US Bureau of Reclamation 

WaterSMART Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse 


Program Funding FY 2017, FOA BOR-D0-l7-F002 


South Santa Clara County 

Recycled Water Proiect 

(Phases 1 B and 2A) 

GRANT PROPOSAL • DECEMBER 15, 2016 

Santa Clara Valley 

Water District 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 15, 2016 

South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project 

(Previously Funded as R10AC20R53 and R16AP00206) 

Santa Clara Valley Water District
 

Santa Clara County
 

State of California
 

WaterSMART: Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Funding
 

for Fiscal Year 2017
 

FOA: BOR-DO-17-F002
 

Project Partners and Communities:
 

Santa Clara Valley Water District
 

South County Regional Wastewater Authority
 

City of Gilroy
 

City of Morgan Hill
 

Applicant/Project Manager	 Santa Clara Valley Water District 

Hossein Ashktorab, 

Recycled and Purified Water Unit Manager 

5700 Almaden Expressway 

San Jose, CA 95118 

hashktorab@valleywater.org 

Phone: (408) 265-2607 x 2291 

Fax: (408) 979-5639 

Submitted to:	 Bureau of Reclamation 

Financial Assistance Operations Section 

Attention: Matthew Reichert 

Mail Code: 84-27852 

P.O. Box 25007 

Denver, CO 80225 

Phone: 303-445-3865 

2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 300 • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • P. 925.932.1710 • F. 925.930.0208 

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI/Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 

SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT 

WaterSMART: TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE
 

PROGRAM FUNDING
 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
 

FOA: BOR-DO-17-F002
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

ES.1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................1
 

PROJECT SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1
 

1.0 TECHNICAL Proposal: Technical PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................3
 

PROJECT OVERVIEW....................................................................................................... 3
 

PROJECT SPONSORS...................................................................................................... 5
 

PROJECT SETTING........................................................................................................... 6
 

PROJECT EXISTING FACILITIES...................................................................................... 7
 

PROJECT NEED ................................................................................................................ 7
 

PROJECT SOLUTIONS...................................................................................................... 9
 

PROJECT ENHANCEMENTS .......................................................................................... 11
 

2.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: EVALUATION CRITERIA .......................................................13
 

EVALUATION CRITERION 1: WATER SUPPLY.............................................................. 14
 

EVALUATION CRITERION 2: STATUS OF TITLE XVI PROJECT.................................. 20
 

EVALUATION CRITERION 3: ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY (30 points) ...... 25
 

EVALUATION CRITERION 4: RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
 

(25 points)......................................................................................................................... 29
 

EVALUATION CRITERION 5: COST PER ACRE-FOOT OF WATER AND OTHER 

PROJECT BENEFITS (25 points)..................................................................................... 33
 

EVALUATION CRITERION 6: RECLAMATION'S OBLIGATIONS AND BENEFITS TO
 

RURAL OR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................ 37
 

EVALUATION CRITERION 7: WATERSHED PERSPECTIVE (15 points)....................... 40
 

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
 

COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................................. 47
 

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS .............................. 49
 

3.0	 DESCRIPTION OF EXPENDITURES PLANNED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2019
 

AND FUNDING PLAN....................................................................................................50
 

APPENDIX A: LETTERS OF SUPPORT - South County Regional Wastewater Agency 

APPENDIX B: OFFICIAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES
 

Table ES.1 Project Highlights .................................................................................. 2
 

Table 1 Title XVI Authorized Project Recycled Water Deliveries...................... 11
 

Table 2 Summary of Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Funding
 

Criterion............................................................................................... 13
 

Table 3 Summary of Previous Funding Agreements and Obligations .............. 21
 

Table 4 Summary of Environmental Documentation ........................................ 23
 

Table 5 Summary of State and Federal Permits .............................................. 25
 

Table 6 Recycled Water System Headlosses .................................................. 31
 

Table 7 South County Project Design and Construction Costs ........................ 35
 

Table 8 Central Valley Project and State Water Project Deliveries .................. 38
 

Table 9 Summary of 2004 Master Plan Reports and References .................... 42
 

Table 10 Title XVI Authorized Project Recycled Water Deliveries...................... 46
 

Table 11 Pending Environmental Permits .......................................................... 48
 

Table 12 Required Permits or Approvals............................................................ 49
 

Table 13 South County Project Phase 1A, 1B and 2A and South Pipeline
 

Project Costs....................................................................................... 51
 

Table 14 Phases 1B and 2A Expenditures by Fiscal Year, Dollars in
 

Thousands .......................................................................................... 51
 

Table 15 Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources - South
 

Pipeline and Short-term project Phases .............................................. 53
 

Table 16 SF-424C: Project Budget .................................................................... 54
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 South County Service Area and Project Study Area ............................. 3
 

Figure 4 Llagas Groundwater Conditions as of October 2016............................. 8
 

Figure 17 South County Project - Existing and Proposed Short-Term Facilities Phasing45
 

Figure 2 SCRWA WWTP & Recycled Water Pumps........................................... 6
 

Figure 3 Project Location..................................................................................... 7
 

Figure 5 Recycled Water Turnout in South Santa Clara.................................... 12
 

Figure 6 SCVWD Recycled Water Use Goals ................................................... 15
 

Figure 7 County Water Supplies under Different Hydrologic Conditions ........... 16
 

Figure 8 Pajaro River Watershed ...................................................................... 26
 

Figure 9 Uvas Reservoir Releases.................................................................... 27
 

Figure 10 Uvas Dam (November 2014)............................................................... 28
 

Figure 11 Steelhead Trout Swims in Uvas Creek................................................ 29
 

Figure 12 Adult Steelhead Spawning in Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir ....... 29
 

Figure 13 Energy Intensity of Water Supply Sources .......................................... 32
 

Figure 14 Disadvantaged Community Areas....................................................... 40
 

Figure 15 South County Master Plan Study Area................................................ 42
 

Figure 16 Letter from South County Regional Wastewater Authority .................. 44
 

Figure 18 Recycled Water Currently Used for Agriculture................................... 46
 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 2 
 

 

 

 

Santa Clara Valley Water District 

WATERSMART: TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 

ES.1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is pleased to submit this grant application to the 

United States Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) on December 15, 2016 for the South Santa Clara 

County Recycled Water Project (South County Project). The South County Project is a 

collaborative project between the District, South County Regional Wastewater Authority 

(SCRWA), City of Gilroy, and the City of Morgan Hill. The $41.1 million project will serve to 

expand the use of recycled water in south Santa Clara County, California. 

The South County Project was authorized for a $7 million grant, under Section 1647 of the 

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-229, 43 U.S.C. 390h-30) and 

under the Bureau's Title XVI funding (Public Law 102-575, as amended (43 U.S.C. 390h through 

390h-39). Of the $7 million Bureau obligation, approximately $5.3 million has been awarded, 

leaving an obligation amount of approximately $1.7 million. This application is seeking the 

balance of the Bureau obligation (approximately $1.7 million) to construct Phases 1B and 2A of 

the project ($31.2 million construction cost). The District funded construction of the South County 

Project through the Water Enterprise Fund in the District's FY 2015-2026 Budget. A grant will 

significantly reduce that debt burden; allow the District to continue to develop drought tolerant 

water supplies needed to balance the basin and mitigate against the variability of imported 

supplies; and satisfy the authorized Federal cost share for this project. 

PROJECT SUMMARY 

In 2004, the District and SCRWA, with participation from the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, 

jointly prepared the South County Recycled Water Master Plan (Master Plan) which defined 

Immediate-, Short- and Long-term capital investment projects (CIPs) to expand the use of 

recycled water in the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. These CIPs were included in the South 

County Project Title XVI authorization. The construction of the Immediate-term project was 

completed in conjunction with SCRWA's recycled water plant expansion project in 2006. The 

Short-term projects were sectioned into multiple phases. The Short-term Phase 1A project was 

completed in 2012 with a 25% federal cost share. Implementation of the Short-term Phases 1B 

and 2A and the South Pipeline projects will bring the District closer to completing the Short-term 

CIPs of the Master Plan and will expand the existing recycled water system within south Santa 

Clara County. The completion of the Title XVI authorized project's Short-term CIPs provides 

approximately 1,900 acre feet per year (AFY) of new recycled water supply. In addition, the 

South County Project Improvements will rectify distribution system constraints, allowing the full 

and reliable utilization of 1,200 AFY of existing supply. With the completion of the South Pipeline, 

Immediate-term, and Short-term CIPs, the District will achieve a total system capacity of 3,100 

AFY of reliable recycled water deliveries based on the 2015 Master Plan update. Upon 

completion of Long-term CIPs, the authorized Title XVI Project may achieve a total system 

capacity of approximately 3,700 AFY (2015 Master Plan update), which is higher than the 

recycled water capacity projected (3,400 AFY) in the 2009 South County Project Feasibility 

Study. 

The South County Project provides for the continuation and completion of an existing federally 

authorized project. With the completion of Short-term Phases 1B and 2A, which includes 

construction of 14,500 linear foot of pipeline, the District will be able to: 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• Mitigate the current recycled water distribution systems operation deficiencies. 

• Improve the system's reliability. 

• Expand the system to serve new customers. 

• Allow increased use by existing customers. 

• Optimize performance of existing system high efficiency equipment. 

Table ES.1 Project Highlights 

Category Highlights 

1. Water Supply • Title XVI authorized project produces approx. 2,500 AFY of new 

recycled water supply and allows for the full utilization of 1,200 AFY of 

existing water supply, for a total of 3,700 AFY, which is a reliable, 

drought tolerant, sustainable water supply. 

• Reduces groundwater pumping. 

• Reduces reliance on imported State Water Project (SWP) and Central 

Valley Project (CVP) supplies. 

2. Status of 

Project 

• Funding of this project will fully satisfy the federal cost share. 

3. Environment 

and Water 

Quality 

• Benefits the Pajaro River by reducing discharges. 

• Reduces demands on groundwater, which allows for potential reservoir 

releases that would have been used to recharge the groundwater. 

• Uvas Creek supports federally threatened South-Central California 

Coast Steelhead, which could benefit from additional reservoir 

releases. 

4. Renewable 

Energy and 

Energy 

Efficiency 

• Includes energy efficiency improvements related to 

treatment/pumping/transport of recycled water. 

• Provides a more energy efficient water supply than the current water 

supply (imported water and groundwater pumping). 

5. Cost Per 

Acre Foot of 

Water 

• Decreases reliance on projects such as desalination or increases in 

CVP/SWP imports through implementing the South Pipeline and Shortterm Phases 1B and 2A components at $898/AF delivered. 

6. Reclamations 

Obligation 

and Benefits 

to a DAC 

• Mitigates the Bureau's CVP obligation, by reducing reliance on these 

federal facilities. 

• Serves and directly benefits rural and disadvantaged communities of 

Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 

7. Watershed 

Benefit 

• Implements a regionally developed Recycled Water Master Plan and 

meets a high priority of the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Plan. 

