Title XVI – Water Reclamation and

Reuse

WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination

Planning 

Funding for Fiscal Year 2023 

Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R23AS00076

San José-Santa Clara Purified Water Program Feasibility Study

Santa Clara Valley Water District

February 2023

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Point of Contact:

David Tucker

Associate Engineer

Recycled and Purified Water Unit

5750 Almaden Expressway

San José, CA 95118

Dtucker@valleywater.org

Tel: 408-630-3203
Table of Contents 

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

Applicant ....................................................................................................................... 1

Project Summary and Location .................................................................................... 1

Technical Project Description........................................................................................................ 2

San José-Santa Clara Purified Water Program Feasibility Study, Financial 

Capability Determination, and Pre-Final Design Activities and Coordination............ 3

Task 1 – Project Management..................................................................................... 3

Task 2 – Title XVI Feasibility Study and Report........................................................... 3

Task 3 – Financial Capability Determination .............................................................. 7

Task 4 – Pre-Final Design Activities and Coordination............................................... 8

Task 5 – Grant Administration ..................................................................................... 8

Technical Proposal: Evaluation Criteria........................................................................................ 8

Evaluation Criterion 1 – Project Planning and Analysis (30 points) .......................... 8

Evaluation Criterion 2 – Stretching Water Supplies (20 points)..............................13

Evaluation Criterion 3 – Environment and Water Quality (20 points) .....................15

Evaluation Criterion 4 – Department of Interior Priorities (15 points)....................17

Evaluation Criterion 5 – Watershed Perspective (15 points)...................................19

Required Permits or Approvals ............................................................................................21

Project Budget.......................................................................................................................30

Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment ................................................................30

Funding Commitment Letters.....................................................................................30

Budget Proposal..........................................................................................................34

Budget Narrative .........................................................................................................35

Overlap or Duplication of Effort Statement.........................................................................38

Uniform Audit Reporting Statement ....................................................................................38

Conflict of Interest Statement..............................................................................................38

Letters of Support.................................................................................................................39

Official Resolution.................................................................................................................47

Individual SF-424 Forms ......................................................................................................49

ii
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Abbreviations

AF acre-feet

AFY acre-feet per year

AWPF advanced water purification

facility 

CalEPA California Environmental

Protection Agency 

CEC constituent of emerging 

concern

CEQA California Environmental

Quality Act

CoRe Plan Countywide Water Reuse

Master Plan

CVP Central Valley Project

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

FAC 09-01 Reclamation Manual

Directives and Standards,

Cost Estimating

Feasibility Study San José Purified Water

Program Feasibility Study

GWR groundwater recharge

LGRS Los Gatos Recharge System

MGD million gallons per day

NEPA National Environmental

Policy Act

NOFO Notice of Funding 

Opportunity

NPDES National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System

NPR non-potable reuse

NPR+ blend of tertiary treated

effluent and purified water

to improve recycled water

quality

O&M operations and

maintenance

O3/BAC ozone and biologically 

activated carbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PR potable reuse

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

RO reverse osmosis

ROC reverse osmosis

concentrate

RWA

RWF 

RWS 

SB 

SBWR 

SFPUC 

SJ-SC

SJMWS 

SVAWPC 

SWP 

TWA 

UWMP

Valley Water

WSMP

WTP 

WTR 11-01

WTR 11-02

WTR TRMR 128 

WWTP 

raw water augmentation

San José-Santa Clara

Regional Wastewater

Facility

SFPUC’s Regional Water

System

Senate Bill

South Bay Water Recycling 

San Francisco Public

Utilities Commission

San José-Santa Clara

San José Municipal Water

System

Silicon Valley Advanced

Water Purification Center

State Water Project

treated water augmentation

urban water management

plan

Santa Clara Valley Water

District

Water Supply Master Plan

2040 

water treatment plant

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Manual Directives and

Standards WTR 11-01

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Manual Directives and

Standards WTR 11-02

Reclamation Manual

Directives and Standards

Temporary Reclamation

Manual Release WTR TRMR

128

wastewater treatment plant

iii
 

 

 

WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning 

Technical Proposal and Evaluation Criteria

Executive Summary 

Applicant

Santa Clara Valley Water District, San José, California. 

David Tucker, Associate Engineer, Recycled and Purified Water Unit, Santa Clara Valley 

Water District, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San José, CA 95118, Dtucker@valleyWater.org,

Tel: 408-630-3203.

February 28, 2023

Project Summary and Location

Summarize the pmject in one pamgraph. Specify the work proposed, including how funds will be used to 

accomplish specific activities, and bdeRy identify how the pmposed activities contribute to accomplishing 

the goals and objectives of this NOFO. 

The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) serves nearly two million people in Santa

Clara County by providing a reliable and safe supply of water. As the region faces water

supply challenges driven by recurring droughts, growth in population and businesses, and

variabilities of imported water, Valley Water is looking to invest in locally sourced, reliable, 

sustainable, and efficient water supplies such as recycled and purified water. The study area

encompasses portions of

the City of San José and City 

of Santa Clara as shown in

Figure 1. Valley Water

identified and evaluated

several reuse opportunities

in the region as part of the

recently completed

Countywide Water Reuse

Master Plan (CoRe Plan), 

including a potential new

advanced water purification

facility (AWPF) adjacent to

the existing Silicon Valley 

Advanced Water Purification

Center (SVAWPC) and the

San José-Santa Clara

Regional Wastewater Figure 1. San José Purified Water Feasibility Study Area (North County) Facility (RWF) in San José

for potable reuse through either groundwater recharge, raw water augmentation, or treated

water augmentation. Valley Water and its partners, the City of San José and City of Santa

Clara (Partner Agencies), would use funds from this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) to

further assess this project opportunity through the development of a Title XVI Feasibility 

1
Study. Developing a feasibility study would align with the goals and objectives of this NOFO

by advancing planning, environmental, and preliminary design activities related to a new 

AWPF and conveyance infrastructure. A feasibility study is anticipated to take up to 24

months to complete, concluding by October 2025. The proposed project will not modify and/ 

or directly involve any federal facility or federal land but would potentially alleviate reliance

on water deliveries from the Central Valley Project (CVP).

Technical Project Description

The project description should describe the proposed work, including specific activities that will be 

accomplished. Describe the project As part of this discussion, please address the following: 

• Applicant Catego,y: Funding Group I or Funding Group II 

• Eligibility of Applicant: Please write a narrative summaty indicating how the applicant meets the 

eligibility requirements, as described in Section C.1. Bigible Applicants. 

• Goals: Discuss the goals and objectives for the proposed activities. 

• Approach: Provide a comprehensive description of your planned approach 

Valley Water is a special district that provides water resources management (water supply,

groundwater sustainability, flood protection, and stream stewardship) for the County. Under

this grant application, Valley Water is seeking funding assistance for the following items:

Development of a project feasibility study that meets all the requirements of the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Manual Directives and Standards WTR 11-01 

(WTR 11-01) and draft requirements for Reclamation Manual Directives and

Standards Temporary Reclamation Manual Release WTR TRMR 128 (WTR TRMR

128);

Completion of the Financial Capability Determination that meets the criteria of

Reclamation Manual Directives and Standards WTR 11-02 (WTR 11-02); and

Consultation and coordination on actions needed to complete the environmental

documentation needed for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.

The proposed study will focus on assessing the feasibility of constructing a new AWPF in San

José for potable reuse through groundwater recharge, raw water augmentation, and/or

treated water augmentation. Since the total project cost is anticipated to be greater than

$500 million, Valley Water is seeking funding under Funding Group II. 

If deemed feasible, the proposed facility would help Valley Water reach the goal of at least

10% of the total County water demands being met by drought-resilient recycled and purified

water. The project would also support the Valley Water Board of Director’s long-term goal of

producing up to 24,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of purified water for potable reuse (drinking 

water) by the year 2040. Beyond these reuse specific goals, the proposed study would offer

Valley Water and the Partner Agencies an avenue to explore ways to further leverage existing 

infrastructure, build on existing planning studies, and serve as a basis for further

collaboration, interagency agreements, and governance related to residuals management, 

permitting, and land use decisions.

2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San José-Santa Clara Purified Water Program Feasibility Study, Financial Capability

Determination, and Pre-Final Design Activities and Coordination

The following is the proposed San José-Santa Clara Purified Water Program Feasibility Study 

scope of work that provides the entire planning, engineering, environmental, economic,

public information, and administrative management tasks needed to undertake the

Feasibility Study investigations. Also included is the scope to complete the Financial

Capability Determination that Reclamation requires before disbursing Federal funding for

construction activities. The products of this scope of work are the Feasibility Study and

Financial Capability Determination. As noted in the following discussion, significant

information will be drawn from the planning and preliminary engineering work conducted

ahead of the preparation of this Feasibility Study. A more formal consultation with 

Reclamation is needed to develop the scope and timetable to complete the environmental

documentation needed for NEPA compliance.

Task 1 – Project Management

Task 1.1 Administration

Valley Water is responsible for the overall management responsibilities. The prime

consultant, hired specifically for this project, will manage, compile invoicing, conduct

administration and documentation of subconsultants’ activities, and report directly to Valley 

Water. Valley Water and the prime consultant will hold periodic progress status meetings

and up to three stakeholder workshops to be scheduled at specific milestones during the

Feasibility Study development process.

Task 1.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

Stakeholder engagement and outreach is critical to all phases of the project. It supports

planning, environmental, and project development and includes the following activities:

Support of project public outreach and communication needs. 

Stakeholder engagement and relations. 

Public meetings and workshops support.

Task 2 – Title XVI Feasibility Study and Report

The scope of work supports Valley Water’s intent to prepare a Feasibility Study that will

identify the most feasible program alternatives in accordance with U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation’s WTR 11-01. The tasks below follow the outline of WTR 11-01 and WTR TRMR

128 and define the product of the Feasibility Study Report. The sequence of report sections

does not necessarily represent the time sequence of tasks to conduct the study. The study

will build on planning and preliminary engineering work that has been completed to date.

