local source of potable water, 

and reducing the pressure on Metropolitan’s service due to declining groundwater production.

With the PWSC, imported supplies from the SWP and CRA that would have gone toward 

meeting local agency groundwater recharge demands would instead be available to meet other 

state/regional and environmental demands or go into Metropolitan storage programs. 

As shown in Figure 7, the PWSC would fill 

the gap and reduce the risk of the groundwater 

basins reaching critical levels by providing a 

drought-resilient supply to recharge the four 

groundwater basins. The PWSC would also 

reduce the number of people impacted by 

declining water levels by as much as 2 million 

people 

Water Quality Issues 

Water quality is a key issue for many of the 

groundwater basins that are being served by 

the PWSC. Key constituents of concern 

Figure 6: Benefit of Pure Water to 

Frequency of Net Shortage in 2045 

Figure 7: Benefit of Pure Water to Groundwater 

12 
C.liforn~ 

Aguedud 

Cokndo 

Rlwr 

Aqueduct 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Figure 8: Location of Pure Water Relative to the 

San Andreas Fault 

include total dissolved solids (TDS), nitrate, sulfate, and chloride. Since PWSC will include 

advanced treatment, the treated water will be of better quality than existing groundwater. 

Natural Disasters 

PWSC would benefit the Metropolitan service area in the event of a catastrophic earthquake by 

increasing the opportunities to ensure that supplies are maintained within the region. The extent 

of damage from this type of event could 

potentially cause protracted outages of the 

facilities halting the flow of imported water for 

several months or longer. The region would 

need to rely entirely on local supplies such as 

PWSC, surface storage, and groundwater 

production while repairs are being made to the 

aqueducts. Figure 8, the PWSC facilities do 

not cross the San Andreas fault, so purified 

water from the PWSC could be available to 

keep water flowing in the Weymouth and 

Diemer WTPs even if imported supplies were 

cut off by an earthquake event. This would 

allow Metropolitan to continue to meet 

member agency demands. 

Heightened Competition for Water Supplies 

There are potential conflicts with other sources of water, especially in spreading basins where 

multiple sources of water are spread for infiltration. Metropolitan plans to work collaboratively 

with member agencies, groundwater managers, and other essential stakeholders to develop 

preliminary terms and conditions that would be mutually acceptable should PWSC proceed. 

Adding 155,000 AF from the PWSC reduces competition for water supplies by decreasing the 

imported water component for groundwater replenishment. 

Availability of Alternative Supplies 

Alternative supplies such as stormwater and imported water are highly dependent upon 

hydrologic conditions. The PWSC is a drought-resilient supply that can continue to provide 

reliable supplies even during drought conditions. Additional discussion of alternative supplies is 

provided under Criterion 3. 

Increasing Cost of Water Supplies 

The cost of all water supplies is going up throughout the country and California. Building the 

PWSC now will help avoid costly increases in the future due to inflation, current supply chain 

issues, and reduce purchasing of expensive supplies during shortages. 

4. Describe the potential for the project to help create additional flexibility to address 

drought. Will water made available by the project being investigated continue to be 

available during periods of drought? To what extent is the water made available by the 

project being investigated more drought resistant than alternative water supply options? 

Explain. 

The PWSC will help create additional flexibility to address drought because purified water from 

the PWSC is available during periods of drought and emergency situations. Adding the PWSC as 

13 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

an additional water source benefits Metropolitan’s overall system flexibility by increasing the 

options available to meet demands throughout the service area. Full implementation of the 

PWSC would free up 155,000 AF of capacity in the SWP and CRA conveyance systems. 

Compared to alternative supplies such as stormwater or imported water, the PWSC is more 

drought-resilient because it is not dependent upon rainfall runoff, nor is it at risk from changes in 

climate or hydrology. The new purified water supply is separate from the hydrologic cycle –

therefore, the PWSC can deliver under all weather conditions and produce water supplies outside 

of critical habitat areas that could be adversely affected by climate change. Protections against 

drought and climate change introduce a water security benefit not available with other sources. 

Evaluation Criteria 3: Environment and Water Quality (20 points) 

1. Describe the potential for the project to improve the quality of surface water or 

groundwater 

Surface Water Quality Improvements 

Purified water delivery to the Weymouth and Diemer WTPs for RWA potable reuse would 

improve the quality of treated water deliveries throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties due 

to the lower TDS concentrations. Stricter nitrogen limits for future phases with higher DPR 

blend ratios will have even lower nitrogen concentrations in the purified water. 

Groundwater Quality Improvements 

The PWSC’s purified water will be low in TDS, which improves the water quality in areas with 

impacted water supplies due to the high salinity of imported water sources. Because, the purified 

water will have a TDS of less than 100 mg/L, PWSC will improve water quality within the 

groundwater basins. Specifically, the PWSC will improve concentrations of TDS, nitrate, sulfate, 

and chloride concentrations. The PWSC will also help with any blending and maintaining the 

long-term salt balance for the groundwater basins served by the PWSC. 

2. Describe the potential for the project to improve effluent quality beyond levels necessary to 

meet State or Federal discharge requirements. 

The JWPCP currently discharges about 260 mgd to the ocean via and outfall system. The PWSC 

would reduce the volume and loading of effluent discharged to the ocean and better enable the 

JWPCP to meet future, more stringent regulatory requirements. The Sanitation Districts have 

performed scientific testing to ensure that the anticipated discharges after the PWSC construction 

will meet all regulatory requirements and would not degrade the ocean water quality. In addition, 

the centrate sidestream treatment has the potential to reduce nutrient discharges to the ocean, 

thus improving the JWPCP’s effluent quality. The JWPCP’s current treatment processes were 

not designed to reduce ammonia or total nitrogen. 

The PWSC will employ either a nitrification-denitrification (NdN) or nitrification-only (N-only) 

biological treatment system. These process systems will have the required pathogens reduction 

capabilities to comply with all other water quality standards and objectives in applicable 

operation permits, basin plans, salt and nutrient management plans (SNMPs), and other 

applicable regulations and policies to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of surface 

water and groundwater. The nitrogen management systems reduce the total nitrogen 

concentration in the effluent resulting in a reduction of the nitrogen loading to the ocean. 

14 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

3. Describe the potential for the project to improve flow conditions in a natural stream 

channel. 

The PWSC will improve flow conditions in various natural stream channels. Approximately the 

northern two-thirds of the proposed PWSC’s backbone pipeline alignment parallels the San 

Gabriel River where over the years, the river has been heavily modified for flood control 

purposes. The human impact on the river diminishes or significantly constrains the river’s ability 

to serve as a natural stream channel for fish and wildlife; however, the PWSC could potentially 

improve flow conditions in the San Gabriel River by raising groundwater levels, which many 

riparian areas and wildlife rely on. Additionally, limited flows may be periodically diverted to 

the Sanitation Districts’ Bixby Marshland near the JWPCP to maintain the marshland habitat and 

ecosystem. Metropolitan will also address conditions to manage runoff from the AWP facilities. 