• Implements a project developed by a collaborative partnership of 

District, SCRWA, and the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 

PROJECT READINESS 

The South County Project is a cost effective project ready for implementation. Phases 1B and 

2A have 100% design documents completed (October 2016), the environmental clearance to be 

completed by January 2017, and permits/agreements/right of ways to be acquired by December 

2016. The District is ready to start construction in January 2017 with an anticipated construction 

completion date of June 2018. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 2 
 

 

 

 

 

1.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: TECHNICAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

In 2004, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) and the South County Regional 

Wastewater Authority (SCRWA), with participation from the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, 

jointly prepared the Santa Clara County Recycled Water Master Plan (Master Plan) which 

defined Immediate-, Short- and Long-term capital investment projects (CIPs) to expand the use 

of recycled water in the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The main objective for the Master Plan is 

to maximize the use of recycled water in south Santa Clara County and limit use of potable water 

for uses in which recycled water is a reasonable alternative. The Master Plan laid out an 

implementation plan that expanded recycled water deliveries from 711 acre feet per year (AFY) 

in 2004 to approximately 3,437 AFY. Figure 1 shows the District project area boundary, the 

proposed project, and recycled water service area. 

In 2006, the construction of the Immediate-term facilities were completed in conjunction with 

SCRWA’s recycled wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) expansion project which expanded the 

tertiary treated recycled water capacity by 6 million gallons per day (mgd). Immediate-term 

projects included the construction of 4,680 feet of 20-inch recycled water distribution pipeline 

and a 3 million gallon (MG) recycled water reservoir. In addition, SCRWA added a 3 mgd pump 

station that feeds the new distribution pipeline. The District and SCRWA leveraged local dollars 

with a $2.2 million State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) grant to complete 

the approximate $3.3 million project. This expansion project was critical and immediately needed 

to expand recycled water capacity and improve operational efficiency. The completion of the 

Immediate-term project increased recycled water use by up to 50% or approximately 500 AFY. 

In 2008, the South 

Santa Clara County 

Recycled Water Project 

(South County Project) 

was authorized by 

Congress through the 

Bureau of Reclamation's 

(Bureau) Title XVI 

program under Section 

1647 of the 

Consolidated Natural 

Resources Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110-229, 43 

U.S.C. 390h-30) (South 

Santa Clara County 

Recycled Water Project, 

as added by Public Law 

110-229, Title V, 

Section 512(a)(1)) and under the Bureau's Title XVI funding (Public Law 102-575, as amended 

(43 U.S.C. 390h through 390h-39). The Federal cost share of the project authorized by this 

section shall not exceed 25% of the total cost of the project, or $7 million. At the time of original 

authorization, the Title XVI authorized project included the South Pipeline and the Immediateterm, Short-term and the Long-term capital improvement projects (CIPs) of the Master Plan, as 

Figure 1 South County Service Area and Project Study Area 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well as identified improvements to address system limitations and reliability at an estimated total 

cost of $28 million. This authorized project, was analyzed in the Bureau approved Santa Clara 

County Recycled Water - Determination of Feasibility Study (August 31, 2009) (Feasibility Study) 

and Final Environmental Assessment Recovery Act Funding for the Short-term Phase 1 

Component of the South County Recycled Water Master Plan Project (June 2010). 

The South Pipeline portion of the South County Project, completed in 2012, provides 320 AFY of 

new recycled water supplies and is projected to provide for an additional 74 AFY, for a total of 

394 AFY. The South Pipeline project serves a dual purpose and was designed to meet both 

wastewater discharge and recycled water deliveries. The pipeline serves as a discharge 

pipeline, for excess tertiary treated water from the WWTP during moderately high inflow 

conditions, to the Pajaro River between November and April. The pipeline also delivers recycled 

water, primarily to agricultural users, in spring, summer, and fall. 

The Short-term CIPs, which was split into Phases 1A and 1B in early 2011, consists of the 

following: 

•	 Phase 1A (Completed) - consists of 2,700 feet of recycled water pipeline and 

appurtenances. The pipeline connects to an existing pipeline located just north of the 

water recycling facility and heads northerly along Engle Way to Southside Drive, 

continues westerly along Southside Drive and ends at the northern Boundary of 

SCRWA's property. 

•	 Phase 1B - consists of 11,100 feet of recycled water pipeline that is further subdivided 

into four segments. The four segments include: Camino Arroyo Service Line Extension, 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Line, Trunk Sewer Alignment, and the East Luchessa 

Avenue Line. 

•	 Phase 2A – consists of 3,400 feet of recycled water pipeline and appurtenances (the 

West Luchessa Line), and extends service along West Luchessa Avenue from 

Monterey Road to Thomas Road. 

•	 Phase 2B - Improvements include 2.9 miles of recycled water pipeline, assorted 

appurtenances, 3 million gallon reservoir, and a three-million-per-day pump 

station/booster station. Implementation of all segments of the Short-term Phase 2B is 

currently uncertain due to lack of secured funding, changes in customer demand and 

delayed development of infrastructure. 

In 2010, federal funds were approved for the Short-term Phase 1A and 1B projects, under two 

separate Federal Funding Agreements (R10AC20R53 and R10AC20104). However, as project 

design proceeded, the District had to delay Phase 1B, due to significant utility conflicts within 

the proposed alignments, to meet the ARRA grant completion date requirements. District staff 

approached the Bureau to obtain an extension of grant authorization timelines, however, due to 

resource constraints, the Bureau was not able to process the paperwork to extend the two 

agreements. In 2012, the District completed the Short-term Phase 1A facilities and was 

reimbursed with a 25% match under the R10AC20R53 grant agreement, and the reimbursement 

amount was $1,295,407.16 which included the Bureau in-kind fees. Due to the expiration of the 

grant agreements, segments of the federally approved Phase 1B project were not completed. A 

segment of Phase 1B project, Camino Arroyo Service Line, was later completed in June 2015 

with District funding only. 

In 2016, under Federal Funding Agreement R16AP00206, federal funds were approved for the 

Short-term Phases 1B and 2A projects for a total of $4 million. The District completed the design 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx	 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

of Phases 1B and 2A in October 2016, and intends to begin construction on both phases in 

January 2017. This funding proposal seeks Federal cost share of the following authorized Title 

XVI project elements. 

Short-term Phase 1B: 

•	 Phase 1B - Camino Arroyo Service Line Extension: Installation of approximately 

2,100 linear feet of 18-inch diameter pipe and associated appurtenances starting at the 

existing recycled water pipeline near the Princeville Storm Drain, traversing Venture 

Way to Camino Arroyo, to Holloway Road, and ending at Sillaci Way extending service 

to a new Industrial Customer, Cintas Corporation (completed in June 2015). 

•	 Phase 1B - Wastewater Treatment Plant Line: Installation of approximately 800 linear 

feet of 36-inch pipeline and associated appurtenances that extends northwesterly from 

the existing South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (WWTP) and connecting to the existing Phase 1A recycled water 

pipeline (installed in 2012) on Engle Way. 

•	 Phase 1B - Trunk Sewer Alignment: Installation of approximately 3,100 linear feet of 

30-inch pipeline and associated appurtenances starting at the Phase 1A pipeline on 

Southside Drive northwest and extending parallel to SCRWA's Trunk Sewer to the 

Luchessa Avenue Rights of Way. 

•	 Phase 1B East Luchessa Avenue Line: Installation of approximately 5,100 linear feet of 

30-inch pipeline and associated appurtenances that starts at the Phase 1B Trunk 

Sewer Alignment segment and extends west along Luchessa Avenue to Monterey 

Road. 

Short-term Phase 2A: 

•	 Phase 2A- West Luchessa Line: Installation of approximately 3,400 linear feet of 30­

inch pipeline and associated appurtenances starting at the Phase 1B East Luchessa 

Avenue Line at Monterey Road and extending recycled water service west along West 

Luchessa Avenue to Thomas Road. 

In summary, the proposed funding proposal includes the design and construction of 

approximately 14,500 linear feet of recycled water pipeline (ranging from 18 inches through 36 

inches in diameter) and appurtenances, and includes multiple turnouts for future service areas. 

Upon completion of the Short-term CIPs and South Pipeline, the project will increase recycled 

water use to approximately 3,100 acre-feet (based on the 2015 Master Plan update) through the 

expansion of the recycled water distribution system. The only component of the Short-term CIP 

Phase of the Title XVI authorized project remaining to be completed in the future is Phase 2B. 

The implementation of this phase of the project is pending the confirmation of recycled water 

demands and development of use agreements. 

The Long-term CIPs include 4 miles of recycled water pipeline, assorted appurtenances, and a 2 

million gallon per day pump station/booster station expansion. Implementation of the Long-term 

CIPs is currently uncertain due to lack of secured funding, changes in customer demand and 

delayed development of infrastructure. 

PROJECT SPONSORS 

The District is an independent special district with jurisdiction throughout Santa Clara County 

and is the county's primary water resources agency. The District acts not only as the county's 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

principal water wholesaler, but also as its flood protection agency and is the steward for its 

watersheds, streams and creeks, underground aquifers and District's reservoirs. The District 

owns and manages 10 local surface reservoirs and associated creeks and recharges facilities, 

manages the county's groundwater sub-basins and three water treatment plants, imports water 

from the CVP and the SWP, and delivers recycled water to parts of Santa Clara County. In 1999, 

the District's Board of Directors (Board) approved a policy that recycled water is an integral part 

of its comprehensive water management project, and the District will, in a cost-effective manner 

consistent with its overall water supply mix, aggressively pursue opportunities to expand water 

recycling in Santa Clara County in partnership with other public entities as appropriate. The 

District has a goal of 10% of total water used in the county coming from recycled water by year 

2025. 

SCRWA treats wastewater from the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. SCRWA owns and operates 

the existing WWTP which is located 2 miles southeast of downtown Gilroy, on Southside Drive. 

SCWRA provides recycled water to customers to irrigate local parks, golf courses, sports 

complex, landscape medians, and for agricultural and industrial uses. SCRWA plant operations 

and landscape irrigation represents the largest category of recycled water use at about 50% of 

total water use. Agricultural, industrial, and landscape irrigation uses of recycled water account 

for the rest. In 1999, the District, the City of Gilroy, the City of Morgan Hill, and SCRWA entered 

into partnership agreements with SCRWA as the producer, the District as the wholesaler and the 

cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill as retailers for the recycled water project. Figure 2 shows the 

SCRWA WWTP and recycled water pumps. 

Figure 2 SCRWA WWTP & Recycled Water Pumps 

PROJECT SETTING 

The proposed project is located in 

Gilroy, California, which is located 

in southern Santa Clara County 

(South County) (Figure 3) The 

project area is located in the 

southwestern portion of the Santa 

Clara Valley within a broad, gently 

sloping valley floor, enclosed on 

the northeast by the Diablo 

Mountains of the Contra Costa 

Range and on the west by the 

Santa Cruz Mountains. Gilroy is 

located in the eastern foothills of 

the Santa Cruz Range and is 

bordered by the Llagas and Uvas Creeks. Uvas Creek is an intermittent stream that originates 

near Loma Prieta peak, in the Santa Cruz Mountains, before flowing into the Pajaro River and 

Monterey Bay. The proposed project and recycled water customers all lie in the Llagas and Uvas 

Creek sub watersheds. Virtually, the entire southern Santa Clara valley floor draining to the 

Pajaro River is underlain by the Llagas groundwater Sub-basin. 