Task 2.1 Introductory Information

Basic information regarding the project, Valley Water, and the study area will be summarized

based on planning and preliminary engineering studies completed to date and updated with 

available new information. 

Task 2.2 Statement of Problems and Needs 

This task provides a description of the study area’s key water resource management

problems and needs for which water reclamation, recycling, or desalination may provide a

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

described and quantified. 

solution. Valley Water plans to leverage information from other studies and current drought

and climate data to inform development of the water supply picture in the study area. 

The statement of problems and needs will describe: 

Problem and Need for a Water Reclamation, Recycling, or Desalination Project. A

broad view of the study area’s water resources, including challenges such as

growing population, reduction of surface water supplies, groundwater resources, 

climatic change, and increasingly stringent wastewater discharge requirements. 

Current and Projected Water Supplies. Current and projected water supplies for the

study area will be

Current and Projected Water Demands. A summary of current and projected water

demands through 2040; water use by general end use category (e.g., municipal, 

environmental, agricultural); population served and associated water quality 

requirements. 

Water Quality Concerns for the Current and Projected Water Supply. A summary of

water quality issues pertaining to water supply (mainly groundwater) and

wastewater.

Current and Projected Wastewater and Disposal Options other than the Proposed

Title XVI project and Plans and Project Costs for New Wastewater Facilities. A

summary of current and projected wastewater amounts (annual and monthly) and

disposal options; wastewater disposal locations; planned wastewater facility

improvements and/or expansions, including projected costs.

Task 2.3 Water Reclamation, Recycling, or Desalination Opportunities 

This task will summarize the opportunities for water reclamation, recycling, and desalination

providing information for federal requirements specified in WTR 11-01 listed below: 

Uses and market for water reuse. 

Water market available to use recycled water to be produced. 

Considerations that may prevent water reclamation, recycling, or desalination

program implementation. 

Water and wastewater agencies with jurisdiction in the potential service area or over

source water for reuse.

Potential reuse source water origin, including impaired surface and groundwaters.

Location of source water facilities.

Current water reuse volumes, treatment technologies, and opportunities for

developing improved technologies. 

Task 2.4 Analysis of Alternatives and Feasibility Study Report

The following information is required by WTR 11-01 and WTR TRMR 128 for the analysis and

selection of alternatives. These topics are required in the Feasibility Study Report. 

Task 2.4.1 Non-Federal Funding Future Actions 

This task provides a baseline for the “no project” alternative by identifying actions Valley 

Water might take if no federal funding is provided. 

4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to develop an equitable benefit to 

will require more detailed definition than the alternatives in 

specific context for the proposed infrastructure. 

determine the hydraulic grade line under anticipated peak demand month flows. 

Task 2.4.2 Project Objectives 

In coordination with Valley Water, the prime consultant will develop a draft framework for

decision-making to use throughout the evaluation and selection of alternatives. The

methodology includes selecting project objectives (e.g., unit cost of product water, regulatory 

complexity, environmental impacts, water quality, operational complexity, public support, 

etc.) and assigning weighting factors for each objective to evaluate and score alternatives.

Task 2.4.3 Alternatives Considered

Based on the planning and preliminary engineering work completed to date, three

alternatives including the No Project alternative will be formulated to meet project

objectives. These alternatives will receive a reconnaissance-level analysis, and the project

objectives will be applied to support collaborative selection of the proposed project

alternative in Task 2.4.4. The following subtasks will be conducted to develop information

and costs for the three alternatives: 

Alternative Formulation. Formulate conceptual alternatives to meet objectives and

Valley Water. Per WTR TRMR 128, alternatives will

identify and evaluate trade-offs among stakeholders and resources. Determine the

viability of an alternative through an evaluation of its acceptability, efficiency, 

effectiveness, and completeness. Consider impacts of climate change in the tradeoff analysis and the comparison of alternatives. 

Layout of Alternatives. Project layouts of the pipeline routes and locations of the

treatment, wells, storage, pumping facilities, and environmental projects.

Cost Estimates. Estimated costs will include capital, annual operation and

maintenance, replacement, and life-cycle costs.

Task 2.4.4 Proposed Project Description

The proposed project

Task 2.4.3. The proposed Project will be selected by Valley Water (in collaboration with its

Partners) applying the objectives discussed in Task 2.4.2. The following subtasks will be

conducted on the proposed project: 

Layout of Alternative. Develop project layouts of the pipeline routes and locations of

the treatment, storage, well, environmental projects and pumping facilities.

Geotechnical Review. Address existing geologic and geotechnical conditions in a

regional and project- Describe

geologic conditions including topography, stratigraphy, faulting, and seismicity. 

Hydraulic Analysis. Evaluate the hydraulics of the proposed distribution system to

Cost Estimates. Develop cost estimates including capital, annual operation and

maintenance, replacement, and life-cycle costs as required for feasibility studies in

Reclamation Manual Directives and Standards, Cost Estimating (FAC 09-01) and in

alignment with the requirements specified in WTR TRMR 128.

Discharge Requirements. Describe anticipated effluent treatment and disposal

water quality requirements for the proposed project. 

5
Alternative Measures or Technologies. Identify and summarize alternative

measures, or technologies available to the proposed project for water reclamation,

distribution, and reuse. 

Task 2.4.5 Economic Analysis 

An economic analysis for the project will be conducted, including: 

A life-cycle cost analysis to compare the three alternatives to determine the most

cost-effective alternative. The life-cycle costs analysis calculates annual capital costs

of implementing alternatives over a 30-year and 100-year period of analysis using

the current real discount rate and adds annual operations and maintenance costs.

The economic benefits of the proposed project alternative relative to the No Project

alternative using other water supply options, assuming costs are readily available. 

Water supply benefits of the proposed alternative will be calculated using the

avoided costs from the non-recycled water alternative most likely to be implemented

in the absence of the project. 

In addition, the prime consultant will perform a non-quantifiable benefits analysis to

qualitatively describe the difficult-to-quantify benefits such as drought tolerant water supply 

and other social or environmental benefits. These qualitative benefits will be incorporated as

part of the justification for the Project in conjunction with the comparison of project costs. 

Task 2.4.6 Recommended Project Alternative 

Following Tasks 2.4.3 and 2.4.5, the prime consultant will score and rank the alternatives in

coordination with Valley Water and perform a sensitivity analysis to determine the effects of

scores and/or weighting on resulting ranks. Based on the outcome of this exercise, the

prime consultant will recommend a project alternative. 

Task 2.4.7 Environmental Considerations and Potential Effects 

This task will provide an overview of anticipated potential environmental effects, regulatory 

requirements, and compliance measures. The analysis will focus on the selected Project

alternative. Final environmental analysis (not part of this task) will be completed after a

finding of feasibility. The following topics required by WTR 11-01 will be addressed at a

reconnaissance level: 

- Potentially significant impacts , 

- Potentially significant environmental effects , 

Status of required environmental compliance measures,

Measures necessary to comply with NEPA and other laws, 

Water supply and water quality, 

Public involvement, and 

Potential effects on historic properties. 

Task 2.4.8 Legal and Institutional Requirements 

This task will describe the project’s institutional framework, interactions with other agencies

and legal requirements. Significant information will be derived from the planning-level

engineering work completed to date. Specific topics to be addressed include: 

Water rights issues

6
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

financially capable of funding the non 

otential research needs identified during the 

financial analysis. Prior to federal funds being disbursed for project construction activities, a 

financial ca 

. This task reflects an update to and expansion of 

financial statement da 

roject cost allocation to reflect the current cost estimate, which defines the 

federal financing plan and status from 

Legal and institutional issues

Multi-jurisdictional or interagency agreements

Permitting procedures

Current and projected wastewater discharge requirements

Rights to wastewater

Task 2.4.9 Financial Capability of Sponsor

Under this task, the prime consultant will summarize Valley Water’s financial capability to

fund or repay their respective share of costs. The following information will be addressed: 

Proposed schedule for implementing the recommended project alternative.

Willingness of the project sponsor to pay for its share of capital costs and the full

operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.

A plan for funding the recommended project alternative’s construction, operation, 

maintenance and replacement costs, including analyzing the project sponsor’s

funding for such costs.

Description of funding sources and restrictions on such sources.

Detailed analysis will be provided in the separate Financial Capability Report (Task 3 of this

grant proposal) to demonstrate that Valley Water (the non-federal project sponsor) is

-federal share of the project’s costs before a funding 

agreement covering construction can be executed.

Task 2.4.10 Research Needs 

Develop and summarize p feasibility study.

Task 2.4.11 Independent Peer Review

The feasibility study will be independently peer reviewed. The number of reviews, reviewers, 

and nature of commentary including comment resolution will be summarized.

Task 3 – Financial Capability Determination

The purpose of the Financial Capability Determination is to develop a Reclamation-approved

pability determination must be approved by Reclamation to ensure non-federal

partners can provide their cost share

information provided in the feasibility report. 

Update Valley Water’s ta to enable Reclamation reviewers to

compare project investment costs to existing capital assets, project operation costs

to current operation costs, and annual project revenue to existing revenues.

Update p

federal and non-federal shares for the Valley Water. 

Collect information on the non- Valley Water

through emails and phone conference calls, or possibly at a meeting. The plans

should include details and documentation both for funding of the non-federal share

of construction (e.g., loans, grants, bonds) and for any required annual debt service

and annual project operations costs (e.g., user fees and tax assessments). 

7
Coordinate with Reclamation and possibly meet with Reclamation staff to better

understand review requirements identified in WTR 11-02; this shall be an

opportunity to propose a level analysis based on what Valley Water has available and

can provide. 

- Submit a draft financial capability report to Valley Water for their review. If

requested, Valley Water meetings will be scheduled to discuss comments. After

making revisions based on Valley Water review, the financial capability report w ill be

submitted to Reclamation. Responses to Reclamation questions and comments will

be prepared, and the financial capability report will be revised as necessary. 

Task 4 – Pre-Final Design Activities and Coordination

This task will allow Valley Water and the Partner Agencies to work with the Consultant on any 

site-specific investigations to gather design data, environmental and cultural resources

compliance activities, as-needed pre-final design tasks, and other project related

assessments that contribute towards project implementation.