Because Metropolitan’s existing infrastructure connects the watersheds of the Colorado River

and the SWP, large-scale recycling in Southern California can also return benefits to both 

watersheds. The PWSC reduces dependence on the SWP by up to 155,000 AFY, increasing the 

sustainability of the Delta and increasing flows to improve the health of the ecosystem. Together 

with partners in the Lower Colorado River Basin, Metropolitan can help increase available flows 

in the Colorado River by increasing water recycling in Southern California. 

4. Describe the potential for the project to restore or enhance habitat for non-listed fish and 

wildlife species. 

The PWSC will primarily be constructed within existing road right of ways , utility easements, 

disturbed areas, and other upland areas that lack native habitat value or marine resources. 

Biological resources within and adjacent to the backbone pipeline are generally contained within 

the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area, and portions of San 

Gabriel River, which contain areas of suitable habitat for wildlife. Although PWSC facilities will 

be located to avoid sensitive areas as much as possible, there may still be some limited impacts 

to these areas. The temporary construction areas would be restored to pre-construction conditions 

and areas of marginal or poor habitat could be improved by restoring these areas with 

appropriate native vegetation and habitat, thereby increasing the quality and quantity of suitable 

habitat for wildlife. Restoring areas with native vegetation could also reduce the spread of 

invasive species. Additional studies to further avoid, restore, or enhance native vegetation and 

habitat will be evaluated in the LSWR Feasibility Study. 

The Delta provides habitat for many species of fish and wildlife. A decrease in water imported 

through the SWP could help to alleviate pressures on the Delta ecosystem. Similarly, the Lower 

Colorado River supports numerous species of wildlife, and by decreasing the reliance on 

imported water supplies, the PWSC could increase the quality and quantity of water in the 

Colorado River thereby supporting the health of the watershed. 

5. Describe the potential for the project to provide water or habitat for federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. 

The PWSC is a powerful tool to help reduce the impact of continuing drought conditions by 

providing a local and reliable source of water. Four state and/or federally listed animal species, 

including candidate species, were documented during biological surveys, including: the monarch 

butterfly, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and willow flycatcher. Thirteen other

special status animal species were detected. Although the PWSC is significant in size, permanent 

15 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

impacts on regulated streambeds and native habitats will be minimal. Additional evaluation will 

be included in the LSWR Feasibility Study. Potential impacts would be addressed as discussed 

above by avoiding and/or restoring these areas with appropriate native vegetation and habitats 

for resident species. Reducing dependence upon the SWP and the CR would help increase the 

sustainability of both watersheds and potentially help to increase water flows to improve the 

health of the ecosystems. Moreover, large-scale recycling in Southern California can also return 

benefits to local watersheds and improve habitat for sensitive species as noted above. 

Evaluation Criteria 4: Department of the Interior Priorities (15 points) 

Climate Change 

1. Please provide specific details and examples on how the project will address the impacts of 

climate change and help combat the climate crisis. 

Reduced Climate Pollution. 

The PWSC is included in Metropolitan’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP includes an 

inventory of Metropolitan’s historic and current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as a 

comprehensive forecast of future projected emissions. The data is then used to identify a feasible 

GHG reduction target and GHG reduction measures that Metropolitan can implement to achieve 

its goal. The adopted CAP serves as a long-term planning document that will guide policy and 

planning decisions on operations, water resources, capital investments, and conservation and 

resource programs. It allows Metropolitan to streamline the environmental review process and 

mitigate GHG impacts for future capital projects like the PWSC. Energy efficiency and use of 

green power is encouraged resulting in lower GHGs and air quality improvements. Additional 

efforts to reduce climate change impacts will also be addressed in the LSWR Feasibility Study. 

Increased Resilience to the Impacts of Climate Change. 

The PWSC will provide a climate change and drought-resilient supply for replenishing regional 

groundwater basins to help meet demands on Metropolitan and maintain the long-term basin 

health and reliability. Since recycled water is sourced from wastewater from homes and 

businesses in the area, it is not dependent on the climate or rainfall runoff. Therefore, the PWSC 

is independent of changes to the climate and provides increased resilience to Southern 

California’s potable water supply. With the incorporation of DPR, the area is even more resilient 

to climate change because of the additional flexibility and reliability provided by recycled water 

for the population that currently receives potable water from only surface water sources. 

Protection of Public Health 

Recycled water has been proven to protect public health by many successful recycled water 

programs, such as Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment System 

(GWRS) project. Every major study has shown that recycled water is safe for use by and in the 

community. Projects like the PWSC are governed by a strict set of regulations by the State 

Division of Drinking Water and are continually monitored to prove that they meet their operating 

requirements and are providing safe water to the public. 

Conservation of Public Lands, Water, Oceans and Biodiversity 

The PWSC will produce and deliver 150 mgd or up to 155,000 AFY of purified water. Every 

drop of water recycled produced for local use reduces wastewater effluent discharges the Pacific 

Ocean, lowers imported water demands, and conserves natural resources in the California Delta 

16 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

and the Colorado River. Reduced surface water diversions increase biodiversity and more water 

in the local aquifers helps restore watersheds where the groundwater levels have declined. 

2. Does this proposed project strengthen water supply sustainability to increase resilience to 

climate change? Does the proposed project contribute to climate change resiliency in other 

ways not described above? 

The PWSC strengthens the region’s water supply sustainability. Climate change forecasts 

prepared for the Regional Needs Assessment include both gradual and extreme climate change 

scenarios. By 2040, the percentage of groundwater basins below the critical level could exceed 

17 percent with more than 5 million people relying on an impacted basin for their water supply. 

The PWSC reduces the risk of the groundwater basins reaching critical levels by providing a 

drought-resilient supply to replenish the groundwater basins. The PWSC reduces the number of 

people impacted by declining water levels by as much as 2 million people. 

Disadvantages and Underserved Communities 

1. Will the proposed project serve or benefit a disadvantaged or historically underserved 

community? Benefits can include, but are not limited to, public health and safety by 

addressing water quality, new water supplies, or economic growth opportunities. 

Much of the area shown in Figure 9 that will 

receive blended purified water from 

Metropolitan’s Weymouth and Diemer WTPs 

are disadvantaged or historically underserved 

community (DAC). Of the 19 million people 

that live within Metropolitan’s service area, 

about 6 million people are living in a DAC. 

Improved Potable Water Quality 

Many DAC areas are concentrated in areas 

where the primary source of water supply is 

groundwater, especially in the Central and 

West Coast groundwater basins. Potable reuse 

projects such as the PWSC produce water low 

in TDS, which will improve groundwater 

water quality in areas with impacted water 

supplies due to the high salinity of some replenishment sources as detailed in a previous section 

above, including lower TDS, nitrate, sulfate, and chloride concentrations; and help with the longterm salt balance for the groundwater basins protecting the public water supply and health. 