The predominant source of consumptive water supply in the Llagas Sub-basin is groundwater, 

with small amounts from raw surface water and recycled water deliveries making up the balance. 

Groundwater is the sole source of drinking water. Current water demand in the sub-basin is 

approximately 44,000 AFY, with about half the demand being for agricultural irrigation. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 6 
 

 

 

 

 

Groundwater levels fluctuate due to hydrology, groundwater withdrawals or recharge, and other 

factors. Natural recharge includes rainfall, sub-surface inflow, irrigation return flows, and deep 

percolation of streams. Controlled recharge, via the District managed recharge program, 

replenishes the Llagas Sub-basin by releasing both local and imported water in streams and 

percolation ponds. Planning studies have indicated some shortfalls between existing water 

supplies and anticipated future water demands. Recommendations include continuing to use the 

groundwater basin as the predominant water supply and providing additional groundwater 

recharge as necessary to meet growing demands. An assumption used in estimating future 

groundwater levels was increased use of recycled water that offsets groundwater pumping per 

the Master Plan. 

Figure 3 Project Location 

PROJECT EXISTING FACILITIES 

The SCWRA WWTP, serving approximately 

80,000 people, can treat an average dry 

weather flow (ADWF) of up to 8.5 mgd to 

secondary and tertiary standards that meets 

the recycled water criteria of California's 

Title 22 unrestricted use classification. The 

tertiary treatment process consists of 

coagulation, filtration with sand filters, 

chlorination, and dechlorination. As part of 

the WWTP project expansion, completed in 

2005, the tertiary filtration capacity was 

increased to 9 mgd. However, due to diurnal 

flow fluctuations and the distribution pump 

capacity, the average daily production of 

tertiary effluent is 6 mgd. In addition there is 

an on-site treated recycled water storage 

capacity of 3 million gallons. The existing 

distribution pipeline system consists of 8.9 miles of 12-inch through 36-inch diameter pipeline, a 

booster pump station, and a 1.5 million gallon storage tank. Modeling results indicated that the 

existing distribution system did not have capacity for additional flow, preventing additional 

customers from being connected. Actual demand for recycled water far exceeds the current 

system capacity resulting in the inefficient operation of the existing distribution system, as well as 

its inability to meet current demands. 

PROJECT NEED 

Dependable water supplies in California are becoming increasingly limited. Multiple year 

droughts, which are experienced periodically, further stress the water system and make 

balancing among these needs even more difficult. Santa Clara County and the State of 

California are experiencing an unprecedented prolonged drought (now extending into its fifth 

year) with little relief in sight. The drought conditions continue to place additional strain on local 

and state-wide water supplies and have reduced State and Federal water allocations to the 

District. In 2016, the allocations were reduced to 60% of the SWP allocation and to 55% of 

historical demands for the CVP and 5% of historical agricultural demands for the CVP - for an 

anticipated total of 133,200 AFY. This water supply shortfall was exacerbated by the 

environmental and legal constraints in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (Bay Delta). Climate 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 7 
 

 

 

 

change is projected to reduce Sierra and Cascade snowpack, further reducing the reliability of 

District's imported water supply. Groundwater levels have also significantly declined, during the 

last several years, resulting in a storage level at the end of 2015 falling within Stage 3 (Severe) 

of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. However, groundwater levels and storage are 

recovering due to significant water use reduction and improved water supply conditions in 2016, 

with projected end of 2016 groundwater storage near Stage 1 (Normal) of the Water Shortage 

Contingency Plan. The District continues to evaluate potential measures to mitigate the impact of 

the current and future droughts. 

Based on historical groundwater production data it can be demonstrated that with a decrease in 

rainfall, but sustained system demands, the result is an impact to the groundwater table. The 

Llagas Sub-basin groundwater elevations are still recovering from declines caused by the 

drought, as shown in Figure 4. Significant decreases in groundwater elevations can lead to 

drying out of wells and increased pumping costs for well owners. The District manages 

groundwater levels through managed recharge, recycled water and other measures to the extent 

feasible. The reduction in imported water allocations paired with the depressed groundwater 

elevations due to the extended drought and concerns of climate impacts on water supply 

sources has prompted the District to expedite its development and implementation of recycled 

and purified water projects. 

Figure 4 Llagas Groundwater Conditions as of October 2016 

The District's South County Water Supply Planning Project, Project Report (July 2010) 

supported the need for the project. Findings included: 

•	 Groundwater demands in the Llagas Sub-basin are expected to increase by about 

7,000 AFY from about 44,000 AFY in 2001 to about 51,000 AFY in 2030. These 

projections include about 4,100 AFY of additional conservation and 1,900 AFY of 

additional recycling by 2030. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 8 
 

 

•	 Additional supplies are needed to meet future demands. District staff anticipates a 

water supply shortfall of 4,000 (likely) -16,000 (conservative) AFY of the 2030 

demands. 

•	 Groundwater elevations should be maintained at levels above those seen in 1990 to 

avoid adverse groundwater impacts such as minimizing the sub-basin exchange 

between Llagas and Bolsa Sub-basins and to avoid significant drawdown in the 

groundwater wells. 

•	 Recommending implementation of additional groundwater recharge and recycling as a 

means to meet additional water supply demands. 

The District and SCRWA, with the support of federal funding assistance, plan to expand the use 

of recycled water to meet short and long-term water supply and wastewater needs in Santa 

Clara County. The implementation of the proposed project will increase a local, reliable water 

supply in the southern portion of Santa Clara County and reduce reliance on the Bay Delta. It will 

allow the District to increase the capacity of the recycled water distribution system, expand the 

availability of recycled water, and reduce the use of potable water where recycled water does not 

present a health or safety risk. In addition, the project allows the District to expand its recycled 

water use to a broader market of commercial, industrial, irrigation, and agricultural users. 

PROJECT SOLUTIONS 

The District, the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the groundwater basin, and SCRWA 

partnered to develop the Santa Clara County Recycled Water Master Plan (2004) to facilitate the 

expansion of the recycled water use in south Santa Clara County, specifically in and near the 

cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, which both rely on the Llagas groundwater sub-basin for supply. 

The 2004 Master Plan defined Immediate-, Short- and Long-term capital investment projects 

(CIPs) to expand the use of recycled water. Projects identified in the Master Plan serve to 

increase the reliability of the County's long term water supplies. Increased recycled water usage 

will also lessen the demand on the groundwater basin and provide SCRWA with additional 

discharge alternatives. 

The Master Plan presented a CIP program to expand the use of recycled water in south Santa 

Clara County, over a 20 year planning horizon, in order to meet recycled water demand 

projections. In April 2004, South County had a total of 5 approved application sites including: 2 

agricultural irrigation users, 1 landscape irrigation user, 1 industrial user, and 1 cooling tower. In 

the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update (June 2016), over 70 potential 

recycled water customers were identified within the study area including commercial and 

industrial, landscape irrigation users and agricultural users for a total demand of approximately 

3,100 AFY. The District is also investigating the potential for groundwater recharge using 

recycled water (not part of the Master Plan). 

The Title XVI authorized project, analyzed in the Bureau approved Santa Clara County Recycled 

Water - Determination of Feasibility Study (August 31, 2009) (Feasibility Study), includes the 

Immediate-term, Short-term, Long-term CIPs and the South Pipeline project. The Title XIV 

authorized project also included improvements designed to address flow capacity limitations and 

reliability of the existing system. As discussed below, the District has been implementing the 

Master Plan's recommended CIP projects since 2006. 

• Immediate-term CIPs: In 2006, the District completed the construction of the Immediateterm CIPs in conjunction with SCRWA's Reclamation Plant Expansion Project, with 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 9 
 

 

assistance from state grant funding. In 2007, the Sports Park Pipeline extension from the 

existing recycled water main line to the Gilroy Sports Park at Monterey and Luchessa was 

completed as part of the sports park construction. Completion of the Immediate-term 

CIPs increased the actual demand to 1,200 AFY. Actual demand for recycled water far 

exceeds the current system capacity resulting in the inefficient operation of the existing 

distribution system, as well as the inability of the system to meet current demands. 

•	 Short-term CIPs: The Short-term projects targeted to resolve the recycled water 

distribution system's operation deficiencies, expand the system to serve new customers, 

allow for increased use by existing customers, and improve the system reliability. The 

Short-term CIPs consists of the following: 

o	 Phase 1A (Completed) - Leveraging federal grant dollars, District completed 

Phase 1A in 2012 with a 25% federal cost share. Phase 1A currently delivers 0 

AFY and requires the completion of the entire Short-term CIP to achieve the 

anticipated deliveries. 

o	 Phases 1B and 2A - Due to significant utility conflicts, additional engineering 

analysis was required for the Phases 1B and 2A alignment and District 

subsequently prepared the South County Recycled Water Pipeline Short-Term 

Phases 1B and 2A Project, Project No. 91094009, Engineers Report, August 

2015, which was approved at the October 13, 2015 Public Hearing. The Phases 

1B and 2A project includes: Camino Arroyo Service Line Extension (Phase 

1B)(Completed in June 2015); Wastewater Treatment Plant Line (Phase 1B); 

Trunk Sewer Alignment (Phase 1B); the East Luchessa Avenue Line (Phase 1B) 

and the West Luchessa Line (Phase 2A). 

o	 Phase 2B - Improvements include 2.9 miles of recycled water pipeline, assorted 

appurtenances, 3 million gallon reservoir, and a 3-million gallon per day (mgd) 

pump station/booster station. Implementation of all segments of the Short-term 

Phase 2B is currently uncertain due to lack of secured funding, changes in 

customer demand and delayed development of infrastructure. 

•	 South Pipeline Project: The South Pipeline project was completed in 2012 and serves a 

dual purpose. The pipeline serves as a discharge pipeline, for excess tertiary treated 

water from the WWTP during moderately high inflow conditions, to the Pajaro River 

between November and April. The pipeline also delivers recycled water, primarily to 

agricultural users, in spring, summer, and fall. 

•	 Long-term CIPs: Improvements include 4 miles of recycled water pipeline, assorted 

appurtenances, and a 2 mgd pump station/booster station expansion. Implementation of 

the Long-term CIPs is currently uncertain due to lack of secured funding, changes in 

customer demand and delayed development of infrastructure. 

The Feasibility Study detailed a proposal to deliver a total of 3,437 AFY of recycled water upon 

completion of the South County Project. Table 1 summarizes the recycled water deliveries 

anticipated with the implementation of each of the CIP phases discussed above, the total 

recycled water deliveries associated with the implementation of the entire authorized Title XVI 

project, and the current projections from the 2015 Master Plan update. 

Upon completion of the Short-term CIPs and the South Pipeline, the Title XVI authorized project 

will deliver a total of approximately 1,900 AFY (with the Short-term CIPs (1,480 AFY) and South 

Pipeline (394 AFY)) of new recycled water supplies. In addition, the full construction of the Title 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx	 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XIV authorized project will rectify distribution system constraints, and address flow capacity 

limitations and reliability of the existing system, hence allowing for the full and reliable utilization 

of 1,200 AFY of existing supply. With the completion of the proposed Short-term CIP (including 

Phases 1B and 2A) of the South County Project Title XVI Authorized project, the District will 

achieve a total system capacity of 3,100 AFY of reliable recycled water deliveries based on the 

2015 Master Plan update. Upon completion of the Long-Term CIP of the authorized Title XVI 

project, the District will achieve a total system capacity of 3,700 AFY, based on the 2015 Master 

Plan update, which is higher than that projected in the 2009 Feasibility Study (3,400 AFY). 