Task 5 – Grant Administration 

Administration and reporting will be done in coordination with Valley Water as the primary 

fiscal agent for this feasibility study. Administration consists of assisting all involved

agencies with completing the feasibility study grant agreements and preparing semi-annual

reports for the duration of this feasibility study. 

Technical Proposal: Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criterion 1 – Project Planning and Analysis (30 points)

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

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

Valley Water supplies wholesale water to Santa Clara County’s approximately 2 million

residents and diverse water users, and a safe, reliable supply of clean water is vital for the

environmental, economic, and social well-being of the county. Currently, about half of the

water used in Santa Clara County is imported from outside the county, primarily through the

State Water Project (SWP) and CVP (total about 40%) and the San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission’s (SFPUC) Regional Water System (RWS) to retailers in the northern part of the

county (about 10%). Local supplies make up the balance of overall water use, with about

30% local surface water and groundwater, 5% recycled water, and 15% water conservation. 

Northern San José and Santa Clara face future water supply reliability challenges related to

a temporary, interruptible supply from SFPUC’s RWS. 

Valley Water’s supply portfolio is vulnerable to future severe droughts since it relies primarily 

on imported and local surface water and has limited drought resilient supplies. The greatest

challenge to Valley Water’s water supply reliability is multiple dry years when its main

sources of supply become depleted as drought conditions persist. During the 2012-2016 

drought and the ongoing current drought, Valley Water has faced challenges to meet its

Level of Service goal due to greatly reduced local and imported water supply and had to rely 

on water use reductions and emergency transfers/ purchases to mitigate drought risks.

Valley Water’s water supply challenges are expected to become greater with anticipated

climate change, recurring droughts, growing population and businesses, and increasing 

8
uncertainty about imported supply reliability. The past and ongoing droughts highlight the

importance of and need for drought resilient supply such as water recycling and desalination

to improve long-term water supply reliability. Therefore, it is imperative that Valley Water

prepare for future droughts with more resilient water supply alternatives to continue

providing Silicon Valley with safe, clean water for a healthy life, environment, and economy. 

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

on supply and demand imbalances. 

Currently, countywide demand is approximately 310,000 AFY on average and projected to

increase to 345,000 in 2045, as estimated by a 2020 Valley Water demand study. Demand

increases will largely be driven by population increase and economic growth. In any given

year, actual availability of each of Valley Water’s existing sources of supply depends on

hydrology, groundwater recharge operations, and conditions, among other factors. Generally, 

Valley Water’s existing supply is sufficient to meet county-wide demand during normal years,

but during critical dry years and multiple-year droughts, Valley Water faces water shortages

and must rely on short-term actions such as calls for water use reduction and emergency

transfers. To meet future demand, Valley Water plans to invest in maintenance of existing 

supplies and infrastructure and in a diverse suite of cost-effective projects including recycled

water and potable reuse, stormwater capture, conservation, and new storage identified in its

Water Supply Master Plan 2040 (WSMP). Valley Water’s current projected future demand

scenarios indicate that Valley Water will experience a water shortage starting 2030 without

adding water supply sources. Recycled and purified water is identified as an essential

component of Valley Water’s water supply portfolio to ensure water supply reliability for the

County through 2040. 

Climate change impacts such as warming temperatures, shrinking snowpack, increasing 

weather extremes, and prolonged droughts pose significant challenges for water resources

management. Climate change will impact both Valley Water’s demands and sources of

supply. As weather becomes drier and warmer in the future, Valley Water’s long-range

planning analysis indicates that climate change may increase annual demands to

approximately 360,000-375,000 acre-feet (AF) by mid-century primarily by increasing 

outdoor irrigation needs across all water use sectors and cooling needs in the commercial, 

industrial, and institutional sector. On the supply side, climate change will impact water

supply by changing the volume, timing, and quality of water that is available, both locally and

statewide (imported water). Therefore, climate change will make Valley Water’s problems

worse by increasing its service area demand while decreasing its surface water supply.

Through long-range master planning, Valley Water has been incorporating climate change

impacts into demand projections and future supply analysis. In fact, climate change is one

of key drivers of Valley Water’s long-term investment. Water supply modeling indicates that

locally developed and renewable water supplies such as the proposed AWPF are the most

drought and climate resilient projects, and Valley Water is prioritizing investments in

developing a water reuse program. 

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

desalinated water. 

Currently, reclaimed water in northern Santa Clara County is used for municipal and

industrial purposes, which helps free up other potable water supplies. There is existing 

steady demand for recycled water for applications including irrigation, dual plumbed toilets

9
 

WWTP 

Other losses 

Non-potable 

(including in-plant uses) 

~ Environmental 

flow requirements 

Remaining effluent 

 

 

 

(e.g., evaporation) 

and urinals, and cooling towers. In the future, purified water is envisioned to be expanded to

support indirect and/or direct potable reuse. 

To identify feasible opportunities for expanding reuse, Valley Water led development of a

CoRe Plan for Santa Clara County. Through development of the CoRe Plan, Valley Water and

participating partners (four wastewater treatment plants [WWTP] in the county) evaluated a

wide range of water reuse opportunities. As part of this effort, Valley Water and participating 

partners built upon and integrated existing planning-level studies and reports to identify 

water reuse projects (potable and non-potable) that demonstrate regional benefit, contribute

to regional resilience, and attain Valley Water’s potable reuse goal. Reuse projects were

combined into alternatives (portfolios), primarily distinguished by wastewater source (i.e., 

Partner Agencies’ facilities) and reuse type, and then evaluated for feasibility. The CoRe Plan

evaluated reuse alternatives that expand existing recycled water distribution systems for

non-potable reuse (NPR) and explored full advanced treatment (purification) for potable

reuse through groundwater recharge (GWR), raw water augmentation (RWA), and/or treated

water augmentation (TWA). 

The proposed feasibility study will further build on the work completed as part of the CoRe

Plan, considering changes that have occurred following the plan’s finalization (e.g., 

regulatory framework for direct potable reuse, including RWA and TWA). 

4. Describe the source water considered for the project, including location, capacities, existing Rows, 

treatment processes, and quantities of impaired water to meet the new recycled water demands. 

The source water to be considered under the proposed feasibility study is treated effluent

from the RWF which is the largest advanced WWTP west of the Mississippi River. The RWF

(Figure 1) treats wastewater flows from the cities of San José and Santa Clara (co-owners of

the RWF); the cities of Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno; and

County Sanitation District Nos. 2-3. 

Valley Water and San José established an agreement in 2010 to construct the SVAWPC. The

SVAWPC began operations in 2014 and currently produces purified water that is blended

into the South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) system to improve recycled water quality and

reduce total dissolved solids, referred to as NPR+ (i.e., improved recycled water quality for

non-potable reuse).

During the CoRe Plan

development, Valley Water

coordinated with San José to use

a flow balance approach to

estimate the availability of

source water (treated effluent) 

for purification to support

potable reuse (Figure 2). 

Figure 3 displays future WWTP 

influent projections from 2019 Figure 2. Flow balance approach for assessing availability of

source water remaining for purification and effluent needed to meet

SBWR’s future NPR+ projections

through 2040. Because no environmental flows or other losses were identified for the RWF, 

the remaining effluent available for discharge, blending, or additional reuse is calculated

simply as the difference between the projected WWTP influent flows and NPR+ demands

10 
 

 

120 

100 

80 

~ 

.S 60 

;;:: 

0 

u:: 40 

20 

0 

---------------------------- ----------------- 71-79mgd 

(average Range of future 

remaining influent projections 

effluent) 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

- Effluent Needed for NPR+ -SJ/ SC Influent 

and estimated at 71 to 79

million gallons per day (MGD) on

average (based on the range of

influent projections). Wastewater

availability may be impacted if

environmental flow requirements

are identified in the future. 

As of 2019, the estimated

remaining effluent available

exceeded the ~30 MGD AWPF

feed flow needed to produce 24

MGD of purified water

(considering treatment losses

and a 90% online factor) and Figure 3. Projected flow conditions at RWF considering projected achieve Valley Water’s goal of influent and SBWR NPR+ demands (2019 projections) developing 24,000 AFY for

potable reuse. Despite seasonal flow variability, historical influent data suggest the RWF has

sufficient effluent to produce 24 MGD of purified water year-round, though some effluent

may be needed for future discharge, blending, or other uses.

The existing SVAWPC produces purified water for blending with tertiary effluent from the

RWF to improve the water quality of SBWR’s non-potable recycled water. 

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

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

altematives and project altematives will be investigated? 

Alternatives will be evaluated by comparing them to one another based on the following 

criteria that reflect key objectives:

• Economics, including a comparison of each alternative’s total unit cost (e.g., cost per

acre-foot [$/AF]) reflecting capital, operations and maintenance (O&M), and

replacement (over an extended time period) costs of new treatment and conveyance

facilities; estimated life-cycle costs as a present value and funding capability. 

• Groundwater management and countywide supply reliability, including a comparison of

each alternative’s potable reuse water supply (AFY) based on future estimated flows and

design capacity; the number of delivery points included in the alternative; seasonality of

potable reuse (PR) supply and delivery point capacity; the dry year drought reliability; and

the ability to protect groundwater basin quality. 

• Environmental benefits/impacts and sustainability, including energy consumption, used

as a proxy for reducing carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions; environmental

protection, from a discharge and reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) management

perspective; and environmental protection, from a more general California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and NEPA perspective. 

• Ease of implementation and permitting/regulatory considerations, including each 

alternative having willing partner(s) interested in collaborating, providing ownership of

wastewater, offering operational simplicity, minimizing difficulty in obtaining permits for

PR, minimizing difficulty in obtaining permits for environmental regulations (including 

11 
ROC management and CEQA), being ready to proceed/reducing delays, gaining public

acceptance/support, and supporting environmental and social justice/equity. 

• Engineering feasibility, including using tested and proved technology, and meeting other

water quality requirements without difficulty, such as source control and/or monitoring 

requirements. 