Improvement to Water Sustainability 

Many DAC communities are heavily reliant on groundwater supplies. The PWSC will help 

support groundwater aquifers in Los Angeles and Orange counties by sustaining groundwater 

levels, maintaining groundwater as a major local source of potable water, and reducing the 

pressure on Metropolitan’s service due to declining groundwater production. The PWSC can 

provide stable year-to-year deliveries of a new supply for groundwater replenishment to improve 

the supply reliability conditions for the region by reducing demand on imported water. 

- MWO service area 

DAC Census tracts 

esL population • 6.1 million 

- ~~~~f:J!8!~.6 miltlon 

Figure 9: Disadvantaged Communities in the 

Service Area 

17 
lniMol lnpcll 

_,.... o...llm 

nadopooil,,~ ... 

J(mandeilllircs 

«Nl!Cbydi•!dnl 

i"(fflt~S, 

fflld,csu:hterr.m : 

·-

""" • HMi1 

• Ertl!l'tiffl'ffll 

•r.od 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Figure 10: 

Economic Benefits 

Economic Growth Opportunities 

The PWSC implementation will provide a positive and 

widespread economic impact throughout Southern California, 

having direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts as shown 

in Figure 10. Based on an Economic Impact Study prepared by 

the Los Angeles Economic Development Council, the planned 

expenditure of more than $4 billion (2018 dollars) to develop the 

PWSC will result in a total economic output of $8.7 billion, 

accompanied by 47,100 total development-related jobs – 24,100 

of which will be directly involved in the construction. 

Approximately 23,000 jobs would be supported by indirect or 

induced effects of the construction expenditures. The PWSC will 

also have a recurring positive impact on the regional economy 

once construction is completed. In total, the ongoing operational and maintenance costs will 

result in an employment impact of 1,040 jobs in the region with labor income of $88.0 million. 

Other Local Opportunities 

Other local opportunities include Metropolitan’s Project Labor Agreement (PLA), which ensures 

that the PWSC’s construction projects are completed with a highly trained workforce with 

opportunities for small businesses. The PWSC will also have many ancillary facilities, designed 

to have dual uses, such as meeting rooms, public tours, and a learning center. Metropolitan is 

exploring incorporating apprenticeship programs and operator training. 

2. Please describe in detail how the community is disadvantaged based on a combination of 

variables. 

DAC were determined using the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) “DACs –

Census” dataset, which defines a DAC as having a median household income (MHI) that is less 

than 80 percent of the Statewide annual MHI. Because Pure Water benefits the entire 

Metropolitan service area and all 19 million people that live within it, Pure Water also benefits 

DAC within the entire service area. In addition to the economic growth opportunities, many 

DAC areas are heavily reliant on groundwater supplies, especially in areas served by the PWSC. 

3. If the proposed project is providing benefits to an underserved community, provide 

sufficient information to demonstrate that the community meets the underserved definition 

in E.O. 13985, which includes populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as 

geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to 

participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life. 

The PWSC service area includes about 6 million people considered as DAC by the California 

Department of Water Resources. Additionally, initial mapping with EJScreen and 

CalEnviroScreen mapping tools identify a significant portion of the PWSC area within DAC 

areas. Further evaluation will be included in the new LSWR Feasibility Study to enhance DAC 

participation and reduce potential impacts. 

18 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Tribal Benefits 

1. Does the proposed project directly serve and/or benefit a Tribe? Will the project improve 

water management for an Indian Tribe? 

The PWSC directly serves the Gabrieleño and Fernandeño Tataviam tribal communities and will 

improve water reliability within their tribal territories; Their tribal members will benefit by 

gaining access to jobs and training programs created through PWSC implementation. PWSC 

benefits are also achieved beyond Southern California and would support tribes along the 

Colorado River and in Northern Sierras. Once implemented, the PWSC reduces Metropolitan’s 

demands on imported supplies and makes additional water available for tribes in these regions. 

2. Does the proposed project support Tribal resilience to climate change and drought impacts 

or provide other Tribal benefits such as improved public health and safety by addressing 

water quality, new water supplies, or economic growth opportunities? 

The PWSC will provide a new climate-resilient supply of water for tribal communities in 

Southern California that rely on drinking water supplies provided by Metropolitan and its 

member agencies. Project construction and operation would create nearly 50,000 jobs in 

Southern California and provide tribal members with opportunities for training, jobs, and 

economic growth. In addition, the PWSC would benefit tribes along the Colorado River and 

Northern Sierras since use of purified recycled water in Southern California would reduce 

dependence on imported supplies. Tribes would receive additional water resources from their 

watersheds that could result in improved drinking water, an enhanced natural environment and 

economic growth through activities such as tourism and agriculture. 

Evaluation Criteria 5: Watershed Perspective and Stakeholder Involvement 

(15 points) 

1. Will the proposed project implement a regional or state water plan or an integrated 

resource management plan? Explain. 

The PWSC is part of Metropolitan’s Regional Needs Assessment. Since 1996, Metropolitan 

looked 25 years ahead to assess the needs of Southern California and adapt to ever-evolving 

challenges. It addresses uncertainties with how climate change, natural disasters, regulatory 

requirements, population, and economy will impact the region’s water supply and demands and 

how to adapt and plan to secure our future. 

Metropolitan is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) by the Urban 

Water Management Planning Act (Act) of the state of California. In its 2020 UWMP, 

Metropolitan noted that it was exploring the potential development of a regional recycled water 

program in partnership with the Sanitation Districts. This project will purify and reuse water for 

the groundwater augmentation and potable reuse in Southern California. 

2. Will the proposed project help meet the water supply needs of a large geographic area, 

region, or watershed? Explain. 

The PWSC will help meet the water supply needs of Metropolitan’s service area which covers 

most of the Southern California coastal plain from the city of Oxnard in the north to 

approximately 200 miles to the Mexican border on the south. The total area served is 

approximately 5,200 square miles and includes portions of six counties. Although only 

14 percent of the land area of the six Southern California counties is within Metropolitan’s 

19 
::~=.::="''"'' Program Partners 

- ~ 

d ':". 

9 LOS ANGIU:S COUHTY 

SANrTA.TIOM DtSTitlCTS 

~---

..,.)THIHV.w.m I MWD 

Colorado River Partners 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

service area, it has nearly 85 percent of the populations of those counties. If the Southern Nevada 

Water Authority (SNWA) and the Arizona Department of Water Resources/Central Arizona 

Project agencies (Arizona Parties) become partners in the PWSC, the benefits will be multi-state 