The District is set to start construction on Phases 1B and 2A, of this federally authorized project, 

in January 2017. With the construction of the South County Short-term CIPs, the total amount of 

recycled water after completion of this project will be approximately 3,100 AFY or 1,010,000 

gallons per year. As demonstrated, this expansion will enable the District to meet short-term 

recycled water demand projections (approximately 3,100 AFY) in south Santa Clara County. 

Table 1 Title XVI Authorized Project Recycled Water Deliveries 

Phase 

2009 Annual Projected 

Recycled Water Delivery

per CIP Phase(1) (Acre-Feet) 

2015 Annual Projected

Recycled Water 

Delivery(2) 

(Acre-Feet) 

Existing Recycled Water Supplies 

2004 Existing Supply 

Immediate-term CIP(1) 

-­

855 

711 

500 

Total Existing Recycled Water Supply 1,211 

New Recycled Water Supplies 

Short-term CIP 

South Pipeline 

Long-term CIP(3) 

Total New Recycled Water Supply 

934 

1000 

648 

2,582 

1480 

394 

611 

2,485 

TOTAL 3,437 3,696 

Notes: 

(1) Deliveries are based on the Santa Clara County Recycled Water - Determination of Feasibility Study 

(August 31, 2009). 

(2) Deliveries are based on the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update (May 2016). 

(3) The implementation of the Long-term CIP component is currently uncertain due to lack of secured 

funding, changes in customer demand and delayed development of infrastructure and therefore is not 

included in the New Recycled Water Delivery total. 

PROJECT ENHANCEMENTS 

With the construction of the South County Short-term CIPs (including Phases 1B and 2A), it is 

anticipated that the proposed project will deliver approximately 3,100 AFY (or 1,010,000,000 

gallons per year) of recycled water, based on the 2015 Master Plan update. The new facilities 

will optimize operations, increase deliveries, and address the existing system inefficiencies. The 

available recycled water supply of 1,200 AFY is not fully utilized because: 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 11 
 

 

 

 

Figure 5 Recycled Water Turnout in South Santa Clara 

•	 The existing distribution system sizing 

restricts the quantity of recycled water that 

can be supplied during peak demands. 

•	 Storage is required to maximize use for peak 

demands. 

Treated effluent, that has received secondary 

treatment, is discharged into a series of evaporation 

ponds in Gilroy. With the increased production, 

distribution pump capacity, and expansion of the 

recycled water system, it will directly help reduce 

wastewater discharges. 

Project enhancements include: 

•	 The most cost effective way to provide additional supplies of disinfected, tertiary treated 

water during the day is to maximize production through storage. The Short-term project 

includes the construction of an additional 6 million gallons of storage at the treatment 

plant. SCRWA in parallel increased its tertiary treatment capacity and added a 3 million 

gallons per day (mgd) pump station to feed the new distribution pipeline. The new 

reservoir at the treatment plant required additional pumps at the distribution pump 

station to meet peak demands and allow for more recycled water to be conveyed to 

recycled water users during the daytime over the peak demand months. 

•	 Another enhancement, associated with the implementation of the projects, was the 

decrease in the recycled water system operational deficiencies caused by the 

undersized distribution pipelines. With the installation of a parallel pipeline to the 

existing system, the District was able to increase the overall delivery capacity and 

efficiency of its delivery system. The expansion of the system capacity, increased the 

ability for the WWTP to meet the demand of its recycled water customers by reducing 

the friction losses in the existing system. 

•	 The South Pipeline, and Short-term CIPs (Phase 1A, and Phases 1B and 2A) projects 

expand the existing recycled water distribution system allowing the District to increase 

its new recycled water use by approximately 1,900 AFY - thereby reducing the demand 

for potable water supplies. In addition, the distribution system incorporates turnouts 

(Figure 5) to allow for the future expansion of the distribution system and addition of 

new customers. The distribution system is also sized to allow for the expansion of the 

distribution system facilitating the District to provide recycled water to new customers 

(e.g. Cintas Corporation), expand to areas of future potential customers, and thereby 

reduce the use of its potable water sources. 

•	 In addition, the District has implemented and is evaluating additional strategies and 

measures to increase recycled water demand. Strategies include: 

•	 Pricing of Delivered Water - Financial incentives are used to increase the demand for 

recycled water (day and nighttime). Incentives could include providing a reduced cost 

for recycled water over potable water, or a rate reduction for nighttime use of recycled 

water. This strategy has been implemented. The District's recycled water rate in south 

Santa Clara County is set at 20% below groundwater rates. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Peer Encouragement - Implementation of a public outreach program to encourage 

existing and new users to increase delivered water use. 

•	 Mandatory Use Ordinance - The City of Gilroy adopted Ordinance No 2015-04 on May 

19, 2015 as part of their emergency drought plan which; adopts 25% Mandatory Water 

Conservation Regulations; passes a resolution calling for a water use reduction target 

of 30% and places a restriction on potable water use for outdoor irrigation to two days 

per week; and imposes a 21-35% consumer demand reduction; and requirement to use 

recycled water for construction. 

2.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: EVALUATION CRITERIA 

The following section provides responses to each of the evaluation criterion and subcriterion. 

Table 2 summarizes each of the responses of how this project meets the criteria. 

Table 2 Summary of Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Funding Criterion 

Criterion How Does the Project Meet This Criterion 

1. Water Supply  Title XVI authorized project will produce approx. 2,500 AFY of new recycled 

water for a total of approximately 3,700 AFY, which is a reliable, drought 

tolerant, sustainable water supply. 

 Reduces groundwater pumping from the local groundwater basin. Allows for 

flexibility in groundwater management. 

 Reduces future reliance on imported State Water Project (SWP) and Central 

Valley Project (CVP) supplies. 

2. Project Status  Immediate-term CIP was completed in 2006. 

 Short-term CIP Phase 1A and South Pipeline were completed in 2012. 

Phases 1B and 2A to be completed by January 2018. 

 Funding of this project will fully satisfy the authorized federal cost share of $7 

million. 

3. Environment and Water 

Quality 

 Benefits the Pajaro River by reducing discharges. 

 Reduces demands on groundwater, which allows for potential reservoir 

releases that would have been used to recharge the groundwater. 

 Uvas Creek supports federally threatened South-Central California Coast 

Steelhead, which could benefit from opportunities for additional reservoir 

releases. 

4. Renewable Energy and 

Energy Efficiency 

 Includes energy efficiency improvements related to 

treatment/pumping/transport of recycled water. 

 Provides a more energy efficient water supply than the current water supply 

(imported water and groundwater pumping). 

5. Cost Per Acre Foot of 

Water and Other Project 

Benefits 

 Project costs = $898/acre-ft for the proposed Short-term CIP projects and 

South Pipeline. 

 The cost per acre foot is estimated at approximately 60% of the next 

reasonable water supply alternative. 

 Decreases reliance upon more environmentally detrimental projects such as 

the construction of a desalination facility or increase in imported water 

supplies. 

6. Reclamations Obligation 

and Benefits to a 

Disadvantaged 

Community (DAC) 

 Potentially may mitigates the Bureau's CVP obligation, by reducing reliance 

on these federal facilities. 

 Fully satisfies the Bureau's Title XVI cost share obligation. 

 Serves and directly benefits rural and disadvantaged communities of Gilroy 

and Morgan Hill. 

7. Watershed Perspective  Implements a regionally developed Recycled Water Master Plan and meets 

a high priority of the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Plan. 

 Implements a project developed through a collaborative partnership of the 

District, SCRWA and the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EVALUATION CRITERION 1: WATER SUPPLY 

Subcriterion No. 1a. Stretching Water Supplies (35 points) 

Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the project is expected to secure and 

stretch water supplies. Consideration will be given to the amount of water expected to be made 

available by the project and the extent to which the project will reduce demands on existing 

facilities and otherwise reduce water diversions. 

The South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project (South County Project) has been 

designed to achieve multiple water multiple benefits including: 

•	 Providing a sustainable, reliable, local and drought tolerant water supply; 

•	 Increases local water supply reliability and delivery of safe drinking water; 

•	 Reduces the reliance on state and federal imported water supplies including the
 

Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (Bay Delta);
 

•	 Reduces demands on the groundwater basin; 

•	 Reduce discharges of wastewater to the Pajaro River; 

•	 Benefits a groundwater basin with disadvantaged communities; and 

•	 Postpones the need to expand wastewater discharge facilities as the community grows. 

The South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Master Plan Implementation, Determination of 

Feasibility Report for the Bureau of Reclamation (August 31, 2009) (Feasibility Report) for the 

South County Project found that investing in recycled water developments will provide a local 

water supply and reduces the reliance on imported water supplies from the Bay Delta, including 

Federal water supply through the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP). 

In addition, since the vast majority of the District's supplies are currently subject to hydrologic 

variations and vulnerable to cyclical droughts and as recycled water is independent of climate, 

recycled water helps to mitigate the risks of long-term climate change. The Feasibility Study 

found that the Title XVI authorized South County Project increases the recycled water use and 

reduces wastewater effluent discharges into the Pajaro River. In addition, water recycling will 

reduce or postpone the need of expanding wastewater facilities, such as evaporation ponds and 

outfalls. 

1. How many acre-feet of water are expected to be made available each year upon 

completion of the project? Please use the total Title XVI project water savings, not 

just projected water savings for Project Activities that will be completed by 

September 30, 2018. 

The District recently completed a Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan (2012) which sets the 

objectives of developing at least 20,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water reuse by 

2030, in addition to maintaining its current non-potable recycled water use of at least 

20,000 AFY. Based on the South Bay Water Recycling Strategic Master Plan Report (December 

2014), the District identified the potential to expand its recycled water program by an additional 

30,000 AFY of recycled water by 2035, through the development of an expedited recycled and 

purified water plan including a combination of non-potable reuse (NPR) and development of 

indirect potable reuse (IPR). The existing goal, set by the District's Board, is to provide 10% of 

county water supplies through use of recycled water by the year 2025. Currently, recycled water 

comprises 5% of the county's water supply. Since recycled water use contributes equally gallon 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for gallon, this recycled water use, together with the District's water conservation savings will 

help reach the State’s SBx7-7 goals by year 2020. 

Figure 6 SCVWD Recycled Water Use Goals 

With the implementation 

of the entire Title XVI 

authorized Project, the 

south Santa Clara 

County recycled water 

system will secure and 

distribute approximately 

2,500 AFY of new 

recycled water for a total 

of approximately 3,700 

AF (based on the 2015 

Master Plan update) of 

recycled water per year 

for local use in the City of 

Gilroy. This will be a 

significant increase of 

recycled water availability 

by 150% over the before 

project supplies. To support the project, the SCRWA WWTP upgraded its tertiary treatment 

capacity to 9 million gallons per day (mgd) so they can meet recycled water demands of 

existing and identified users - upon implementation of the South County Project. As recycled 

water demand increases, SCRWA plans to increase its tertiary treatment and pumping 

capacity to meet the demand. 