2. Desclibe how the planning activities will develop project altematives (water supply sources, reuse 

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

The proposed feasibility study report will provide a framework for decision-making and

integrated actions to increase the region’s water supply reliability through water reuse. The

approach for developing alternatives will include:

1. Determine reuse supply availability. Identify sources and amounts of water available for

reuse; amount needed for environmental flows; the appropriate split between NPR and

PR; and regional, Valley Water, and local-level benefits from NPR and PR.

2. Identify projects for regional integration. Formulate several project alternatives

composed of project elements in two general categories: conveyance/ distribution

facilities (i.e., pipelines and pump stations) and treatment facilities. Collaborate with 

partners on residuals management, permitting, and land use decisions. Optimize use of

existing supply and infrastructure, improve system reliability and flexibility, and explore

redefining sewersheds. 

3. Develop alternative layouts and cost estimates. Determine treatment locations, 

treatment level, delivery points (where treated water is delivered for reuse), pipeline

routes, wells, storage, and pumping facilities. Cost estimates will include capital, annual

operation and maintenance, replacement, and life-cycle costs.

4. Evaluate trade-offs and viability of project alternatives. Determine acceptability, 

efficiency, effectiveness, and completeness of alternatives, and the climate change

impacts of each alternative. Analysis includes effects on the environment and

legal/institutional requirements.

5. Solicit input and generate regional support via coordination, third-party review, and

stakeholder outreach. Improve public perception of water reuse through outreach

programs.

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

costs, and analyses conducted. 

A San José-Santa Clara Purified Water Project centers on using available effluent from the

RWF to feed a new AWPF adjacent to the existing SVAWPC. At this location, SVAWPC staff

could potentially support new AWPF operation due to proximity. A benefit of using RWF

effluent as source water is that its flows are more than sufficient to meet Valley Water’s goal

for yield. Depending on the form of potable reuse selected, purified water could be delivered

to one or more of the following delivery points: 

• For GWR: Valley Water’s Los Gatos Recharge System (LGRS). Estimated capital cost is

$655M (in 2019 $). 

• For RWA: Valley Water’s Penitencia Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and from there, 

existing infrastructure could support operational flexibility, such as delivery to LGRS or

Rinconada WTP (with additional costs for improvements needed to connect existing 

systems), pending regulatory approval. Estimated capital cost is $650M (in 2019 $).

12 
• For TWA: Northern parts of Santa Clara and San José could receive purified water for

TWA to supplement water supply. For other water retailers, purified water would flow

south through either: (a) the existing Milpitas Pipeline, serving several turnouts

upstream of Piedmont Valve Yard before blending with other treated supplies and

distributing via the East Pipeline, or (b) a new dedicated pipeline before blending with 

other treated supply and distributing via the Milpitas Pipeline (flowing north) and the

East Pipeline. Existing infrastructure could support potential operational flexibility, such 

as delivery to LGRP or Rinconada WTP (with additional costs for improvements needed

to connect existing systems), pending regulatory approval. Estimated capital cost is

$555M to $605M (in 2019 $).

Valley Water has performed preliminary engineering, regulatory review, and cost estimating

for these alternatives. 

4. lncllld9 a f)ll)llmlna,ysdHJdu/8 showing 11111/of tasks, ml/lJ$(1)JNJ$, and dllt88 forth9 plannln& d9s/61I, and 

construction actMtltJS mlat«I fD th9 profect. 

The schedule for the 24-month project is presented in Figure 4. 

r 

Grant Administration 

Identify Problems and Needs 

Identify Water Reuse Opportunities 

Stakeholder Outreach 

Alternatives Analysis and Selection of Title XVI Project 

Alternatives Identification 

Alternatives Layouts and Cost Estimates 

Financial capability Determination 

NEPA/CEQA Evaluation 

Alternatives Evaluation 

Independent Peer Review 

Feasibility Study Report 

Prepare Draft for Reclamation Review 

Reclamation Review Period 

Finalize Report witl1 Reclamation Input 

Submit Final Report 

2023 

Q4 

2024 2025 

Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 

Figure 4. San José-Santa Clara Purified Water Feasibility Study Schedule 

Evaluation Criterion 2 – Stretching Water Supplies (20 points) 

1. DfJsai/JfJ the potfJntia/ forth9 profeet fD m/UCtJ, fJ()SlpOn(J, ortJ/iminatlJ th9 tkwtJlopment of 111W or 

e,pandld non-n,qded water supplies. 

Valley Water's demands are projected to increase from current 310,000 AFY to 345,000

AFY in 2045, as documented in the 2020 Demand Study. Population growth will largely drive

this demand and the Association of Bay Area Governments projects an increase in

population of approximately 500,000 for Santa Clara County. Valley Water’s long-range

planning indicates without new supply, Valley Water could face water shortage starting in

2030. To help meet this demand, Valley Water’s Board of Directors set an initial goal of

meeting 10% of the County’s total water demands through reuse by 2025 and a goal of

producing 24,000 AFY of purified water for potable reuse by 2040.

13 
The City of San José’s 2020 UWMP also anticipates an increase in water demand based on

the proposed development identified in the San José’s General Plan (Envision San José

2040). Population in the areas served by the San José Municipal Water System (SJMWS) is

projected to increase by approximately 90,000 over the next 25 years (starting in 2020).

Over the last 20 years (2000-2020), SJMWS averaged approximately 440 new service

connections per year. In 2020, the SJMWS service area water use totaled 17,546 acre-feet

(AF) of potable water and 4,097 AF of recycled water. Based on the population and jobs

growth rates outlined in their General Plan, San José projects potable water use will increase

to 33,552 AF and recycled water use to 7,413 AF. 

Valley Water’s proposed AWPF has the potential to produce 24 MGD for groundwater

recharge and yield about 24,000 AFY of supply. It could offset demand for potable water

supplies and, therefore, have the potential to reduce, postpone, or eliminate the

development of new or expanded non-recycled water supplies. 

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

Valley Water manages water supply and storage with a combination of local groundwater

basins, local reservoirs, imported water, and water reuse.

Natural groundwater recharge provides about 61,000 AFY on average for Santa Clara

County. Water supply modelling assumes groundwater can be drawn down to the severe

stage of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, but this does not represent a sustainable

long-term groundwater condition. 

Valley Water manages local reservoirs which are currently constrained by operating 

restrictions for seismic safety and are only able to supply an average of about 44,000 AFY. 

By 2040, surface water supplies are projected to provide about 83,000 AFY.

Imported water makes up a significant portion of water supply in Santa Clara County. Valley 

Water has a contract for 100,000 AFY of SWP water and 152,500 AFY of CVP water. 

However, there is declining Delta-conveyed imported water reliability and Valley Water

anticipates allocations to drop to an average of 133,000 AFY by 2040.

In addition, the City of San José operates the South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) Program

which delivers disinfected tertiary treated wastewater through a distribution system

consisting of over 150 miles of pipeline. Valley Water contributes a small amount of purified

water for blending with SBWR supply from its adjacent SVAWPC. 

Valley Water’s proposed AWPF will positively impact supply sources by reducing the demand

for imported water supply and water stored in reservoirs and groundwater aquifers. The

project may specifically benefit the Los Gatos recharge ponds and connected groundwater

aquifer by enhancing supply with advanced purified water conveyed through a newly 

constructed pipeline. The AWPF could also offset demand with RWA contributions to Valley 

Water’s Penitencia WTP and TWA contributions through blending with other treated supplies

and distributing via the existing or new pipelines. 

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

specific concem and its severity. Also explain the role of the project being investigated in addressing that 

concem and the extent to which the project will address it 

The proposed Valley Water AWPF will address water supply reliability and shortage concerns.

Valley Water supplies are vulnerable to drought, climate change, and outage of supply 

14 
infrastructure. Valley Water’s WSMP predicts a shortage by 2030 and identifies expansion of

recycled and purified water as a primary strategy to address this shortage. Operational and

regulatory constraints related to dam safety, flood risk, and flow levels for fisheries and

water quality can also impact water supplies. Additionally, SJMWS projects that a dry year or

multiple dry years would result in a supply shortage that would trigger the need to

implement conservation measures. SJMWS could experience cumulative supply shortages

between approximately 5-10% during a multi-year drought. 

The proposed AWPF would serve as an alternative supply to provide reliability during periods

of drought which could offset the projected dry-year supply shortfalls for San José and Santa

Clara. The AWPF would be able to generate supply by purifying tertiary treated water from

the RWF and conveying purified water to the Los Gatos recharge system. During dry periods, 

the recharge system recedes and opens more space for purified water to recharge the

groundwater aquifer. The Los Gatos recharge system and associated groundwater aquifers

would be able to provide supply of indirect potable reuse to meet demands while

maintaining sustainable groundwater levels.

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 

altemative water supply options? Explain. 

The AWPF would create additional flexibility to address drought with a sustainable source of

water that is available in all years and more drought resistant than other water supply 

options that are typically impacted by droughts. If constructed, the AWPF would produce 24

MGD for groundwater recharge and yield about 24,000 AFY of supply in all years. Because

the source is tertiary treated wastewater that is further purified, it will be available during 

drought periods. It is more drought resistant than alternative water supplies because it is

not dependent on rainfall and is less vulnerable to surface water supply constraints such as

minimum flow requirements. 

Evaluation Criterion 3 – Environment and Water Quality (20 points) 

1. Describe the project's potential to improve the quality of sudace water or groundwater. 

In the 1990s, projected population growth and the effluent discharge limitations set by the

RWF’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit inspired San José

and Valley Water to collaborate on the SBWR system to reuse tertiary treated effluent from

the RWF for non-potable purposes. Originally, SBWR was constructed to comply with 

regulations protecting salt marsh habitat by reducing effluent discharges to the San

Francisco Bay. In short order, SBWR’s water supply benefits became evident. 

The NPDES permit for the RWF limits dry weather influent flow to no more than 167 MGD to

limit treated effluent releases and protect the brackish estuarine water quality in the South 

San Francisco Bay. The proposed project may improve surface water quality in Artesian

Slough, Coyote Creek, and the South San Francisco Bay by reducing the volume of effluent

discharged by the RWF and diverting it to the proposed new AWPF for reuse. 