and enhance both the California Central Valley and Colorado River watersheds. 

3. Will the proposed project promote collaborative partnerships to address water-related 

issues? Explain. Describe stakeholder involvement in the project planning process. 

Metropolitan welcomes the possibility of 

partnering with other agencies to ensure the 

success of the PWSC. Metropolitan is also 

collaborating with Partnering Agencies that 

have committed to providing financial 

contributions as well as agencies that have an 

interest in the PWSC and could purchase the 

purified water, are contributing in-kind labor 

and materials, or providing other services as 

needed (Figure 11). 

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. 

Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts have 

been in partnership since 2010. The Sanitation Districts are integral to the program’s success and 

recognize that operation of the PWSC would assist in meeting their recycled water goals and 

address potential future ocean discharge requirements. The Sanitation Districts will use agency 

resources for matching funds for this work. 

State of California – State Water Resources Control Board. To address the State’s urgent water 

supply needs, the Governor of California signed AB 179 in September 2022 to include allocation 

of funds for water recycling projects. $80 million was allocated to Metropolitan to support the 

PWSC. Metropolitan has been authorized to use these state funds to initiate the PWSC’s design 

activities, which include the preliminary design for the first two reaches of the backbone 

conveyance pipeline. Part of the State funds will be used as Metropolitan’s local matching funds. 

Agency Reuse Collaborative 

Two major recycled programs are planned in Los Angeles County including the PWSC and 

Los Angeles’ Operation NEXT. A working group called the Agency Reuse Collaborative has 

been set up to coordinate their planning and implementation. These agencies meet regularly to 

discuss how to increase the resilience of the region’s water supply; create benefits and add value 

to existing and planned infrastructure; support affordability goals; reduce wastewater discharges; 

lower the carbon footprint, and benefit DACs. 

4. Will the proposed project include public outreach and opportunities for the public to learn 

about the project? Explain. 

Metropolitan is implementing an extensive outreach program to gain public support of PWSC. 

At the center of the outreach effort is the PWSC Demonstration Plant, which features educational 

exhibits, an interactive learning center, and a robust tour program that attracts visitors of all ages. 

It provides an opportunity to learn about the PWPC, hosting more than 250 tours to nearly 

10,000 people. Attendees have included students, business groups, environmental leaders and 

state and federal officials including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Congresswoman 

Figure 11: Program Partners 

20 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Grace Napolitano, and USBR Commissioner Camille Touton. In addition, a dynamic website, 

social media activities, presentations, special events, booths at community events, and press 

coverage garner engagement in the PWSC. To date, these outreach strategies have reached 

millions of people in Southern California and beyond. Outreach efforts have also extended to 

CEQA scoping meetings, participation in community events, and coordination with stakeholders. 

E. Budget Proposal 

Planned use for the grant funds include the following: (1) completion of a LSWR Feasibility 

Study for review and approval by Reclamation; (2) initiation of a feasibility, planning, and 

evaluation of DPR treatment technologies for the PWSC; and (3) planning and preparation of 

preliminary design of treatment of the side stream effluent from JWPCP. A summary of nonfederal and federal funding sources is provided in Table 3 below. Additionally, Table 4 

identifies costs that will be contributed by non-Federal cost share by the applicant, third-party inkind contributions, and those that will be covered using the funding request from Reclamation. 

Table 3: Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources 

Funding Sources Amount 

Non-Federal Entities 

Metropolitan Water District or State Water Resources Control Board 

(SWRCB) Grant 

$ 12,000,000 

Sanitation Districts $ 3,000,000 

Non-Federal Subtotal $ 15,000,000 

Requested Reclamation funding $ 5,000,000 

Table 4: Total Project Cost Table 

Source Amount 

Cost to be reimbursed with the requested Federal funding $ 5,000,000 

Costs to be paid by the applicant $ 12,000,000 

Value of third-party contributions $ 3,000,000 

Total project cost $ 20,000,000 

A breakdown of budgets for the LSWR Feasibility Study, the preliminary design for the initial 

reaches of the conveyance system, and the preliminary design of side stream effluent treatment is 

provided in Table 5. The breakdown between Metropolitan labor and consultant budgets is also 

shown. Note that these budgets will change based on the final consultant contracts which 

continue to be negotiated during this phase of the work. 

Table 5: Total LSWR Feasibility Study and Preliminary Breakdown 

Description Labor Consultants Materials Construction Total 

Feasibility Study $ 850,000 $1,100,000 $ 50,000 $ 0 $ 2,000,000 

Preliminary Design 7,650,000 9,900,000 450,000 0 18,000,000 

Final Design 0 0 0 0 0 

Construction 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Manager 0 0 0 0 0 

Total $8,500,000 $11,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 0 $20,000,000 

21 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Refer to Budget Form SF424A for additional details of the breakdown of the costs that will be 

expended by the October 31, 2025, end of the Grant period. 

F. Budget Narrative 

The total application (project) budget of $20 million is proposed to be spent by 

October 31, 2025, the end date for the Grant. The budget includes a $5 million request from 

Reclamation and $15 million as local match from Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts. Of 

the $20 million project cost, approximately $2 million is for Development of the Feasibility 

Study, $12 million for preliminary design of initial reaches, and $4 million for preliminary 

design of centrate sidestream treatment as described in SF-424A. The table provides an 

approximate breakdown of the Preliminary Design costs that will be expended by the October 

31, 2025, end of the Grant period based on the projected cost of the Preliminary Design Services 

in Table 6 below. 

A description for each budget category is shown in Table 7 on page 23. 

Table 6: Estimated Preliminary Design Phase Budget Expenditures 

Budget Item 

Object Class Description 

Categories Salaries and Wages 

Computation 

$/Unit Quantity Type Total Cost 

6a Personnel Program Manager $114 3,763 hours $430,000 

Project Managers $114 7,525 hours $860,000 

Task Leads $88 9,749 hours $860,000 

Staff/Operators $63 27,235 hours $1,710,000 

Administration/ 

Project Controls 

$76 5,644 hours $430,000 

6b Fringe Benefits Full-Time Employees $4,290,000 0.9816 % $4,200,000 

6c Travel 

6d Equipment 

6e Supplies Materials $500,000 1 LS $500,000 

6f Contractual Consultants $11,000,000 1 LS $11,000,000 

6g Construction Contractor LS $0 

6h Other 

6i Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a - 6h) $20,000,000 

6j Indirect Charges $0 

6k TOTALS (sum of 6i - 6j) $20,000,000 

7 PROGRAM INCOME 

USBR WaterSMART GRANT (25%) $20,000,000 0.25 percent $5,000,000 

Total less Grant $15,000,000 

8c State Contributions 

8d Other Sources 

LACSD Contribution See text above 1 L.S. $3,000,0000 

N.A. N.A. $0 

N.A. N.A. $0 

SUBTOTAL OTHER SOURCES $0 

8b Applicant $12,000,000 

22 