2. Will the project reduce, postpone, or eliminate the development of new or
 

expanded non-recycled water supplies?
 

County-wide Water Supplies 

The District has contracts with both the SWP (100,000 acre-feet) and CVP (152,500 acre feet). 

Local water sources include: natural groundwater recharge, releases from reservoirs to 

groundwater recharge, and releases from reservoirs to drinking water treatment plants. Water 

pumped from the groundwater aquifer by private well owners, farmers, and water retailers. 

Recycled water is a small, but expanding, source of the water supply. For the period of 2010­

2014, on average, District's water supply was comprised of: 55% imported water into the county, 

40% local water sources, and 5% was recycled water sources. Of the imported water sources, 

40% was provided through the Delta, via the SWP and the CVP, and helped to replenish the 

groundwater basin. While another 15% (60,000 acre-feet) came from the SFPUC Regional 

Water System. 

The baseline water supply will be sufficient to meet most average demands through 2035. 

Figure 7 illustrates county water supplies under different hydrologic conditions compared to 

projected water demand in 2035. The District has already experienced shortfalls in supply during 

droughts, which are further exacerbated by prolonged drought conditions. Part of the District's 

strategy is to ensure a reliable supply of water to meet demands, includes the expansion of the 

recycled water use from about 15,000 AFY in 2010 to 50,000 AFY by year 2035. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 15 
 

 

 

 

Figure 7 County Water Supplies under Different Hydrologic Conditions 

South Santa 

Clara County 

(Project Area) 

Water Supplies 

The amount of 

groundwater 

pumped from the 

Llagas Sub-basin 

is almost two 

times the amount 

that nature 

replenishes 

through rainfall on 

the watershed. In 

South Santa Clara County, the groundwater pumping has averaged 44,000 acre-feet from the 

Llagas Sub-basin for the last ten years. District actively manages these sub-basins and on 

average has augmented the Llagas Sub-basin with 24,000 AFY, of which 50% was imported 

water. 

The South County Water Supply Plan identified a number of alternative water supplies that could 

be implemented to offset the supply shortfall. Options considered include agricultural efficiency 

programs (including land fallowing), reservoir expansion, additional recharge facilities, a new 

surface water treatment plant to treat CVP water, and various recycled water alternatives. 

Portfolios to provide 4,000 AFY were evaluated and the implementation of the South County 

Project (Immediate-, Short-, and Long-term CIPs and South Pipeline) was found to be the 

highest scoring portfolio options. 

The implementation of the entire Title XVI Authorized South County Project reduces the need to 

develop new, non-recycled water supplies, including imported water supplies, by approximately 

3,700 AFY (based on the 2015 Master Plan update) and helps to reduce the quantity of alternate 

water supplies needed to meet future demands by increasing the recycled water component of 

its water supply program. The project may help the District reduce the region's reliance on 

imported water from the SWP and CVP projects, as well as the need to develop new or expand 

non-recycled water supplies. The increase in recycled water supply also helps the District 

address water supply shortfalls by providing an alternate source water for specific applications 

(e.g. industrial, agricultural, etc.). With the implementation of the recycled water project, where 

feasible, customers will be provided the opportunity and encouraged to utilize recycled water 

over potable water conserving potable water sources. The project provides for a dependable, 

drought proof, locally controlled water supply that will help the District meet water demands. 

3. How significantly will the demand on existing Federal water supplies be reduced? 

List the expected reduction to Federal water supply demand (in acre-feet) and the 

amount of water currently supplied directly or indirectly by a Federal facility to the 

project sponsor. Provide calculations. 

Dependable water supplies in California are becoming increasing limited and multiple year 

droughts further making balancing amongst these needs even more difficult. The District and the 

State of California are experiencing an unprecedented prolonged drought (which is now 

extending into its fifth year) with little relief in sight. The drought conditions continue to place 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

additional strain on local and state-wide water supplies. In addition, the District is projecting that 

the climate change will provide a negative long-term impact to the Sierra snowpack, further 

reducing the reliability of the District's imported water quality. 

The District holds a contract for 100,000 AFY from the SWP, and 152,500 AFY from the CVP. 

Actual water deliveries vary greatly depending on precipitation and annual hydrological 

conditions. Due to the prolonged drought conditions, the District's State and Federal allocations 

have been have drastically reduced. This water supply shortfall has been exacerbated by the 

environmental and legal constraints in the Bay Delta. In 2016, the allocations were reduced to 

60% of the SWP allocation, 55% of historical M&I demands for the CVP, and 5% of historical 

agricultural demands for the CVP - for an anticipated total of 133,200 AFY. The drought has 

impacted the District managed recharge program, with only about half the long-term average 

recharge volume replenished in 2015 due to limited local surface and imported water. However, 

improved water supply conditions in 2016 have resulted in an above-normal managed recharge 

program in 2016. Total groundwater storage is predicted to fall near the boundary of Stage 2 

(Alert) and Stage 1 (Normal) of the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan by the end of 

2016. 

The District is evaluating alternate reliable, drought resistant water supply sources including 

recycled water. Implementation of recycled water use projects, in Santa Clara County, will 

reduce the District’s reliance on importing water from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (Bay 

Delta). In south Santa Clara County, the recycled water production by SCRWA is currently at 

25% of total production, the highest in the county. Any locally recycled water supply that is 

developed will reduce south Santa Clara County's reliance on imported supplies. Completion of 

the Title XVI authorized project will increase recycled water use by 2,500 AFY for a total use of 

approximately 3,700 AFY, and avoid the need to develop an equal of amount of non-recycled 

water supplies (including imported water supplies). 

Due to the severity of the drought and planning for drought tolerant, reliable, future water 

supplies, District is looking to expedite the implementation of the proposed recycled water 

project. Any financial assistance from the Bureau's Title XVI program for the implementation of 

District's proposed recycled water project will help District reduce its reliance on Federal and 

State allocations. 

4. How will the project reduce diversions from natural watercourses or withdrawals 

from aquifers? Responses should be specific (including number of acre-feet) and 

should include the percentage by which diversions or withdrawals will be 

reduced. 

Recycled water, used now as non-potable recycled water and in the future for potable purposes, 

reduces reliance on diversions from surface water and alleviates the need of withdrawals from 

groundwater aquifers. The annual natural groundwater recharge in Santa Clara County, such as 

recharge from rainfall, net leakage from pipelines, seepage from surrounding hills, ranges from 

48,000 acre-feet in a dry year to 95,000 acre-feet in a wet year. However, annual pumping from 

the groundwater aquifers in the county ranges from 138,000 acre-feet to 169,000 acre-feet, or 

approximately 50% of the total water used in the past decade. Groundwater over pumping in the 

past has led to significant overdraft, resulting in countywide declines in water levels and storage, 

and land surface subsidence in northern Santa Clara County. Since the formation of the District, 

proactive groundwater management programs have been introduced to sustain and protect 

groundwater sources from overdraft, land subsidence, and contamination. The groundwater 

aquifers are replenished by local reservoir surface water and imported water. Facing shortages 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and heightened competition for water supplies to meet the ever increasing demand, groundwater 

aquifers may experience overdraft once again if new supplies are not developed. 

Based on historical groundwater data it has been demonstrated that with the decrease in rainfall 

and imported water supply and sustained water supply demands, the result is an impact to the 

groundwater table. For south Santa Clara County, the concern associated with the long-term 

groundwater level declines is the potential for drying out of groundwater wells and increased 

pumping costs for well owners. District is developing and implementing recycled and purified 

water projects to ensure long-term water supply reliability and sustainable groundwater 

resources. The use of delivered recycled water is considered "in lieu recharge." 

The District manages two groundwater aquifers that transmit, filter, and store water. The District 

practices conjunctive management. The groundwater aquifers are replenished by local reservoir 

surface water and imported water. The District’s goal of implementing 50,000 AFY of countywide recycled water use, will directly or indirectly reduce stress on the groundwater aquifers and 

natural watercourses. 

The immediate implementation of the South County Project Short-term phase, provides the 

District with a new recycled water supply to offset groundwater pumping by an equivalent of up 

to approximately 3,100 AFY by spring of 2018. With the increase in recycled water production, 

customers (including industrial, agricultural, and other non-potable water users) will be able to 

use recycled water as an alternate reliable water supply for non-potable applications. The project 

helps to maintain or increase groundwater levels by reducing the volume of water withdrawn 

from the underlying Llagas Sub-basin which is the sole drinking water supply for the South 

County area. The implementation of the proposed recycled water project offsets the current 

groundwater pumping, by approximately 7%, of the Llagas Sub-basin (currently at 44,000 acft). 

5. What performance measures will be used to quantify actual benefits upon 

completion of the project?
 

Water supply project benefits will continue to be measured through extensive monitoring 

programs currently in place. Recycled water flow quantity and quality are measured during 

production and water flow quantity is measured at each of the distribution system turnouts by 

SCRWA WWTP staff. Recycled water use will continue to be monitored as the major 

performance metric for diversifying the District's water supply. 

In addition to the physical monitoring, other non-physical performance measures include: 

measurement of direct water supply benefits, as well as the avoided costs and reduced water 

quality impacts associated with wastewater discharges. Historically, recycled water has primarily 

been a wastewater management strategy used as an alternate for effluent disposal to 

discharges to a natural water body. With the increase in competing demands on water supply 

and larger uncertainty the impacts of climate change, recycled water has become a feasible 

water supply management strategy. One performance measure of the implementation of the 

recycled water program is the quantification of actual recycled water demand over time, as well 

as the revenues generated. By tracking these metrics, the District will be able to assess the 

market demand and the pattern of use of recycled water to help guide the development of future 

phases. In addition, with the increase in recycled water use, SCRWA will be able to reduce its 

discharges to the evaporation ponds. 

Some recycled water benefits are difficult to quantify such as other social or environmental 

benefits. These benefits will be documented and described qualitatively as completely as 

possible. These qualitative benefits can be considered as part of the performance monitoring for 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the project in conjunction with the measures noted above. For example avoided or deferred 

water supply and wastewater treatment costs are two of the benefits for recycled water projects. 

Within the San Francisco Bay Area, where water supply options are increasingly limited and 

wastewater discharge requirements are becoming more rigorous, the avoided costs realized 

through water recycling are significant but hard to measure. The Feasibility Study found that the 

South County Project increases recycled water use and reduces the discharge of water into the 

Pajaro River, which postpones the need of expanding wastewater facilities, such as evaporation 

ponds and the outfall. 

Subcriterion No.1b. Contributions to Water Supply Sustainability—20 points 

Points will be awarded for projects that contribute to a more sustainable water supply. 