Artesian Slough, where the RWF outfall discharges effluent, is not listed as impaired,

although South San Francisco Bay is listed as impaired by chlordane, dieldrin, dioxin

compounds, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), invasive species, furan compounds, 

mercury, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), dioxin-like PCBs, and selenium. The RWF discharge

15 
is not a significant source of chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, or invasive species, but effluent

limitations on mercury, PCBs, dioxins, and furans in effluent must be monitored. 

The Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water Board acknowledge that

discharges to Artesian Slough are not supportive of estuarine habitat and that relocating the

discharge north of the Dumbarton Bridge is not economically or environmentally sound. 

Thus, the water boards allow discharges to Artesian Slough. The San Francisco Bay south of

the Dumbarton Bridge is a unique water body, with a limited capacity to assimilate

wastewater. Due to limited circulation, wastewater discharges to this area may take several

months to reach the ocean. In addition, the unique wetlands and ambient conditions of

South San Francisco Bay sometimes result in natural dissolved oxygen levels lower than the

Basin Plan’s receiving water limit of a minimum of 5.0 mg/L. The limited assimilative

capacity of South San Francisco Bay necessitates effluent BOD and TSS limitations that are

more restrictive than those required for secondary treatment. Diverting as much flow as

possible for reuse as part of the proposed project is expected to yield water quality and

habitat benefits.

In addition to surface water quality benefits, purified water will likely be used, at least in

part, to augment the Santa Clara Valley groundwater subbasin. If used to recharge, purified

water may improve groundwater quality incrementally over time with respect to specific

contaminants. Purified water from the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center, 

which also uses RWF source water and is treated using FAT, is of higher quality for many 

constituents than Santa Clara Valley groundwater samples on average, and the proposed

project’s purified water will be required to meet all drinking water quality Maximum

Contaminant Levels and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels set by the US 

Environmental Protection Agency. Contaminants such as chloride, chromium-6, arsenic,

barium, nickel, total dissolved solids, and nitrate are present in groundwater and levels of

these are expected to be lower in the project’s purified water used for groundwater

augmentation. 

2. Describe the potential for the project to improve emuent quality beyond levels necessa,y to meet State or 

Federal discharge requirements . 

The role of the WWTP has shifted in the context of PR. Whereas it has historically sought to

make waters suitable for environmental discharge, it is now viewed as the first and critical

barrier to creating a high-quality and consistent feedwater for the AWPF (Olivieri et al. 2016, 

Tchobanoglous et al. 2015). The State Expert Panel recommended that WWTPs feeding 

direct potable reuse AWPFs provide both biological nutrient removal and tertiary filtration

(Olivieri et al. 2016). Improvements to water quality may: 

• provide greater degrees of pathogen reduction or inactivation,

• decrease the concentration of organic compounds and constituents of emerging

concern (CECs), and/or

• improve the performance of downstream processes.

Ozone and biologically activated carbon (O3/BAC) pre-treatment included in the proposed

treatment train can also improve the quality of the overall effluent stream released to the

Bay, including blended ROC. O3/BAC breaks down, biodegrades, and removes organic

compounds before the reverse osmosis (RO) separates those compounds into the

concentrate stream. With O3/BAC pre-treatment, both the RO feed and the concentrate have

lower concentrations of organic contaminant material. This additional benefit of O3/BAC pre16 
17 

treatment may allow for easier RO concentrate management and discharge, particularly 

regarding the control of toxic organic compounds and CECs (Kenny, J. et al. 2018).

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

Los Gatos Creek flow may be used to recharge Los Gatos Recharge Ponds, and if purified 

water from the proposed project is used for recharge, creek flows could be maintained at 

higher levels and used for additional habitat restoration purposes. 

If purified water is used for GWR, RWA, or TWA, reliance on imported water from the CVP and

SWP could be reduced. Although the individual project won’t make a huge impact toward 

restoring flows immediately, it can contribute towards maintaining flows in stream channels 

throughout the state such as the Trinity River, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, Feather 

River, Tuolumne River, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

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

Leaving water in Los Gatos Creek could enhance habitat for non-listed species such as 

ducks (American Wigeon, Ring-necked Duck, Lesser Scaup, Bufflehead, Common 

Goldeneye, Hooded and Common Merganser), Common Gallinule, Wilson’s snipe, Gulls 

(Ring-billed, California, Herring, Iceland, Glaucous-winged), herons and egrets, Belted 

Kingfisher, and Cedar waxwing (Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, 2022). 

Streams that feed the CVP, SWP, and SFPUC RWS provide water and habitat for many nonlisted waterfowl, turtles, insects, and fish, and leaving water in those streams may enhance 

habitat for a variety of wildlife that use the streams. 

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

endangered species. 

Leaving water in Los Gatos Creek would enhance habitat for federally-listed species such as 

Central California Coast steelhead DPS, Pacific lamprey, Southern coastal roach, Western 

Pond turtle, tricolored blackbird, golden eagle, western snowy plover, northern harrier, whitetailed kite, peregrine falcon, San Francisco common yellowthroat, bald eagle, and San 

Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. 

The Delta is home to over 750 animal and plant species, many of them threatened or 

endangered. Leaving water in streams that feed the CVP, SWP, and SFPUC RWS could 

provide water and habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species such as 

Central California Coast steelhead DPS, Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon ESU, Pacific 

lamprey, Southern coastal roach, and Western Pond turtle. 

Evaluation Criterion 4 – Department of Interior Priorities (15 points) 

Please describe how the project will address climate change. Provide specific details and examples on how 

the project will address the impacts of climate change and help combat the climate crisis. 

To adapt to increasing uncertainties and secure a reliable, sustainable water supply for the 

region’s future, Valley Water’s Board of Directors set a goal to meet at least 10% of Santa 

Clara County’s total water demands with recycled and purified water for non-potable and 

potable reuse by 2025 to improve resilience to future uncertainties, including drought and 

climate change. The Board also established a long-term goal of producing a total of 24,000 

AFY of purified water for potable reuse (drinking water) to bolster supplies. Complementing 
18 

the potable reuse goal, Valley Water estimates that 28,000 AFY of 2045 demand will be met 

with recycled water for NPR. 

This project will produce a locally sourced, drought-resistant, and climate-resilient water 

supply that addresses future shortages predicted by Valley Water’s WSMP and may reduce 

reliance on the CVP and SWP. In addition, this project will help protect the groundwater 

basin and prevent further land subsidence in the Santa Clara County.

Does this proposed project strengthen water supply suS'tainability to increase resilience to climate change? 

Does the proposed project contribute to climate change resiliency in other ways not described above? 

Valley Water currently relies on imported water for about half of its total supply, which is 

especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. To ensure long-term water supply 

reliability in facing of climate change, Valley Water must diversify local water supply, and 

expand climate resilient, local sources of water, such as reuse and water conservation. NPR

is a fit-for-use strategy that reduces use of potable supply for purposes that do not involve 

human consumption and/or contact. While NPR is an important aspect of water resources 

management, the focus of this feasibility study relates to purifying water for potable reuse, 

which offers the promise of a new drought-resistant local supply to improve climate change 

resilience and address future shortages. The delivery point(s) for purified water will be 

evaluated through this feasibility study to determine the most beneficial type of reuse for 

strengthening resilience in the face of climate change impacts. 

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. 

Yes. The proposed project would directly benefit communities are identified as 

disadvantaged by developing a new potable water supply. The purified water would reduce 

dependence on imported water supplies and improve regional reliability by introducing a 

new local drought-resistant source. Furthermore, this additional water supply will reduce 

dependence on groundwater and protect the groundwater basin from further land 

subsidence in the low-lying areas of the Santa Clara County. 

Please describe how the community is disadvantaged based on a combination of variables (see NOFO). 

In 2012 Senate Bill (SB) 535 established initial requirements for minimum funding levels to 

disadvantaged communities as part of California’s Cap and Trade Program that was 

authorized by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. As part of SB 535, the 

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was tasked with identifying these 

communities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard 

criteria. As shown in Figure 5, several of these communities can be found in both San José 

and Santa Clara. Communities in the red shaded areas are disproportionately affected by 

environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects 

exposure, or environmental degradation and contain areas with concentrations of people 

that are of low income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent burden, 

sensitive populations, and/or having low levels of educational attainment. 

If the proposed project is providing benefits to an underserved community, provide sufficient infonnation to 

demonstrate that the community meets the underserved definition in EO. 13985. 
As shown in Figure 5, the study area contains 

large portions of communities that are 

considered disadvantaged per the criteria 

under SB 535. The policies under SB 535 are 

aimed at improving public health, quality of life 

and economic opportunity in California’s most 

burdened communities, and at the same time, 

reducing pollution that causes climate change. 

Many of these areas are home to minorities, 

high concentrations of people with low income, 

low levels of homeownership, and high rent 

areas. These are the same populations E.O. 

13985 defines as being “undeserved 

communities”. 

Does the proposed project dimctlysewe and/or 

benefit a Tribe? Will the project improve water 

management for an Indian Tribe? 

The proposed project does not directly benefit 

a Tribe, although benefit opportunities can be 

examined as part of the Feasibility Study. Figure 5. Senate Bill 535 Disadvantaged 

Communities in Study Area as of 2022

Does the proposed project support Tribal msilience 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? 

There are no Tribal communities in the project area, although opportunities for Tribal 

benefits can be examined as part of the Feasibility Study. 

Evaluation Criterion 5 – Watershed Perspective (15 points) 

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

management plan? Explain. 

Yes. The project concepts being proposed for this feasibility study were included in both 

Valley Water’s WSMP and the recently completed CoRe Plan. The WSMP establishes Valley 

Water’s strategy for providing a reliable and sustainable water supply in a cost-effective 

manner. It informs investment decisions by describing the type and level of water supply 

investments Valley Water is planning to make through 2040. Included in the WSMP are a 

portfolio of water supply projects that include potable reuse concepts that this feasibility 

study would aim to help implement. This water reuse project was also included in the CoRe 

Plan. The CoRe Plan is a regional planning effort that saw Valley Water partner with cities, 

water retailers, and stakeholders in the County to integrate and expand recycled and 

purified water as a local, reliable, environmentally adaptive, drought-resilient water supply. 