11. 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Table 7: Budget Narrative Descriptions 

No. Category Description 

1 Salaries and 

Wages 

The total budget for MWD employee salaries and wages are budgeted 

at $8,500,000. Metropolitan’s LSWR Feasibility Study and 

preliminary design activities will be managed by a PM Team under the 

direction of the Metropolitan Program Manager 

2 Fringe 

Benefits 

Fringe benefits for full-time employees are calculated at 98.16% of 

salary and include 22.64% for leave-related benefits, 40.00% for 

retirement, 17.13% for medical benefits and the remaining for nonleave-related benefits. 

3 Travel Minimal travel is required directly by Metropolitan for this Project. 

Any travel costs would be included in the Materials category. 

4 Equipment Equipment purchases have not been identified at this Project stage. 

5 Materials and 

Supplies 

Materials and supplies for the Project have been estimated as shown 

above based on experience with similar projects. No detailed estimates 

of materials and supplies has been prepared. 

6 Contractual Staff will conduct engineering and technical support studies when that 

expertise resides with existing staff; otherwise, RFPs will be prepared 

and issued to procure consultants to perform the specialized technical 

studies. No construction is required for this Project. 

7 3rd Party InKind 

Contributions 

The Sanitation Districts will contribute approximately $3,000,000 

based on the costs for the preliminary design of the sidestream centrate 

treatment system. 

8 Environmental 

/ Regulatory 

Compliance 

Cost 

Limited environmental compliance costs are anticipated during the 

LSWR Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design Phases. These costs 

would be included in item 6e – Supplies. 

9 Other 

Expenses 

Other expenses are not considered to be substantial and would be 

included in item 6e – Supplies if required. 

10 Indirect Costs No indirect costs are anticipated. 

11 Total Costs The total project budget for this grant is $20,000,000. Of the total cost, 

$5 million would come from federal sources. The remaining amount 

of $15 million will be the non-Federal cost share. 

Budget Form 

An SF-424A, Budget Information – Non-Construction Programs form has been completed as 

part of this proposal. Staff consulted with Reclamation to confirm the use of the form. 

Environmental and Cultural Resources Compliance 

Metropolitan’s request for federal funding requires Reclamation, as the federal lead agency, to 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Given the funding would be for 

preliminary design and a feasibility study, the activities would qualify under a categorical 

exclusion. In addition, Metropolitan’s Environmental Planning Phase includes compliance with 

CEQA and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR is underway and will 

23 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

address environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the program. A 

CEQA-Plus analysis will also be conducted to comply with federal cross-cutting requirements 

associated with State Revolving Fund loans. The EIR will allow Metropolitan to consider broad 

policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures early in the Program PWSC’s 

development. It will also provide greater flexibility to consider programmatic alternatives to 

avoid, minimize, and develop mitigation measures for identified impacts and to ensure adequate 

cumulative impact analysis. 

Certain aspects of the PWSC may also have impacts to resources within Federal jurisdictions or 

where Federal funding is provided. In these cases, NEPA requires that Federal agencies assess 

the environmental effects of a proposed agency action and any reasonable alternatives before 

deciding on whether and/or how to proceed. To address these requirements, the technical studies 

will include federal conformance analyses, where appropriate, to address federal regulations 

(e.g., Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act). In addition to 

federal conformance analyses in the appropriate technical studies, Metropolitan will also conduct 

a separate Environmental Justice analysis to support federal agencies with their NEPA 

compliance requirements. 

Surrounding Environment 

This environmental planning documentation will be used to identify and develop measures to 

avoid and mitigate any potential adverse environmental effects of the PWSC. During the 

preliminary design work described above, ground-disturbing activities are limited to 

geotechnical investigations and utility potholing, which are permitted under a Categorical 

Exclusion as the anticipated holes are six inches or less in diameter and they occur in previously 

disturbed areas. Impacts associated with the boreholes are negligible and temporary and will be 

located to make sure that there are no adverse effects to sensitive resources. Impacts to the 

surrounding environment during construction and operation will be analyzed in the EIR. The 

various impacts and typical mitigation measures are summarized in Table 8 below. 

Table 8: Environmental Impacts and Typical Mitigation Measures 

Impact Typical Mitigation Measures 

Earthwork 

and Grading 

• Balance earthwork to minimize off-site transport of soil and debris 

• Incorporate of best management practices (BMP) into project construction 

Air Quality • Apply BMPs to avoid and minimize impacts to hydrology and biological 

resources such as silt fences, dust control, and street sweeping 

Water 

Quality 

• Prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) 

• Implement and maintain the facilities recommended in the SWPPP 

Noise • Schedule to avoid potential noise creating work near sensitive biological 

resources during nesting season 

• Require proper noise mitigation to construction equipment 

• Perform noise studies and provide noise mitigation 

Habitat •

•

•

Avoid construction activities where sensitive plant species are located, 

Use of trenchless technologies where pipelines cross sensitive habitats 

Implement of BMPs to minimize impacts 

Traffic • Perform traffic studies and implement BMP traffic control measures 

• Avoid locating facilities with heavy traffic/high community impacts 

24 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Species and Habitat 

As indicated above, the only physical environmental impacts during planning and LSWR 

Feasibility Study are associated with geotechnical and utility investigations would be negligible 

and temporary. Boreholes and access requirements would be located within areas that would not 

have direct or indirect effects on listed or otherwise sensitive species. Depending on the 

sensitivity of the habitat or time of year, a biological monitor would be present to ensure no 

impacts to sensitive environmental resources. The AWP will be constructed at the Sanitation 

Districts’ JWPCP site, which is highly developed and includes a portion of the former Fletcher 

Oil Refinery. There are no sensitive species or habitat within the AWP site. 

For the conveyance pipelines, desktop analyses for habitat assessment for rare plants and focused 

wildlife surveys were conducted as part of the environmental planning work. These studies 

identified sensitive biological resources within and/or adjacent to the pipeline alignment. This 

information will be used to address environmental impacts during design, construction, and 

operation of the PWSC. For example, trenchless construction methods, vegetation removal time 

constraints, and noise/disturbance buffers will be incorporated, as feasible, to avoid or minimize 

impacts. Biologists will be consulted during project design and biological monitoring would be 

implemented during future construction. 