1. Will the project make water available to address a specific concern (e.g., water 

supply shortages due to climate variability and/or heightened competition for 

limited water supplies)? Consider the number of acre-feet of water to be made 

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

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

The South County Project will make water available to specifically address water supply 

shortages due to cyclical droughts and climate variability. The District experiences great 

variability in its local surface water and imported water supplies, based primarily on precipitation 

levels locally and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Cascade Range. This reliance on 

surface water for a large portion of its water supply makes it highly vulnerable to climate change 

and cyclical drought. Risks to this water supply source include decreased snowmelt runoff 

originating in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades; increased water demands for cooling and 

irrigation; increased variability of weather and more frequent severe weather events; and 

increased frequency of droughts and critically dry years. Each of these risk factors has important 

implication for water management. The implementation of the recycled water projects provides a 

water source for the District that is independent of climate and therefore helps to mitigate risks of 

long term climate change. The implementation of the Title XVI authorized project (Immediateterm, Short-term and Long-term CIP elements and the South Pipeline portion) will provide the 

District with approximately 2,500 AFY of new recycled water, for a total 3,700 AFY of water 

supply (2015 Master Plan update) that is independent of climate variability by increasing the 

regions recycled water use. 

The South County Project may reduce the frequency of implementing severe water rationing 

measures and therefore mitigate the resulting socio- and economic impacts. The South County 

Project may help lessen the need for implementation of severe water rationing steps should a 

drought similar to the severity of the 1987 to 1992 or current drought occur. Traditionally, 

mandatory demand rationing has been the main strategy to manage water shortages during 

droughts. This strategy does not provide a solution to solving the water supply shortage, but 

enforces the reduction in water use by customers in order to get through drought conditions. 

However, mandatory rationing has an adverse impact to social living and can significantly impact 

the economy/livelihood of the local community. Based on the District's modeling results, with the 

implementation of the recycled water projects identified in the Master Plan, it is projected that the 

District would not have to call for water use reductions of more than 7.5% in a future drought 

events as that experienced in the 1987-1992 drought and the implementation of 20% reduction 

requirements is projected to occur twice in 100 years. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Will water made available by this project continue to be available during periods of 

drought? To what extent is the water made available by this project more drought 

resistant than alternative water supply options? Explain. 

The South County Project recycled water supply is drought proof. Recycled water is 

impervious to droughts and 100% reliable. The water source is effluent from users of the City of 

Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill's wastewater system, including residential, industrial, and 

commercial customers. Non-potable uses of recycled water, distributed to irrigation and 

industries customers, preserve potable water for higher purposes. Non-potable recycled water 

uses offset gallon to gallon of drinking water. During critical dry years, non-potable recycled 

water is still available at levels close to 100%. Recycled water provides an alternate water supply 

for those customers not requiring potable water thereby reducing demands on the local 

groundwater basin. Recycled water is a reliable, cost effective, and drought tolerant supply 

available in the region. The groundwater basin is directly impacted by drought conditions when 

natural recharge by rainfall and other sources can be significantly reduced. Other water supply 

sources for the region include the CVP and SWP supply, diversions from a surface supply, 

implementation of desalination facilities, or surface storage. The imported water and surface 

source water are also both largely affected by drought conditions, with limited rainfall and 

snowpack resulting in severe cutbacks to these supplies. In conclusion, recycled water has been 

found to be the most reliable and cost effective drought resistant supply. 

EVALUATION CRITERION 2: STATUS OF TITLE XVI PROJECT 

Subcriterion No. 2a. Progress Toward Completion of an Authorized Title XVI Project (20 

points) 

Points will be awarded for projects that will bring an authorized Title XVI project to completion 

(i.e., to full Federal funding levels) or close to completion. 

1. How much Federal funding has been provided for the authorized Title XVI Project 

to date? 

Award of this grant will fully satisfy the authorized Title XVI Grant obligation of 

$7,000,000. The Bureau has provided $1,295,407.16 in Federal funding in FY 2011 and a 

FY 2016 Grant Award of $4,000,000, for a total funding amount of $5,295,407.16. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) authorized a $7 million in project funding, under 

Section 1647 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-229, 43 U.S.C 

390h-30) (South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project, as added by Public Law 110-229, 

Title V, Section 512(a)(1)) and under the Bureau's Title XVI funding (Public Law 102-575, as 

amended (43 U.S.C. 390h through 390h-39) for the South Santa Clara County Recycled Water 

Project (South County Project). The Bureau issued the "South Santa Clara County Recycled 

Water Master Plan Implementation - Determination of Feasibility Report for the Bureau of 

Reclamation" in August 2009 supporting the authorization and allowing for the issuance of grant 

agreements for the project. The Title XVI authorized project included the South Pipeline and the 

Immediate-term, Short-term and Long-term CIPs of the 2004 South County Recycled Water 

Master Plan (Master Plan) at an estimated cost of $28 million. 

The Bureau appropriated a total of $1,628,000 (including $135,000 set aside for 

administrative/post award monitoring) for Phase 1 of the Short-term CIPs of the South County 

Project under the federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) Agreements 

R10AC20R53 (issued on August 31, 2010, with funds to be used by September 30, 2011) and 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$1,120,000 million under R10AC20104 (issued on September 30, 2010 with funds to be used 

by February 28, 2012). 

As the South County Project design proceeded, Phase 1 of the Short-term CIPs was further 

subdivided into Phases 1A and 1B due to significant utility conflicts and in order to meet ARRA 

grant timeline requirements. District staff approached the Bureau to obtain an extension of the 

R10AC20104 as well as R10AC20R53 agreements to allow for completion of the design for 

Phase 1B. However, due to resource constraints, the Bureau was not able to process the 

paperwork to extend the agreements. As a result, the District was not able to submit for grant 

reimbursement of Phase 1B under the R10AC20104 agreement. In addition, the funds originally 

authorized and obligated under R10AC20R53, were modified on November 21, 2012, and 

reduced by $197,592.84 for a new appropriation of $1,295,407.16. As of the R10AC20R53 

Agreement Closeout (November 21, 2012), approximately $1,295,407.16 has been reimbursed. 

In 2016, the Bureau awarded the South County Project a grant award of $4,000,000 under 

ARRA Agreement R16AP00206 for the Short-term Phases 1B and 2A project elements with 

funds to be used by September 30, 2018. 

Based on the expenditures, under R10AC20R53, R10AC20104, and anticipated expenditures, 

under R16AP00206, delineated in Table 3, the remaining Title XVI obligation amount is 

$1,704,592.84 (Original authorization of $7,000,000 - $1,295,407.16 spent - $4,000,000 

(anticipated expenditures) = $1,704,592.84 remaining). 

Table 3 Summary of Previous Funding Agreements and Obligations 

Bureau 

Agreement 

No. 

Agreement 

Completion Date 

Bureau 

Appropriations/ 

Obligations 

Reimbursement 

Awarded 

R10AC20R53 January 15, 2012 $1,628,000(1)(2) $1,295,407.16 

R10AC20104(3) June 30, 2012 $1,120,000 $0 

R16AP00206 Estimated September 30, 2018 $4,000,000(4) $0 

Notes: 

1) Of the $1,628,000 appropriation, $1,493,000 was allocated for the Phase 1 project and $135,000 

set aside for administrative/post award monitoring costs. 

2) The funds originally authorized under R10AC20R53, were modified on November 21, 2012, and 

reduced by $197,592.84 for a new appropriation of $1,295,407.16 at project closeout. 

3) Grant funds originally allocated under agreement R10AC20104 are no longer available, as the 

authorized timeline has been exceeded. 

4) In August 2016, the Bureau awarded $4 million in appropriations towards the project. The 

Bureau obligated $3,731,500, under agreement R16P00206, in fiscal year 2016 and proposes to 

amend this agreement to obligate the remaining portion of the funding award ($268,500) in the 

fiscal year 2017 (pending availability of funding). 

2. How much Federal funding is necessary to fully satisfy the authorized Federal 

cost share? 

There is a balance of $1,704,592.84 to fully satisfy the $7,000,000 authorized federal cost 

share. 

The Bureau authorized $7 million in project funding, under Section 1647 of the Consolidated 

Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-229, 43 U.S.C 390h-30) (South Santa Clara 

County Recycled Water Project, as added by Public Law 110-229, Title V, Section 512(a)(1)) 

and under the Bureau's Title XVI funding (Public Law 102-575, as amended (43 U.S.C. 390h 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

through 390h-39) for the South County Project. To date, the Bureau has provided approximately 

$1.3 million in reimbursement awards and has awarded a grant award of $4 million for FY 2016. 

There is an obligation balance of approximately $1.7 million. The 25% Federal cost share for the 

South County Project (Phases 1B and 2A) translates to $7.8 million for a $31.2 million project. 

This application is seeking a total of $1.7 million or the maximum allowable grant award to fully 

satisfy the remaining obligation and close out the Title XVI project. 

3. Will the funding requested under this FOA satisfy the Federal cost share? 

Yes, the District is requesting the maximum $1,700,000 under this FOA which will satisfy the 

Federal cost share. There is an obligation balance of approximately $1.7 million. Award of this 

$1.7 million will zero out the Federal cost share balance and closeout the project. 

Subcriterion No. 2b. Readiness to Proceed—10 Points 

Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the Project activities that will be completed 

with the requested funding are ready to proceed, including consideration of the following: 

1. What is the status of necessary environmental compliance measures? 

In March 2011, the District's Board of Directors certified a Programmatic EIR (Final 

Program EIR for the South County Recycled Water Master Plan (2011 Program EIR)). This 

document also analyzed the Short-term Phase 1 capital improvements projects, further 

subdivided into Phase 1A and Phase 1B, at a project specific level of detail, and was approved 

as part of the certification of the Program EIR. In 2014, due to minor alignment changes, The 

District conducted an Initial Study assessment to ensure the new alignment still falls under the 

scope of the 2011 Program EIR. The District found that the 2011 Program EIR could be relied 

upon for the new alignment and that no subsequent environmental documents were 

necessary. 

The Bureau completed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2010. Due to the minor 

alignment changes, the Bureau is currently updating the National Environmental Protection Act 

(NEPA) documentation for Phases 1B and 2A. The updated NEPA and associated FONSI are 

anticipated to be completed in January, 2017. Related environmental and construction permits 

will be acquired before the start of construction activities, as discussed below. 

2. When is the environmental compliance expected to be complete? 

The development of the environmental, planning, and engineering documents required for the 

South County Project, started in 2004. Table 4 provides a chronological summary of all available 

project documentation completed to date or to be completed to ensure timely implementation of 

the project. 

In February 2010, in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA, the Bureau (as the lead 

agency under NEPA) found that the execution of an agreement between the District for the 

ARRA funding and Title XVI for the implementation of the Short Term Phase I project was not a 

major federal action and an environmental impact statement was not required. The FONSI was 

supported by Reclamation's Final Environmental Assessment (EA), Recovery Act Funding for 

the Short-Term Phase I Component of the South County Recycled Water Master Plan Project 

(June 2010). 

In March 2011, the District's Board of Directors certified a Programmatic EIR (Final 

Program EIR for the South County Recycled Water Master Plan, March 2011 (2011 Program 

EIR)). This document also analyzed the Short-term Phase 1 CIPs, further subdivided into 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Phases 1A and Phase 1B, at a project specific level of detail and was approved as part of the 

certification of the Program EIR. Phase 1A construction was completed in 2012. Phase II was 

evaluated at the Programmatic level and consisted of three segments - now referred as Phase 

2A and 2B. 