The feasibility study would further assess this potential project and move it closer to 

implementation. The overarching framework for the CoRe Plan was Valley Water’s WSMP. 

The proposed project help advance the goals and objectives of the San Francisco Bay Area 

Integrated Regional Water Management Plan by improving water supply reliability and 

quality through development of new drought-resilient source of water supply. 

2. Will the project help meet water supply needs of a la,ge geographic area, region, orwatetshed? Explain. 

19 
Yes. Purifying recycled water would provide a drought-resilient, locally controlled water 

supply that would help Valley Water meet the needs of the County (area spanning over 

1,300 square miles, see Figure 1) now and into the future. This project would not only help 

reduce regional reliance on imported water supplies but by increasing the amount of purified 

water, this project would stimulate more conjunctive use which would help promote the longterm sustainability of the region’s groundwater basins. 

3. Will the proposed project promote collaborative partnetships to address water-related issues? Explain. 

Describe stakeholder involvement in the project planning process. 

Yes. The proposed feasibility study would promote continued collaborative efforts around 

this potable reuse project. Valley Water and the Cities of San José and Santa Clara have a 

long history of collaboration on recycled water, including the construction of the SVAWPC 

which opened in 2014. Planning for this project started in 2018 when Valley Water and the 

Partner Agencies began work on the CoRe Plan, a collaborative strategy to integrate and 

expand recycled and purified water as a local, reliable, environmentally adaptive, droughtresilient water supply. The benefits that this project would provide the region are well 

documented under other criteria in this document. However, of equal importance are the 

benefits of learning to work together as a region – beyond service areas, political, and 

district boundaries – to understand that all agencies, wastewater agencies, water districts, 

cities, and other relevant stakeholders need to work together on water supply reliability. 

As conducted in the CoRe plan, stakeholders will be invited to participate early in the 

process and at key decision points to help build support and pave the way towards 

implementation. This approach will allow parties to collaborate on, refine, and construct a 

drought-resilient and sustainable water source that meets multiple needs for the region. It 

also facilitates leveraging local, state, and federal funding sources to realize projects and 

benefits that would be out of local entities’ reach without regional collaboration. 

4. Will the project include public outreach/ opportunities for the public to leam about the project? Explain. 

Yes. The proposed project will include an extensive public outreach and stakeholder 

engagement program. Valley Water’s website (https://www.valleywater.org/yourwater/recycled-and-purified-water) offers educational videos, photos, maps, project 

descriptions, access to reports and documents, and education about recycled and purified 

water. Valley Water and the Partner Agencies also run and operate the SVAWPC 

(https://purewater4u.org/about-svawpc/), which is the largest advanced water purification 

facility in Northern California. This facility has not only allowed for the testing and 

demonstration of advanced treatment technologies for producing purified water but is also 

being leveraged as a venue for potable reuse public education. Public awareness, 

understanding, and support are integral to the success of any potable reuse program and 

often present a greater challenge to implementation compared to technical feasibility. These 

challenges are not insurmountable; though, successful public outreach requires careful 

planning, cohesion among partners, commitment to consistent and transparent 

communication, and follow-through. The CoRe Plan identified various outreach objectives 

and potential future actions that will be considered when developing the public outreach 

program. Valley Water plans on developing this program in close collaboration with the 

Partner Agencies and their respective locally elected officials and policymakers. 

20 
Required Permits or Approvals 

The permits required for the construction of the proposed project will depend on the final 

design selected. The project will likely need to procure the federal, state, and regional/local

permits summarized in Table 1 (ESA, 2022). 

Table 1. Anticipated Permits and Approvals 

Anticipated Permit or Approval Agency 

Federal 

Clean Water Act section 404 permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Endangered Species Act authorization National Marine Fisheries Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act California Office of Historic Preservation

State 

Section 1602 lake and streambed alteration agreement California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Right-of-way permit California Department of Transportation

Approval prior to change of discharge, place of use, and purpose of use of treated wastewater 

State Water Resources Control Board 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan

Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification 

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act NPDES permit and waste discharge requirements Control Board

Construction General Permit and Industrial General Permit coverage

Title 22 section 60320.108, Groundwater Replenishment Regulations San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 

Control Board and State Water Resources 

Control Board, Division of Drinking Water 

Regional and Local

Project approval – CEQA lead agency 

Valley Water 

Well permit(s) 

Project approval – CEQA responsible agency 

Building Permit City of San José and City of Santa Clara 

Sewer Use Permit 

Permanent easement and encroachment permit, approval of traffic control plans

Permit to construct and permit to operate emergency stationary diesel engines Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Communities Conservation Plan Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency compliance

Grading permit, approval of traffic control plans Santa Clara County 

21 
Project Budget 

Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment 

Describe how the non-Federal share of project costs will be obtained. Reclamation will use this 

information when making a determination that the applicant meets the cost share 

requirements identified in C.3 Cost Sharing Requirements. 

The non-federal share of funding for project costs will be covered through Valley Water revenue 

from the sale of water to its customers. Table 2 summarizes funding sources for the proposed 

project requesting federal funds through this funding opportunity. 

Table 2. Total Project Cost 

Funding Sources Amount 

Federal: Requested Reclamation funding $381,249

Non-federal $1,143,747

TOTAL $1,524,996 

Project funding provided by a source other than the applicant shall be supported with letters 

of commitment from these additional sources. Letters of commitment shall identify the 

following elements: 

• The amount of funding commitment. 

• The date the funds will be available to the applicant. 

• Any time constraint on the availably of funds. 

• Any other contingencies associated with the funding commitment.

Commitment letters from third-party funding sources should be submitted with your project 

application. If commitment letters are not available at the time of the application submission, 

provide a timeline for submitting all commitment letters. Cost-share funding from sources 

outside the applicant’s organization (e.g., loans or State grants) should be secured and 

available to the applicant prior to award. 

Reclamation will not execute a financial assistance agreement until non-Federal funding has 

been secured or Reclamation determines that there is enough evidence and likelihood that 

non-Federal funds will be available to the applicant after executing the agreement. 

Funding Commitment Letters 

No time constraints apply to the non-federal share of project costs, and there are no other 

contingencies associated with this funding commitment. 

In addition to Valley Water’s commitment to fund this project, the City of San José and the City 

of Santa Clara will provide non-federal funding in the form of in-kind staff support, as 

documented in the funding commitment letter(s) below. 

Further, Valley Water, San José, and Santa Clara recently executed a Letter of Intent (signed 

January 31, 2023) to reflect their collective intent to negotiate in good faith a collaborative 

agreement for the development of a joint water reuse project(s) that expands upon the existing 

collaborative efforts related to the SVAWPC for the purpose of improving water supply reliability 

in the Santa Clara County in the face of climate change impacts.

30
31 

CITYOF A 

SANJOSE 

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY 

February 27, 2023 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Attn: NOFO Team 

P.O. Box 25007, MS 84-27133 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

Office of the City Manager 

RE: Funding Commitment Letter for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project 

Feasibility Study Application for Funding Assistance under WaterSMART: Water Recycling and 

Desalination Planning (NOFO No. R23AS00076) 

Dear Application Review Committee members: 

The City of San Jose is submitting this letter documenting its funding commitment in support of the 

San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project Feasibility Study grant application submitted to the 

Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART Water Recycling and Desalination Planning funding 

opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023. 

The City of San Jose is in fu ll support of the development of the Santa Clara Valley Water District's 

(Valley Water's) San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project Feasibility Study and agrees with 

Valley Water that regional solutions are needed to build drought resilience. The City of San Jose has 

worked with Valley Water (the county's primary water resources agency) since 1992 to develop 

recycled water to offset use of the potable water supply. 

• The amount of funding commitment - We are committed to providing staff support equating 

to a value of $27,000 to continue ongoing water reuse planning efforts and evaluate the 

feasib ility of further expanding reuse for our Silicon Valley communities and improve 

reliability through a drought-resilient supply. 

• The date the funds will be available to the applicant - Our in-kind staff support will be 

available upon execution of the grant agreement between Valley Water and Reclamation, 

estimated to be October 2023, and subject to the same terms and conditions in the grant. 

• Any time constraints on the availability of fonds - Our in-kind staff support will continue 

through the 24-month duration of developing the feasibility study. 

• Any other contingencies associated with the funding commibnent - No other contingencies apply. 

We thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Sarah 

~~ Zarate 

Director, Office of Administration, Policy, and 

Intergovernmental Relations 

200 East Santa Clara St. Fl. # 17, San Jose, CA 95 1 13 tel ( 408) 535-8100 www.sanjoseca.gov 
32

City of 

Santa Clara 

The Center of What'• Possible 

February 21, 2023 

Bureau of R~clamation 

Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Attn: NOFO Team 

P.O. Box 25007, MS 84-27133 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

City Manager's Office 

Subject: Funding Commitment Letter for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara 

Purified Water Project Feasibility Study Application for Funding Assistance 

under WaterSmart: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning (NOFO No. 

R23AS00076) 

Dear Application Review Committee members: 

The City of Santa Clara is submitting this letter documenting its funding commitment in support 

of the San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project Feasibility Study grant application submitted 

to the Bureau of Recl3motion's W3terSMART Water Recycling and Desalination Planning 

funding opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023. 

The City of Santa Clara is in full support of the development of Valley Water's San Jose-Santa 

Clara Purified Water Project Feasibility Study and agrees with Valley Water that regional 

solutions are needed to build drought resilience. The City of Santa Clara has worked with Valley 

Water {the county's primary water resources agency) since 1992 to develop recycled water to 

offset use of the potable water supply. 

• The amount of funding commitment - We are committed to providing staff support equating 

to a value of $27,000 to continue ongoing water reuse planning efforts and evaluate the 

feasibility of further expanding reuse for our Silicon Valley communities and improve 

reliability through a drought-resilient supply. 

• The date the funds will be available to the applicant - Our in-kind staff support will be 

available upon execution of the grant agreement between Valley Water and Reclamation, 

estimated to be October 2023. 