Additionally, as mentioned in Criterion 2 (Environment and Water Quality), the PWSC would 

offset or reduce imported water from the SWP and the Colorado River. As more flows remain 

within the Delta and Colorado River watersheds, the project will increase sustainability and 

potentially improve the health of those two ecosystems, including Delta and Colorado River 

areas that have endangered species and sensitive habitat. 

Wetlands and Waters 

As indicated earlier, planning, and preliminary design activities could include geotechnical and 

utility boreholes, which would be located to ensure there are no adverse effects to sensitive 

resources. If boreholes are required in wetlands or waters of the United States, Metropolitan 

would comply with the terms and conditions required for authorization under Nationwide Permit 

No. 6. Metropolitan will continue to evaluate potential impacts to wetlands and waters of the 

United States as part of the construction and operation of the PWSC to avoid or minimize 

impacts. 

Reducing import water from the SWP and the Colorado River would have an overall increased 

benefit to the Delta and the Colorado River ecosystems as existing habitat would have water 

present for longer periods throughout the year. As a result, the existing wetlands and marshes in 

those areas would increase with the PWSC implementation. 

Construction of Water Delivery System 

The purpose of the PWSC is to plan, design and construct a new water supply and delivery 

system for the region. The new delivery system will consist of an AWP at the Sanitation 

Districts’ JWPCP in the city of Carson and conveyance pipelines from the AWP approximately 

40 miles to the Santa Fe Dam area near the San Gabriel mountains. The PWSC will provide a 

new source of reliable, climate resilient water. The completed PWSC will be able to convey 

150 mgd or up to 155,000 AFY for groundwater augmentation and raw water augmentation. 

25 
Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Irrigation System Modifications 

This criterion is not applicable to the planning and preliminary design of this funding request. 

Because the purified water is a new source of supply, the treatment facilities, pipelines, and 

pump stations will be new and will not modify any individual features of an existing irrigation 

system unless they conflict with PWSC facilities. If any treatment plant or pipeline construction 

impacts an existing irrigation system, the existing systems would be replaced in kind. New nonpotable or Title 22 systems water systems suitable for the irrigation of parks, landscape or other 

non-potable uses may be constructed as part of the PWSC in the area at and around the treatment 

plant. The extent of these new facilities would be developed as part of the PWSC during the 

Environmental Planning Phase and Preliminary Design. 

National Register of Historic Places 

This PWSC will identify and consider measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential 

adverse effects on cultural resources listed on or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places as part of the Environmental Phase work. As part of PWSC’s technical studies, 

an archaeological and built environment analysis, including pedestrian field surveys and a 

California Historic Information System record search will be conducted. The record search will 

identify any eligible or listed historic properties, while the pedestrian field survey will identify 

any resources with the potential for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and 

evaluate them for listing. Should National Register-eligible or listed resources be identified, 

mitigation measures will be developed to minimize impacts to the best extent feasible. 

Archeological Sites 

This PWSC will identify and consider measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential 

adverse effects on archaeological resources. As part of PWSC technical studies, an 

archaeological and built environment analysis, including pedestrian field surveys and a 

California Historic Information System record search will be conducted. The record search will 

identify any previously recorded archaeological resources, while the pedestrian field survey will 

identify archaeological sites with surface visibility. The PWSC will mitigate potential adverse 

effects on known archeological resources in the areas with PWSC facilities. Additional 

mitigation measures will be developed for unanticipated archaeological resources discoveries 

encountered during geotechnical investigations that require ground disturbance and during 

PWSC construction. 

Low Income and Minority Populations 

During the LSWR Feasibility Study, planning and design phase, the PWSC will identify lowincome and minority populations. This information will be used to assess and address 

environmental justice concerns and to ensure fair treatment and meaningful involvement of these 

communities. 

Tribal Lands 

This criterion is not applicable to the planning and design of this funding request. No federally 

recognized tribes or tribal lands exist within the PWSC alignment. 

26 
111. 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species 

This criterion is not applicable to the planning and design of this funding request. The PWSC 

will identify and implement measures to avoid introduction, the continued existence, or spread of 

noxious weeks or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area. 

Required Permits and Approvals 

The following is a partial list of the permits and approvals that are anticipated for the Project. A 

complete Permit Analysis will be performed as part of the Preliminary Design to prepare a 

permit list for the Project. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act & Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899: 

As indicated earlier, geotechnical boreholes may be required and may be located within waters 

of the U.S. These activities are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which are subject to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers regulatory authority. Geotechnical investigations are considered survey activities and 

would be authorized under Nationwide Permit No. 6 provided certain terms and conditions are 

met. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

As described above, boreholes would be located within areas that would not have direct or 

indirect effects on listed species. And although Critical Habitat traverses a small portion of the 

alignment, it is unlikely that the boreholes would be in this critical habitat within waters of the 

U.S. or federally owned property. If they would, Metropolitan would coordinate with 

Reclamation to determine the need for a Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Metropolitan would implement measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise not 

jeopardize threatened or endangered species. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

This PWSC will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. PWSC 

cultural resource technical studies include those for archaeological resources, built environment 

resources, and resources on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. These 

technical studies will be written consistent in a manner to provide evaluation under Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act and CEQA. Technical study language consistent with 

Section 106 will allow for timely submittal by the federal lead agency to the State Historic 

Preservation Office for review and concurrence. 

Title 22 California Code of Regulations 

Metropolitan and Sanitation Districts are coordinating with the SWRCB through the Division of 

Drinking Water (DDW) and the individual Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) 