In 2013, due to modifications in the proposed alignments for Phase 1B, District staff completed a 

Planning Study report to evaluate the new alignments. Consequently, an Initial Study 

assessment was conducted to ensure the new alignment still fell under the scope of the 2011 

Program EIR. No new significant impacts were found to result from the new alignments and 

therefore no new mitigations measures are needed. The District found that the 2011 Program 

EIR could be relied upon for the new alignment and that no subsequent environmental 

documents were necessary (District Board Memorandum, Use of the Approved 2011 Final 

Program EIR for the Installation of a Recycled Water Pipeline along West Luchessa Avenue in 

Gilroy, December 11, 2013; District Board Memorandum, South County Recycled Water Pipeline 

Short-Term Phase 1B, May 9, 2014; and District Board Memorandum, South County Recycled 

Water Pipeline Short-term Phases 1B/2A, September 28, 2015). 

As part of the grant award under R16AP00206, due to the minor shift in project alignment, the 

Bureau is requiring a similar level NEPA environmental analysis to ensure the existing NEPA 

document and FONSI covers the Phases 1B and 2A projects. The NEPA document is 

anticipated to be completed, by the Bureau, in January 2017. 

•	 Provide a detailed schedule of all environmental compliance activities and a schedule that 

indicates when construction is expected to begin. 

Table 4 Summary of Environmental Documentation 

Milestone Date 

Final South County Recycled Water Master Plan October 2004 

Immediate Term CIP Project Completed 2006 

Bureau Title XVI Authorization for $7 Million 2008 

Hydrogeological Investigation 2009 

South County Water Supply Planning Project Report July 2010 

South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Master Plan Implementation ­

Determination of Feasibility for the Bureau of Reclamation (110-229) August 2009 

South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility - Final 

Environmental Assessment/IS MND February 2010 

South County Recycled Water Pipeline Short-Term Phase 1 Project ­

Planning Study Report April 2010 

Reclamations Final Environmental Assessment, Recovery Act Funding for 

the Short-Term Phase I Component of the South County Recycled Water June 2010 

Master Plan Project (June 2010). (FONSI) (EA-10-15-MP) 

ARRA Award with execution of Funding Agreement August 2010 

Project Phase 1 split into Phase 1A and Phase 1B early 2011 

Final Program EIR for the South County Recycled Water Master Plan 

(Programmatic EIR) including Phase IA Project Specific EIR March 2011 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 23 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 Summary of Environmental Documentation 

Milestone Date 

NEPA for Phase 1A and Phase 1B July 2011 

Phase 1A Construction Completion Fall 2012 

South County Recycled Water Pipeline Short-Term Phase 1B Final 

Planning Study August 2013 

CEQA Memo for Camino Service Line 2013 

Staff Memo on South County Recycled Water Pipeline Short Term Phase 

1B New Alignment CEQA May 2014 

Camino Arroyo Service Line (Part of Phase 1B Construction Completed) June 2015 

Phases 1B and 2A Engineer's Report August 2015 

Public Hearing on Phases 1B and 2A Engineer's Report October 2015 

Phase 1B 60% Design Documents June 2015 

Phases 1B and 2A Project Approval by District Board October 2015 

Phases 1B and 2A 90% Design Documents February 2016 

Phases 1B and 2A 100% Construction Documents December 2016 

Advertise Project/Contract Documents January 2017 

NEPA for Phases 1B and 2A (Update) January 2017 

Start Construction of Phases 1B and 2A January 2017 

Completed Construction Phase 1B and 2A April 2018 

Project Completion June 2018 

2. What is the status of required State and Federal permits for the project? 

• When are all required permits expected to be obtained? 

All State and Federal permits are scheduled to be secured by January 2017. 

Table 5 summarizes the required local, state, and federal permits required for project 

implementation. No additional permitting is required for the construction of the project. Significant 

progress has been made in securing right-of-ways/easements. It is not expected that there will 

be any difficulty in securing the remaining permits as construction occurs in disturbed areas and 

preliminary discussions with permitting agencies have shown general support for the project. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 24 
 

 

 

 

Table 5 Summary of State and Federal Permits 

Local, State, or Federal Permit Date/Status 

CalTrans Encroachment Permit – Trenching under Hwy 101 

UPRR Agreement – Bore & Jack under Main-line and Spur-line 

City of Gilroy Encroachment Permit – East & West Luchessa Avenue 

CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement – Bore & Jack under NoNamed Ditch 

CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement – Directional Drill under Uvas 

Creek 

USACE Section 408 Permit – Directional Drill under Uvas Creek 

Levee 

NPDES Permit – Storm & Ground Water Management 

Utility Relocation 

- Verizon – Telephone Poles Relocation 

- PG&E – Joint Pole Temporary Support 

PE & TCE – Olam, Obata & Hirasaki Parcels – Construction & 

Structure Relocation 

Dedicated Parcel – Notification of District Intent – Construction 

ROW Acquisition 

- Obata, Hirasaki and Olam Parcels 

- Elite Development Parcels 

Lease/TCE – Filice Parcel – Equipment Staging for Directional Drill 

under Uvas Creek Levee 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Underway, 

December 2016 

Prior to Initiation of 

Construction 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Completed 

To Be Determined 

To Be Determined 

EVALUATION CRITERION 3: ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY (30 

points) 

Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the Title XVI Project will improve surface 

water, groundwater, or effluent discharge quality; will restore or enhance habitat for non-listed 

species; or will provide water or critical habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered 

species. 

1. Will the project improve the quality of surface or groundwater? To what extent will 

the project improve effluent quality beyond levels necessary to meet State or 

Federal discharge requirements? 

Yes, the project will result in reduced discharges to and improved quality of the Pajaro 

River. 

Wastewater treated by the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) is 

discharged into a series of percolation ponds in Gilroy, Santa Clara County. SCRWA also holds 

a permit to discharge treated wastewater to the Pajaro River during the wet season. 

The Pajaro River is the largest coastal stream between the San Francisco Bay and the Salinas 

Watershed with a watershed of over 1,300 square miles, located in Monterey, San Benito, Santa 

Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties Figure 8). The water quality of the Pajaro River has been 

identified by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) as being 

impacted by sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants and is listed as required by Section 303(d) 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 25 
 

Figure 8 Pajaro River Watershed 

of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). 

Under the provisions of the CWA, the 

State of California is required to develop 

and implement a water quality attainment 

strategy to remedy impacts and improve 

water quality to ultimately restore the 

beneficial uses of the water body. 

The quest to secure a Pajaro River 

discharge permit dates back to 1984 when 

SCRWA created its general plan. The 

proposal was a proactive plan to pump 

small amounts of relatively clean water 

into the Pajaro River without significantly 

impacting downstream communities. The 

extra discharge capacity was especially 

important during the winter when 

wastewater flows increase but the water 

table rises and the need for treated 

wastewater for irrigation declines sharply, 

making traditional percolation pond disposal inadequate. However, permitting of the Pajaro River 

discharges were challenged by Santa Cruz County, citing water quality and flood risk concerns. 

Ultimately, the Regional Board determined that the discharge would not significantly impact the 

Pajaro River water quality and approved the permit. 

When completed, the Immediate-term, Short-term CIP and South Pipeline portion of the South 

County Project, will reuse almost 3,100 AFY of recycled water (based on the 2015 Master Plan 

update), equal to the amount of treated wastewater that is periodically discharged to the Pajaro 

River. Upon implementation of the entire Title XVI project, the District will reuse almost 3,700 

AFY of recycled water (per 2015 Master Plan update). Although permitted, minimizing the 

discharges by producing and expanding recycled water directly helps to improve water quality. 

Additionally, while the recycled water will have been treated to reduce contaminants, there is the 

possibility of residual pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) remaining in the 

recycled water. The potential effects of PPCPs from the project were analyzed by Balance 

Hydrologics, Inc. (2009). Recycled water applied to the land for irrigation would result in filtration 

through the soil. These compounds may also be degraded by direct and indirect exposure to 

ultraviolet radiation (sunlight). The South County Project will increase the distribution capacity of 

the existing system, which may decrease the excess recycled water discharged to the Pajaro 

River and would minimize potential impacts to water quality resulting from PPCPs. 

2. Will the Title XVI Project improve flow conditions in a natural stream channel? Will 

the project restore or enhance habitat for non-listed species? If so, how? 

Yes, recycled water supply will reduce demand on the groundwater, and this in turn will 

assist in implementing fish-friendly reservoir releases that would have otherwise been 

used to recharge the groundwater basin. 

The south Santa Clara County communities depend on groundwater from the Llagas Sub-basin 

for their water supply. Three main sources replenish groundwater in the Sub-basin: deep 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 26 
 

 

 

 

percolation of local rainfall; water captured and stored in local reservoirs, which the District 

releases to creeks and percolation ponds in order to replenish the groundwater basin; and, water 

imported through the Bay Delta, which the District also releases to creeks and percolation ponds 

in order to replenish the groundwater basin. Both managed and natural recharge are important 

for sustaining the groundwater supplies in the Llagas Sub-basin of the Gilroy-Hollister Valley 

groundwater basin and are an effective tool for conjunctive management of surface water and 

groundwater supplies. 

The management of stored surface water is adjusted as seasonal conditions change. Most 

stored water is released in the spring after the rainfall season and allowed to percolate into the 

underground aquifers. Reservoirs typically fall to their lowest levels in the late fall, but rarely are 

empty. During the winter, in addition to overflow from the reservoirs when their capacity is 

exceeded, some water is released for percolation. When reservoirs fill early in the winter season, 

water may be released to provide more storage capacity for later-season storm runoff and to 

improve stream habitat. 

The annual natural groundwater recharge in Santa Clara County ranges from 48,000 acre-feet in 

a dry year to 95,000 acre-feet in a wet year. However, annual pumping from the groundwater 

aquifers in the county ranges from 138,000 acre-feet to 170,000 acre-feet, or approximately 50% 

of the total water used in the past decade. 

This year, due to limited rainfall and availability of Bay Delta water, Santa Clara County is 

experiencing one of the most severe droughts on record. Uvas Reservoir and Uvas Creek have 

not been spared from the negative effects of the exceptional drought. Reservoir operations and 

releases have to be optimized to balance groundwater recharge needs and in-stream flow 

conditions. In 2014, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and National 

Marine Fisheries Service, District staff reduced water releases from Uvas Reservoir into Uvas 

Creek from 4.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 2 - 2.5 cfs (Figure 9). This action has helped 

assure that at least part of the creek will remain flowing until the end of the calendar year, and 

hopefully fall rain will occur to help creek flow beyond end of this year. How far the creek will dry 

is dependent on many factors, including the weather and existing shallow groundwater under the 

creek bed. The approximate 3,700 acre-feet per year of recycled water produced by the South 

County Project will reduce the demand on groundwater pumping which in turn reduces the 

amount of water that needs to be released from the reservoirs for groundwater recharge. This 

water can potentially be used to provide operational flexibility and assist in implementing fishfriendly reservoir releases that would have otherwise been used to recharge the groundwater 

basin. The District potentially may be able to manage Uvas Reservoir discharges to provide 

critical flow needs in Uvas Creek. 

Figure 9 Uvas Reservoir Releases 

The project will restore or 

enhance habitat for 

non-listed species 

because the South County 

Project can potentially 

provide an opportunity to 

reduce and/or off-set 

groundwater pumping and 

potentially provide much 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 27 
 

 

 

 

 

needed operational flexibility for releases from Uvas Reservoir to enhance habitat for the riverine 

aquatic habitat. 