• Any time constraints on the availability of funds - Our in-kind staff support will continue 

through the 24-month duration of developing the feasibility study. 

1;;00 WA1·burtnn Avenue • Sant£, (:ta,·a, CA !)J;Of>O • Phone: <108-611>-22l0 • r'ox: ~08-241-677 1 • SnntuC:lnrnC/q;uv 
33

Bureau of Reclamation Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Re: Funding Commitment Letter for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project 

Feasibility Study Application for Funding Assistance (NOFO No. R23AS00076) 

February 21 , 2023 

Page 2 of 2 

Any other contingencies associated with the funding commitment - No other contingencies 

apply, 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Office of the City Manager 

City of Santa Clara 
Budget Proposal 

The total project cost is the sum of all allowable costs, including all required cost-sharing and 

voluntary committed cost-sharing and third-party contributions that are necessary to complete 

the proposed activities. Include the following chart (table 1) to summarize all funding sources 

and denote in-kind contributions with an asterisk (*).

The total project budget is $1,524,996. Table 3 summarizes the non-federal and federal 

funding sources. Valley Water’s funding will be available October 2023, and no time 

constraints apply on the availability of funds through the duration of the two-year project 

schedule.

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

Funding Sources Amount

Non-Federal Entities

1. Valley Water direct contribution $818,751

2. Valley Water in-kind contribution* $270,996*

3. City of San José, third-party in-kind contribution* $27,000*

4. City of Santa Clara, third-party in-kind contribution* $27,000*

Non-Federal subtotal $1,143,747

REQUESTED Reclamation Funding $381,249

* Asterisk denotes in-kind contribution

The budget proposal should include detailed information on the categories listed below, and it 

must clearly identify all items of cost, including those that will be contributed as a non-Federal 

cost share by the applicant (required and voluntary), third-party in-kind contributions, and 

those that will be covered using the funding requested from Reclamation, and any requested 

pre-award costs (table 2).

34 
 

 

Budget Narrative 

The total project cost is summarized in Table 4. 

Table 4. Total Project Cost 

Source Amount 

Costs to be reimbursed with the requested Federal funding $381,249 

Costs to be paid by the applicant $1,089,747 

Value of third-party contributions $54,000 

Total project cost $1,524,996 

Total project cost is $1,524,996. Table 5 summarizes the budget by category, while Table 6 

presents a breakdown of costs and funding source for each category. 

Table 5. Budget Summary 

Budget Object 

Category 

a. Personnel 

b. Fringe Benefits 

c. Travel 

d. Equipment 

e. Supplies 

f. Contractual 

g. Construction 

h. Other Direct Costs 

i. Total Direct Costs 

j. Indirect Charges 

Total Cost 

$148,899 

$122,097 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$1,200,000 

$0 

$54,000 

$1,524,996 

$0 

Federal Estimated 

Amount 

Non-Federal Estimated 

Amount 

Total Costs $1,524,996 $381,249 $1,143,747 

Cost Share Percentage 25% 75% 

35 
Table 6. Budget Proposal for Valley Water 

Reclamation Recipient 

Budget Item Description Qty Unit Unit Cost Funding Funding Total Cost

a. Personnel 528 hours -- $- $148,899 $148,899

Senior Project Manager, Hossein Ashktorab 96 hours $101.21/hour -- $9,716 $9,716

Associate Engineer, David Tucker 960 hours $79.05/hour -- $75,888 $75,888

Assistant Engineer 960 hours $61.74/hour $59,270 $59,270

Administrative Assistant 96 hours $41.92/hour -- $4,024 $4,024

b. Fringe Benefits 82 % $148,899 $- $122,097 $122,097

Senior Project Manager, Hossein Ashktorab 82 % $9,716 -- $7,967 $7,967

Associate Engineer, David Tucker 82 % $75,888 $62,228 $62,228

Assistant Engineer 82 % $59,270 -- $48,602 $48,602

Administrative Assistant 82 % $4,024 -- $3,300 $3,300

c. Travel $- $- $-

d. Equipment $- $- $-

e. Supplies/Materials $- $- $-

f. Contractual $381,249 $818,751 $1,200,000

Lead Consultant for Feasibility Study and $381,249 $568,751 $950,000 Financial Capability Determination

Facilitator / Stakeholder Engagement and -- $100,000 $100,000 Outreach Consultant

Third Party Review -- $50,000 $50,000

Consultant Pre-Final Design Activities and -- $100,000 $100,000 Coordination

g. Construction $- $- $-

h. Other Direct Costs $- $54,000 $54,000

City of San José in-kind staff support -- $27,000 $27,000

City of Santa Clara in-kind staff support -- $27,000 $27,000

i. Total Direct Costs $381,249 $1,143,747 $1,524,996

j. Indirect Costs $- $- $-

Total Project Costs $381,249 $1,143,747 $1,524,996

Cost Share Percentage 25% 75% 100%

A narrative summary of costs follows. If selected for award, detailed supporting 

documentation of costs will be provided.

• Personnel: The total cost for salaries and wages is $148,899. Valley Water staff will 

include a Senior Project Manager, an Associate Engineer, an Assistant Engineer, and an 

Administrative Assistant. As the lead applicant, Valley Water will manage Task 5, Grant 

Administration and oversee the development of the Feasibility Study, Financial Capability 

Determination, and Pre-Final Design Activities (Tasks 1-4). 

36 
• Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits are anticipated to cost $122,097. The fringe benefit 

rate is 82% of staff salary. Fringe benefits for staff include health insurance, employer 

paid Medicare taxes, unemployment insurance, employer pension contributions, 

employer contributions to deferred compensation retirement accounts, life insurance, 

and disability insurance. 

• Travel: Valley Water will not incur any travel related expenses for this planning project. 

• Equipment: Valley Water will not incur any equipment related expenses for planning 

project.

• Supplies: Valley Water is not supplying any supplies for this portion of the project.

• Contractual: Valley Water will contract with consultants for the following: 

Lead the development of the Feasibility Study and Financial Capability 

determination.

Facilitate stakeholder meetings and public outreach efforts.

Conduct reviews of technical assessments and overall planning efforts.

Assist with any pre-final design activities or other project related assessments that 

contribute towards project implementation.

Budgeted costs for the consultant will be fair and reasonable through assessment of 

qualifications, evaluation of rates, and prior experience of professional staff on projects 

of similar size and scope.

• Construction: Because this is a planning project, no construction related costs are 

anticipated. 

• Other Direct Costs: As noted above, in addition to Valley Water’s commitment to fund 

this project, the City of San José and the City of Santa Clara will provide non-federal 

funding in the form of in-kind staff support. 

• Total Direct Costs: The total direct cost for this funding request is $1,524,996. 

• Indirect Costs: Valley Water will not include indirect costs for this portion of the project. 

• Total Costs: The total cost of this funding request is $1,524,996.

37 
Overlap or Duplication of Effort Statement 

Valley Water is submitting a separate proposal under the Funding Opportunity No.

R23AS00076 that will address the water reuse needs for South County through the 

development of the South County Water Reuse Program Feasibility Study. However, the 

feasibility studies described in each proposal will be developed by outside contracted 

consultants. While it is anticipated that some of the same Valley Water staff will work on 

both projects, their involvement will largely consist of project oversight and grant 

administration which will make up only a small portion of the overall grant award. 

Uniform Audit Reporting Statement 

Valley Water was required to submit a Single Audit report for the 2021-2022 fiscal year and 

that report is available through the Federal Audit Clearinghouse website under the Employer 

Identification Number (EIN): 94-1695531.

Conflict of Interest Statement 

Valley Water, nor any potential subrecipients, have identified any conflicts of interest, 

including instances of employees, potential subrecipients, or contractors being related to, 

married to, or having a close personal relationship with any Federal employee in the Federal 

funding program or who otherwise may have been involved in the review and selection of the 

award. If a conflict of interest arises or is identified during the life of the Federal award, 

Valley Water will immediately provide written notification to the Water Recycling Program. 

38 
39 

Letters of Support 

See the letters of support below from the following: 

• City of Morgan Hill; 

• City of Santa Clara; 

• City of San José; and 

• City of Sunnyvale. 
40 

CITY OF M ORGAN HILL 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Attn: NOFO Team 

P.O. Box 25007, MS 84-27133 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

CITY OF MORGAN H ILL 

175 5 5 PEAK AVENUE 

M ORGAN HILL, CA 95037 

PHONE 4 0 8 -779 -72 7 0 

FAX40 8 -7 7 9 -311 7 

WWW.MORGANHILL.CA.GOV 

February 8, 2023 

Subject: Letter of Support for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Program Feasibility 

Study Application for Funding Assistance under WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination 

Planning (NOFO No. R23AS00076) 

Dear Application Review Committee members: 

The City of Morgan Hill ardently supports the application that Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley 

Water) is submitting on behalf of communities in northern Santa Clara County, California, to seek 

financial assistance through the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART Water Recycling and 

Desalination Planning funding opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023. 

Alongside representatives from San Jose and Santa Clara, the City of Morgan Hill participated in the 

Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan) effort completed by Valley Water in 2021 and 

understands the need to improve water supply reliability for communities in northern Santa Clara 

County. The northern portion of the county depends on imported surface water for drinking water, and 

waler reuse is expected to become an integral component of Valley Water's water supply portfolio. 

Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Program Feasibility Study would involve an 

update to the 2021 CoRe Plan to reflect existing conditions. 

This grant would also provide an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of further expanding water 

reuse for Silicon Valley communities and improve reliability through a drought-resilient supply. 

Current regulations enable communities to use recycled water for drinking via a reservoir or aquifer, 

and in 2023, the State Water Board will establish direct potable reuse regulations that will allow 

suppliers to distribute recycled water without first putting it into a reservoir or aquifer. 

The City of Morgan Hill is in full support of the development of the San Jose-Santa Clara Purified 

Water Program Feasibility Study and agrees with Valley Water that regional solutions are needed to 

build drought resilience. Financial support for the development of the Feasibility Study is needed. 