for the Los Angeles and Santa Ana regions on the current demonstration project and final 

approval for the PWSC. 

DDW and the RWQCBs regulate groundwater recharge projects under Title 22 California Code 

of Regulations Division 4, Chapter 3. Groundwater replenishment regulations address the 

27 
IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

Metropolitan’s WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning Application 

protection of public health with respect to chemicals, microorganisms, and constituents of 

emerging concern. 

Basin Plan Objectives 

In addition to the Title 22 criteria, the PWSC will also target to meet the Los Angeles RWQCB 

Basin Plan objectives for the Main San Gabriel, West Coast, and Central Basins to have: 

• Total Nitrogen < 10 mg/L 

• Target boron concentration of 0.5 mg/L 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 

The JWPCP receives wastewater collected from homes, businesses, and industries, which is 

treated to produce non-nitrified secondary effluent in compliance with its National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits and mass emission benchmarks. The RO 

concentrate from the AWP will be discharged in compliance with the new Sanitation Districts 

NPDES permit that will include the PWSC flows. 

Official Resolution 

Metropolitan’s Board approval of the resolution is expected on March 13, 2023. Metropolitan 

will submit an official resolution within 30 days of the application. 

Letters of Support 

Letters of support from our partner agencies and a funding commitment letter from LACSD will 

be provided within 30 days of the application. 

Overlap or Duplication of Effort 

Metropolitan is seeking to leverage funding for PWSC from all known federal, state, and local 

funding sources to help offset the anticipated $4 -$5 billion PWSC cost to rate payers. The 

California Governor signed AB 179 in 2022 that included allocating $80 million to advance a 

regional recycled water program. Metropolitan’s Board authorized the use these state funds to 

initiate the PWSC design activities. The proposed LSWR Feasibility Study and identified 

preliminary design work will be funded by Reclamation with local match provided by LACSD 

and a portion of awarded state funding. 

Uniform Audit and Reporting Statement 

Metropolitan was not required to submit a Single Audit report in in the most recent fiscal year 

but will comply if and when necessary. 

28 
Budget Proposal 

Planned use for the grant funds include the following: (1) completion of a LSWR Feasibility 

Study for review and approval by Reclamation; (2) initiation of a feasibility, planning, and 

evaluation of DPR treatment technologies for the PWSC; and (3) planning and preparation of 

preliminary design of treatment of the side stream effluent from JWPCP. A summary of nonfederal and federal funding sources is provided in Table 1 below. Additionally, Table 2 

identifies costs that will be contributed by non-Federal cost share by the applicant, third-party inkind contributions, and those that will be covered using the funding request from Reclamation. 

Table 1: Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources 

Funding Sources Amount 

Non-Federal Entities 

Metropolitan Water District or State Water Resources Control 

Board (SWRCB) Grant 

$ 12,000,000 

Sanitation Districts $ 3,000,000 

Non-Federal Subtotal $ 15,000,000 

Requested Reclamation funding $ 5,000,000 

Table 2: Total Project Cost Table 

Source Amount 

Cost to be reimbursed with the requested Federal funding $ 5,000,000 

Costs to be paid by the applicant $ 12,000,000 

Value of third-party contributions $ 3,000,000 

Total project cost $ 20,000,000 

A breakdown of budgets for the LSWR Feasibility Study, the preliminary design for the initial 

reaches of the conveyance system, and the preliminary design of side stream effluent treatment is 

provided in Table 3. The breakdown between Metropolitan labor and consultant budgets is also 

shown. Note that these budgets will change based on the final consultant contracts which 

continue to be negotiated during this phase of the work. 

Table 3: Total LSWR Feasibility Study and Preliminary Breakdown 

Description Labor Consultants Materials Construction Total 

Feasibility Study $ 850,000 $1,100,000 $ 50,000 $ 0 $ 2,000,000 

Preliminary Design 7,650,000 9,900,000 450,000 0 18,000,000 

Final Design 0 0 0 0 0 

Construction 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Manager 0 0 0 0 0 

Total $8,500,000 $11,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 0 $20,000,000 

Refer to Budget Form SF424A for additional details of the breakdown of the costs that will be 

expended by the October 31, 2025, end of the Grant period. 
Budget Narrative 

The total application (project) budget of $20 million is proposed to be spent by 

October 31, 2025, the end date for the Grant. The budget includes a $5 million request from 

Reclamation and $15 million as local match from Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts. Of 

the $20 million project cost, approximately $2 million is for Development of the Feasibility 

Study, $12 million for preliminary design of initial reaches, and $4 million for preliminary 

design of centrate sidestream treatment as described in SF-424A. The table provides an 

approximate breakdown of the Preliminary Design costs that will be expended by the October 

31, 2025, end of the Grant period based on the projected cost of the Preliminary Design Services 

in Table 4 below. 

A description for each budget category is shown in Table 5 on page 3. 

Table 4: Estimated Preliminary Design Phase Budget Expenditures 

Budget Item 

Object Class Description 

Categories Salaries and Wages 

Computation 

$/Unit Quantity Type Total Cost 

6a Personnel Program Manager $114 3,763 hours $430,000 

Project Managers $114 7,525 hours $860,000 

Task Leads $88 9,749 hours $860,000 

Staff/Operators $63 27,235 hours $1,710,000 

Administration/ 

Project Controls 

$76 5,644 hours $430,000 

6b Fringe Benefits Full-Time Employees $4,290,000 0.9816 % $4,200,000 

6c Travel 

6d Equipment 

6e Supplies Materials $500,000 1 LS $500,000 

6f Contractual Consultants $11,000,000 1 LS $11,000,000 

6g Construction Contractor LS $0 

6h Other 

6i Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a - 6h) $20,000,000 

6j Indirect Charges $0 

6k TOTALS (sum of 6i - 6j) $20,000,000 

7 PROGRAM INCOME 

USBR WaterSMART GRANT (25%) $20,000,000 0.25 percent $5,000,000 

Total less Grant $15,000,000 

8c State Contributions 

8d Other Sources 

LACSD Contribution See text above 1 L.S. $3,000,0000 

N.A. N.A. $0 

N.A. N.A. $0 

SUBTOTAL OTHER SOURCES $0 

8b Applicant $12,000,000 
Table 5: Budget Narrative Descriptions 

No. Category Description 

1 Salaries and 

Wages 

The total budget for MWD employee salaries and wages are budgeted 

at $8,500,000. Metropolitan’s LSWR Feasibility Study and 

preliminary design activities will be managed by a PM Team under the 

direction of the Metropolitan Program Manager 

2 Fringe 

Benefits 

Fringe benefits for full-time employees are calculated at 98.16% of 

salary and include 22.64% for leave-related benefits, 40.00% for 

retirement, 17.13% for medical benefits and the remaining for nonleave-related benefits. 

3 Travel Minimal travel is required directly by Metropolitan for this Project. 

Any travel costs would be included in the Materials category. 

4 Equipment Equipment purchases have not been identified at this Project stage. 

5 Materials and 

Supplies 

Materials and supplies for the Project have been estimated as shown 

above based on experience with similar projects. No detailed estimates 

of materials and supplies has been prepared. 

6 Contractual Staff will conduct engineering and technical support studies when that 

expertise resides with existing staff; otherwise, RFPs will be prepared 