Sincerely, 

Christina Turner, City Manager 
41 

City of 

Santa Clara 

The Center of Whot's Possible 

February 21 , 2023 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Attn: NOFO Team 

P.O. Box 25007, MS 84-27133 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

City Manager's Office 

Subject: Letter of Support for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water 

Project Feasibility Study Application for Funding Assistance under 

WaterSmart: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning (NOFO No. 

R23AS00076) 

Dear Application Review Committee members: 

The City of Santa Clara ardently supports the application that Santa Clara Valley Water District 

(Valley Water) is submitting on behalf of our communities in northern Santa Clara County, 

California, to seek financial assistance through the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART 

Water Recycling and Desalination Planning funding opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023. 

Santa Clara has worked with Valley Water (the county's primary water resources agency) for 

decades to develop recycled water to offset use of the potable water supply. The City of Santa 

Clara has supported the implementation and operation of the Silicon Valley Advanced Water 

Purification Center and the South Bay Water Recycling system for the expansion of nonpotable 

supply, and actively participated in the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan) effort 

completed by Valley Water in 2021. 

This grant would provide an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of further expanding reuse for 

our Silicon Valley communities and improve reliability through a drought-resilient supply. Current 

state regulations enable communities to use recycled water for drinking via a reservoir or 

aquifer, and in 2023, the State Water Board will establish direct potable reuse regulations that 

will allow suppliers to distribute recycle•d water without first putting the water into a reservoir or 

aquifer. 

Water reuse planning would begin with the development of a Collaborative Agreement 

presenting a scope of water reuse projects and/or capital improvements that would support 

each agency's goals to improve water supply reliability. The Agreement would describe an 

approach to share costs for joint recycled water projects and capital improvements; assign 

responsibility to operate and maintain facilities; recommend to our respective governing bodies 

how we can improve our current governance structure related to their joint recycled water 

1500 Warbm-ton Avenue • Santa Clara, CA 9'5050 • Phone: 408-615-2210 • Fax: 408-241-6771 • SantaClaraCA.gov 
42 

Bureau of Reclamation Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Re: Letter of Support for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project Feasibility Study 

Application for Funding Assistance (NOFO No. R23AS00076) 

February 21 , 2023 

Page 2 of 2 

efforts; and set forth a fair process to resolve disputes. The Feasibility Study would then begin 

by updating the 2021 CoRe Plan to reflect existing conditions. Financial support for the 

development of the Feasibility Study is needed. 

The City of Santa Clara is in full support of the development of Valley Water's San Jose-Santa 

Clara Purified Water Project Feasibility Study and agrees with Valley Water that regional 

solutions are needed to build drought resilience. 

Sincerely, 

Office of the City Manager 

City of Santa Clara 
CITYOF A 

SANJOSE 

CAPITAL OP SILICON VAUEY 

Office of the City Manager 

Febrnary 27, 2023 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Attn: NOFO Team 

P.O. Box 25007, MS 84-27 133 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

RE: Letter of Suppo1t for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project 

Feasibility Study Application for Funding Assistance under WaterSMART: Water Recycling and 

Desalination Planning (NOFO No. R23AS00076) 

Dear Application Review Committee members: 

The City of San Jose ardently supports the application that Santa Clara Valley Water District 

(Valley Water) is submitting on behalf of our communities in northern Santa Clara County, 

California, to seek financial assistance through the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART 

Water Recycling and Desalination Planni_ng funding opporhmity for Fiscal Year 2023. 

The City of San Jose has worked with Valley Water (the county's primary water resources 

agency) for decades to develop recycled water to offset use of the potable water supply. The City 

of San Jose participates in the implementation and operation of the Silicon Valley Advanced 

Water Purification Center, contributes to management and operation of the South Bay Water 

Recycling system for the expansion of non-potable supply, and actively pa1ticipated in the 

Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan) effort completed by Valley Water in 2021 . 

This grant would provide an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of further expanding reuse for 

our Silicon Valley communities and improve reliability through a drought-resilient supply. 

Current state regulations enable communities to use recycled water for drinking via a reservoir or 

aquifer, and in 2023, the State Water Board will establish direct potable reuse regulations that 

wi ll allow suppliers to distribute recycled water without first putting the water into a reservoir or 

aquifer. 

Water reuse planning would begin with the development of a collaborative agreement presenting 

a scope of water reuse projects and/or capital improvements that would support each agency's 

goals to improve water supply reliability. 

The agreement would do the following: 

• describe an approach to share costs for joint recycled water projects and capital 

improvements; 

• assign responsibility to operate and maintain facilities; 

200 East Santa Clan St. Fl. # 17, San Jose. CA 951 13 tel (408) 535-8100 www.sanjoseca.gov 

43 
• recommend to our respective governing bodies how we can improve our cu1Tent 

governance stmcture related to their joint recycled water efforts; and 

• set forth a fair process to resolve disputes. 

The Feasibility Study would then begin by updating the 2021 CoRe Plan to reflect existing 

conditions. Financial support for the development of the Feasibility Study is needed. 

The City of San Jose is in full support of the development of Valley Water's San Jose-Santa 

Clara Purified Water Project feasibility Study and agrees with Valley Water that regional 

solutions are needed to build drought resilience. 

Sincerely, 

Sarah Zarate 

Director, Office of Administration, Policy, 

and Intergovernmental Relations 

44 
~,,,~ 

V 

Sunnyvale 

Corporation Yard 

221 Commercial Street 

Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707 

T0D/TYY 408-730-7501 

sunnyvale.ca.gov 

February 15, 2023 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Attn: NOFO Team 

P.O. Box 25007, MS 84-27133 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

Re: Letter of Support for Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Project 

Feasibility Study Application for Funding Assistance under WaterSMART: Water 

Recycling and Desalination Planning (NOFO No. R23AS00076) 

Dear Application Review Committee members: 

The City of Sunnyvale ( City) supports the application that Santa Clara Valley Water District 

(Valley Water) is submitting on behalf of our communities in northern Santa Clara County, 

California, to seek financial assistance through the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART 

Water Recycling and Desalination Planning funding opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023. 

The City has worked with Valley Water (the county's prima1y water resources agency) for 

decades to develop recycled water to offset use of the potable water supply. The City 

paiticipates in the expansion of nonpotable supply, and actively participated in the Countywide 

Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan) effort completed by Valley Water in 2021. 

This grant would provide an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of further expanding reuse 

for our Silicon Valley communities and improve reliability through a drought-resilient supply. 

Current state regulations enable communities to use recycled water for drinking via a reservoir 

or aquifer, and in 2023, the State Water Board will establish direct potable reuse regulations that 

will allow suppliers to distribute recycled water without first putting the water into a reservoir or 

aquifer. 

Water reuse planning would begin with the development of a Collaborative Agreement 

presenting a scope of water reuse projects and/or capital improvements that would support each 

agency's goals to improve water supply reliability. The Agreement would describe an approach 

to share costs for joint recycled water projects and capital improvements; assign responsibility 

to operate and maintain facilities; recommend to our respective governing bodies how we can 

improve our ctment governance structure related to their joint recycled water efforts; and set 

forth a fair process to resolve disputes. The Feasibility Study would then begin by updating the 

Heart of Silicon Valley" 

45 
a,;;: ~'"1⁄4 :;.. 

w 

Sunnyvale 

2021 Co Re Plan to reflect existing conditions. Financial support for the development of the 

Feasibility Study is needed. 

The City in full support of the development of Valley Water's San Jose-Santa Clara Purified 

Water Project Feasibility Study and agrees with Valley Water that regional solutions are needed 

to build drought resilience. 

Sincerely, 

~ (1⁄4;.,,aht:t,, 

Ramana Chinnakotla 

Director 

Environmental Services Deparhnent 

City of Sunnyvale 

Heart oi Silicon Valley· Page 2 of 2 

46 
Official Resolution 

The Valley Water official resolution is attached on the following page.

47 
48 

OocuSign Envelope 1D: 1E1882A~95C6-437D-9191-6426EF584285 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 

RESOLUTION NO. 23-012 

AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE UNITED ST ATES 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WATERSMART WATER RECYCLING AND DESALINATION 

PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM FOR UP TO $5,000,000 AND, IF AWARDED, DELEGATE 

AUTHORITY TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR DESIGNEE, TO NEGOTIATE AND 

EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, FOR A 

SAN JOSE-SANTA CLARA PURIFIED WATER PROGRAM FEASIBILITY STUDY 

WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) seeks external funding for a 

planning grant to support a San Jose-Santa Clara Purified Water Program Feasibility Study 

(Project) to evaluate and analyze the potential for large-scale water recycling projects; and 

WHEREAS, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) WaterSMART: Water Recycling 

and Desalination Planning grant is currently accepting applications for projects such as Valley 

Water's; and 

WHEREAS, as a condition of the grant application, USBR requires submission of a Resolution 

adopted by Valley Water's Board of Directors authorizing staff to submit the application. 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley 

Water District does hereby: 

1. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or designee, to apply for grant funds in the 

amount of $5,000,000 and, if awarded, negotiate and execute a Grant Agreement with 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to support the San Jose-Santa Clara Purified 

Water Program Feasibility Study Project, provided all grant requirements can be met; 

and 

2. Authorize the CEO. or designee, including the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to sign and 

submit invoices to USBR for grant fund reimbursements, to be made pursuant to the 

Grant Agreement; and 

3. Authorize the CEO or designee to provide management and support services required 

for the performance of the work and administration, pursuant to the Grant Agreement. as 

deemed necessary and appropriate. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District by 

the following vote on February 14, 2023: 

AYES: Directors Estremera, Santos, Beall, Eisenberg, Hsueh, Keegan, Varela 

NOES: Directors None. 

ABSENT: Directors None. 

ABSTAIN: Directors None. 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 

" OocuS1gnNI by: 

-~a~92~ 

JOHN L. VARELA 

Chair. Board of Directors 

ATTEST: MICHELE L. KING, CMC 

G

Do<u81gne• by: 

1 .. /.' . ,<,· , 

. 7E 1C3208003E40C .. 

Clerk, Board of Directors 

RL14967