and issued to procure consultants to perform the specialized technical 

studies. No construction is required for this Project. 

7 3rd Party InKind 

Contributions 

The Sanitation Districts will contribute approximately $3,000,000 

based on the costs for the preliminary design of the sidestream centrate 

treatment system. 

8 Environmental 

/ Regulatory 

Compliance 

Cost 

Limited environmental compliance costs are anticipated during the 

LSWR Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design Phases. These costs 

would be included in item 6e – Supplies. 

9 Other 

Expenses 

Other expenses are not considered to be substantial and would be 

included in item 6e – Supplies if required. 

10 Indirect Costs No indirect costs are anticipated. 

11 Total Costs The total project budget for this grant is $20,000,000. Of the total cost, 

$5 million would come from federal sources. The remaining amount 

of $15 million will be the non-Federal cost share. 

Budget Form 

An SF-424A, Budget Information – Non-Construction Programs form has been completed as 

part of this proposal. Staff consulted with Reclamation to confirm the use of the form. 
\ 

\ \ 

\ 

........ , 

------~ 

l 

r I 

I i---

.......___ 

-I - \

: 

---

1 

i I 

N 

REDONDO 

BEACH 

PASADENA

OCEANSIDE 

ESCONDIDO 

San Vicente 

Reservoir 

Sweetwater SAN DIEGO Reservoir 

Upper Otay 

Reservoir Lower Otay 

Reservoir 

A U N I T E D S T T E S 

M E X I C O 

NEWPORT BEACH 

DO RA LO CO

CHINO 

SOUTH 

GATE 

FULLERTON 

ANAHEIM 

SANTA ANA 

IRVINE 

LAGUNA 

HILLS 

LAGUNA 

BEACH 

DANA 

POINT 

SAN FERNANDO 

SIMI VALLEY 

ARLETA CAMARILLO CANOGA FOO

SAN MARINO 

OXNARD PARK T

THOUSAND NK HI

VAN BAR

L

U

L 

OAKS B

NUYS GLENDALE 

PASADENA 

INLAND LOS COVINA EMPIRE ANGELES ONTARIO POMONA UTILITIES 

MALIBU AGENCY THREE 

VALLEYS 

MWD 

WESTERN 

MUNICIPAL 

WATER 

DISTRICT 

EASTERN 

MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL WATER WATER DISTRICT DISTRICT OF 

ORANGE 

COUNTY 

SAN DIEGO 

COUNTY 

WATER 

AUTHORITY 

MWD 

RIVER 

Silverwood Los Angeles Lake Reservoir 

Garvey 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Perris 

Palos Verdes 

Reservoir 

Diamond 

Valley Lake 

LAKE 

ELSINORE 

Lake 

Skinner 

Olivenhain 

Reservoir 

SWP EAST 

BRANCH 

Inland Feeder 

Project 

Foothill 

Feeder 

Jensen Water Treatment Plant 

Weymouth Water Treatment Plant 

Mills 

Filtration 

Plant 

Skinner 

Water Treatment Plant 

Pyramid 

Lake 

Castaic 

Lake 

SWP WEST 

BRANCH 

S T A T E S U N I T E D 

M E X I C O 

Desert 

Water 

Metropolitan Agency 

Water

District 

Coachella

Valley Water

District 

Imperial

Irrigation

District 

Lake

Havasu 

Fort Mojave 

Indian Reservation 

California Chemehuevi Aqueduct Indian Reservation 

Colorado River Parker Dam Aqueduct 

Colorado 

River 

Indian 

Reservation 

Coachella

Canal 

All American

Canal Imperial 

Dam 

Yuma Project 

Reservation Division 

Colorado River 

PACI F IC 

OCEAN 

Palo Verde 

Irrigation 

District 

S a l t o n S e a 

UPPER 

SAN GABRIEL 

VALLEY 

MWD 

Diemer Water Treatment Plant 

Lake Mathews 

CALIFORNIA ENTITIES USING COLORADO RIVER WATER 

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 

METROPOLITAN’S 

MEMBER AGENCIES 

LEGEND 

Department of Water Resources’ California Aqueduct 

Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct 

Water Treatment Plants 

SANTA MONICA 

CALLEGUAS MWD 

LOS ANGELES 

LAS VIRGENES 

MWD 

AQ

WEST BASIN MWD BEVERLY HILLS UEDUCT 

CENTRAL 

WEST BASIN COMPTON MWD 

E CNAR

 BASIN ROT

 MWD LONG BEACH 

CLEVELAND

 NATIONAL

 FOREST

Live Oak 

Res. 

agencymap 11x17 horz 2_1_2011.ai 
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Jj" Mixed Sources LI\ Productgroupfromwell managed +,J forestsandrecycledwoodorf1ber 

FSC ~~~~~Stew.ird,hlpCouncll 

Metropolitan’s Member Agencies and Communities Served 

Anaheim Compton Coto De Caza Rainbow Valinda 

Beverly Hills Eastern Municipal Water District Cypress Ramona West Covina 

Burbank French Valley Dana Point Rancho San Diego West Basin Municipal Water District 

Calleguas Municipal Water District Good Hope Emerald Bay Rancho Santa Fe Alondra Park 

Hemet Fountain Valley San Diego Carson Camarillo 

Homeland Garden Grove San Marcos Culver City Camarillo Heights Juniper Flats Huntington Beach Santee Del Aire Lake Sherwood 

Lakeview Irvine Solana Beach El Camino Village Las Posas Valley Mead Valley Laguna Beach Spring Valley El Segundo Moorpark Menifee Laguna Hills Valley Center Gardena Naval Base Ventura County Moreno Valley Laguna Niguel Vista Hawthorne Newbury Park Murrieta Laguna Woods San Fernando Hermosa Beach 

Oak Park Murrieta Hot Springs La Habra San Marino Howard 

Oxnard Nuevo Lake Forest Santa Ana Inglewood Port Hueneme North Canyon Lake Las Flores Santa Monica Ladera Heights 

Santa Rosa Valley Perris La Palma Three Valleys Municipal Water District Lawndale 

Simi Valley Quail Valley Los Alamitos Azusa Lennox 

Somis Romoland Midway City Charter Oak Lomita 

Thousand Oaks San Jacinto Mission Viejo Claremont Malibu 

The mission of the Central Basin Municipal Water District Sun City Newport Beach Covina Manhattan Beach 

Artesia Temecula Orange Covina Hills Marina Del Rey 

Metropolitan Water District Bell Valle Vista Placentia Diamond Bar Palos Verdes Estates 

Winchester Rancho Santa Margarita Glendora Rancho Palos Verdes Bellfower 

Foothill Municipal Water District Rossmoor Industry Redondo Beach of Southern California Bell Gardens 

Altadena San Clemente La Verne Rolling Hills Carson 

La Cañada Flintridge San Juan Capistrano Pomona Rolling Hills Estates is to provide its service area Cerritos La Crescenta Seal Beach Rowland Heights Ross-Sexton Commerce 

with adequate and reliable Montrose South West Anaheim San Dimas San Pedro Compton Fullerton Stanton South San Jose Hills Topanga Canyon Cudahy Glendale Tustin Walnut Torrance supplies of high-quality water to Downey Inland Empire Utilities Agency Tustin Foothills West Covina View Park 

East Los Angeles Chino Villa Park Torrance West Athens meet present and future needs Florence-Graham Chino Hills Westminster Upper San Gabriel Valley West Hollywood 

Hawaiian Gardens Fontana Yorba Linda Municipal Water District Westmont in an environmentally and Huntington Park Montclair Pasadena Arcadia Windsor Hills 

La Habra Heights Ontario San Diego County Water Authority Avocado Heights Western Municipal Water District economically responsible way. Lakewood Rancho Cucamonga Alpine Azusa of Riverside County 

La Mirada Upland Bonita Baldwin Park Canyon Lake 

Lynwood Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Bonsall Bassett Corona 

Maywood Agoura Camp Pendleton Bradbury Eagle Valley 

Montebello Agoura Hills Carlsbad Covina Eastvale 

Monterey Park Calabasas Chula Vista Duarte El Sobrante 

Chatsworth Del Mar El Monte Elsinore Norwalk 

Hidden Hills El Cajon Glendora Jurupa Valley Paramount 

Lake Manor Encinitas Hacienda Heights Lake Elsinore Pico Rivera Malibou Lake Escondido Industry Lake Mathews Santa Fe Springs Monte Nido Fallbrook Irwindale Lee Lake Signal Hill Westlake Village Jamul La Puente March Air Reserve Base Post Office Box 54153South Gate West Hills Lakeside Monrovia Murrieta 

Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153South Whittier Long Beach La Mesa North Whittier Norco 

Vernon Los Angeles Lemon Grove Rosemead Perris 

www.mwdh2o.com Walnut Park Municipal Water District Leucadia San Gabriel Riverside 

www.bewaterwise.com West Whittier-Los Nietos of Orange County Mount Helix South El Monte Rubidoux

Whittier Aliso Viejo National City South Pasadena Temecula 

XX% 

Cert no XXX-XXX-XXXX 

Willowbrook Brea Oceanside South San Gabriel Temescal Canyon 

Buena Park Pauma Valley Spy Glass Hill Woodcrest 

Costa Mesa Poway Temple City 1/14 60m