Figure 10 Uvas Dam (November 2014) 

As presented in the 2011 Program EIR, the 

reach of Uvas Creek within the project area 

supports South-Central California Coast 

steelhead (Onco-rhynchus Mykiss) as well as 

other fish, including native species such as the 

Pacific lamprey (Lampetra Tridentata), 

Monterey roach (Lavinia Symmetricus 

Subditus), hitch (Lavinia Exilicauda), 

pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus Grandis), 

threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus 

Aculeatus), and riffle sculpin (Cottus Gulosus) 

as well as nonnative fishes such as the 

mosquitofish (Gambusia Affinis), bluegill (Lepomis Macrochirus), and inland silverside (Menidia 

Beryllina). Waterbirds such as belted kingfishers (Ceryle Alcyon), mallards (Anas 

Platyrhynchos), wood ducks (Aix Sponsa), and green herons (Butorides Virescens) forage in 

these waters. Non-native bullfrogs (Rana Catesbeiana) are abundant in Uvas Creek, while 

smaller numbers of western pond turtles (Emys Marmorata) also occur here. Portions of Uvas 

Creek in the project area vicinity dry completely by late summer, and aquatic species are thus 

seasonally limited in their distribution. Given the 9,835 acre feet capacity of Uvas Reservoir, the 

completion of the Title XVI authorized project will provide for 2,500 acre-feet per year of new 

supply and the full utilization of the 1,200 acre feet of existing supply for a total of approximately 

3,700 acre-feet per year will off-set groundwater pumping and provide much needed operational 

flexibility for releases from Uvas Reservoir to enhance habitat for the riverine aquatic habitat. 

3. Will the project provide water or habitat for federally listed threatened or
 

endangered species? If so, how?
 

Yes, through in-lieu recharge, the South County Project will provide water for three

federally listed threatened or endangered species. 

As presented in the 2011 Program EIR, the project area was surveyed for threatened and 

endangered species and critical habitat as part of the project level and programmatic level 

Environmental Impact Report. Survey results indicated that the South-Central California Coast 

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) (Federal Status: Threatened; State Status: Species of 

Special Concern) is located within the project area and Uvas Creek (Figure 11 and Figure 12). 

The steelhead is an anadromous form of rainbow trout that spends portions of its life cycle both 

in the ocean and in freshwater streams. Streams preferred by this species (found throughout its 

range) typically support dense canopy cover that provides shade, woody debris, and organic 

matter. Stream reaches in which spawning occurs are usually free of rooted or aquatic 

vegetation. Gravel substrates are the optimum spawning habitat (H.T. Harvey & Associates 

2010). Steelhead populations have declined due to degradation of spawning habitat, introduction 

of barriers to upstream migration, over-harvesting by recreational fisheries, and reduction in 

winter flows due to damming and spring flows due to water diversion. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11 Steelhead Trout Swims in Uvas Creek 

In 2005, NMFS designated new critical habitat, including 

specific accessible streams (NMFS 2005). This critical 

habitat includes the entire reach of Uvas Creek within 

the project area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2010). 

Steelhead have been documented in Uvas Creek within 

the project area (Smith 1982). Juvenile steelhead are 

likely to occur in the upstream reaches of Uvas Creek in 

the vicinity of the project area throughout the year, as 

the reaches at and above Santa Teresa Boulevard 

typically contain water year-round. Portions of Uvas 

Creek in the area may provide suitable spawning 

habitat. However, reaches of Uvas Creek downstream from Santa Teresa Boulevard are 

typically dry during summer and fall, and thus steelhead are absent from most of the on-site 

portions of the creek during the dry season (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2010). 

Figure 12 Adult Steelhead Spawning in Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir 

As previously described, given the 9,835 acre feet 

capacity of Uvas Reservoir, the completion of the Title 

XVI authorized project, the South County Project will 

provide for 2,500 acre-feet per year of new supply and 

the full utilization of the 1,200 acre feet of existing 

supply for a total of approximately 3,700 acre-feet per 

year (2015 Master Plan update) and may provide 

opportunities to potentially offset groundwater pumping 

and potentially provide operational flexibility for releases 

from Uvas Reservoir to enhance habitat for the riverine 

aquatic habitat. 

EVALUATION CRITERION 4: RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY (25 points) 

Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the Title XVI Project incorporates the use of 

renewable energy and/or addresses energy efficiency: 

1. Will the project include installing low-impact hydroelectric, solar- electric, wind 

energy, or geothermal power systems or other facilities that enable use of these or 

other renewable energy sources to provide power to components of the project? 

Are any energy recovery devices or processes included in the project? Provide 

the amount of energy expected to be generated through renewable energy 

sources (in kilowatt-hours). What percentage of the project’s total energy 

consumption will be provided by installing renewable energy components? 

The South County Project does not include the installation of facilities that enable use of 

renewable energy sources to provide power to components of the project. 

2. The project does not itself include renewable energy, will the project facilitate 

power generation in the water delivery system by making more water available? If 

so, explain the relationship between this project and any potential renewable 

energy improvements in the water delivery system. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 29 
 

 

 

 

 

This project does not facilitate power generation in the water delivery system but does improve 

energy efficiency in the water delivery system. The South County Project is designed to 

maximize energy efficiency. 

Wastewater treatment and water reclamation plants are often among the largest consumers of 

electricity in a community, with treatment and pumping requiring the majority of energy 

consumption. The District and SCRWA are two energy conscious agencies whom continue to 

implement energy efficient measures to reduce energy consumption. SCRWA implements 

process control modifications, replaces old equipment, and identifies solutions to help manage 

its monthly energy bills. Given the significant demand for power, SCRWA selects energy-efficient 

treatment processes, but also operates the process equipment accounting for the predicted 

fluctuations in daily power cost between night and peak day hours. Wherever possible, SCRWA 

has made the necessary process control adjustments to take advantage of this opportunity. To 

avoid high energy costs, SCRWA has implemented energy conservation and efficiency 

measures including: operation schedules modifications to increase in recycled water storage; 

use of premium efficiency motors and equipment; and installation of variable frequency drives 

(VFDs) and advanced equipment controls. 

Since the installation of many of the original recycled equipment, there have been advances in 

green and sustainable technologies that are on the market to minimize power use in at SCRWA 

facility. The No. 1 consumer of energy in the plant is typically electric motors, which are used for 

pumps and blowers. Manufactures are taking great strides to make these devices more efficient. 

Equipment manufacturers will continue to improve device efficiencies – not only for improving 

efficiencies but also for validating and documenting the strides they have taken to accomplish 

power reduction and sustainability. SCRWA has taken and will continue to take advantage of 

such new technologies – efforts don’t stop with conservation. In addition standards have been 

enacted to provide guidance with this, including super-efficient class of electric motors. Many of 

the necessary improvement projects require expert advice and use of new technologies. 

SCRWA and the District have worked with PG&E during the design of capital projects to perform 

comprehensive studies to select the most energy friendly equipment. SCRWA participated in 

PG&E’s customized energy efficiency and demand response program for the Tertiary Filter 

Expansion project in 2006, and Influent Pump Station project in 2010. The process 

improvements included installation of high efficiency pumps, variable frequency drives on 

pumps, and premium efficiency motors. Besides the obvious benefit of a lower power bill, 

SCRWA is credited for carbon footprint reduction and energy efficiency. 

In addition to replacing drives and pumps, the system is being designed to reduce headloss 

through adding parallel pipelines and upsizing pipes. A summary of the proposed headloss 

improvements is shown in Table 6 below. 

3. Will completion of the project lead to a reduction in energy consumption as
 

compared to current water supply options?
 

• Provide calculations and describe assumptions and methodology. 

As shown in Table 7 above, improvements made as part of this South County Project Short term 

phase will provide a 95% reduction in headloss over the existing system. The information in the 

table was calculated by using a H20NET hydraulic model of the existing and proposed 

distribution systems. Additionally, the following modeling criteria were applied: 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 30 
 

 

 

 

Table 6 Recycled Water System Headlosses 

System Headloss 

(ft) Total Headloss (ft) Reduction (%) 

Zone 1: 

Headlosses between the Area 93 Pump Station and the Zone 2 Pump Station 

Existing System 132 - -

Immediate - Term 48 84 64% 

Near-Short - Term 6 126 95% 

Long - Term 6 126 95% 

Zone 2: 

Headlosses between the Zone 2 Pump Station and Hoylake Tank 

Existing System 19 - -

Immediate - Term 10 9 49% 

Near-Short - Term 7 12 63% 

Long - Term 5 14 75% 

Notes: 

(1) Preliminary estimates provided by Akel Engineering Group, Inc. based on draft 2015 Master 

Plan. 

Distribution System Performance Criteria 

• Pipe Headloss < 4ft/kft. 

• Pipe Velocity < 5 fps. 

• Pressure Range 60-120 psi. 

Pump Station Performance Criteria 

• Pressure Zones with Storage: Meet peak hour demand with largest unit out of service. 

• Pressure Zones without Storage: Meet max day demand with largest unit out of service. 

The implementation of the South County Project Short-term phase will reduce the energy 

consumption associated with current water supply options including the importation of water or 

groundwater pumping. As south Santa Clara County demands increase, an additional source of 

water supply needs to be added. One option is an increase in the import of water from the CVP 

and SWP which must then be diverted, transported over long distances, and then treated prior to 

distribution which can require a lot of energy. If the local source water is groundwater, additional 

groundwater pumping maybe required resulting the level of groundwater becoming lower as 

more water is removed which results in an increase in the energy required to pump the water to 

the surface. With reductions in the SWP and CVP allocations, due to drought conditions, climate 

change and other factors, the District will need to find another supply source. 

The next largest supply source is the groundwater basin. In order to meet the region's demands, 

the rate of groundwater pumping will need to increase. The implementation of recycled water 

project reduces the energy required to move water long distances or pump water from deep 

within an aquifer. Tailoring water quality to a specific water use also reduces the energy needed 

to treat water. The water quality required for agricultural irrigation is less stringent than the water 

quality needed for drinking water and requires less energy to achieve. Per the California Energy 

Commission’s 2005 report: California's Water - Energy Relationship (CEC#700-2005-011-SF), 

although recycled water requires additional energy to treat wastewater for recycling, the amount 

of energy required to treat and/or transport other sources of water is generally much greater. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the District’s 2011 energy and climate report, From Watts to Water, the energy 

intensity of the District’s Water Supply Mix is 1,544 kWh/acre-feet (AF) of water delivered. 

This energy intensity value includes energy for conveyance/pumping, treatment, distribution, 

and wastewater treatment. The energy intensity of recycled water is 694 kWh/acre-feet of 

water delivered. The project will produce approximately 3,000 acre-feet thus leading to 

approximately 2,510 MWh in energy savings and 580,018 kg in avoided CO2 emissions. 

The source of energy currently used for this water supply facilities is purchased electricity from 

Pacific Gas and Electric or CalPine. Water pumping is the primary use. The anticipated energy 

use for pumping recycled water, via high-efficiency pumps, through the new pipeline would be 

offset by reduced pumping of groundwater, resulting in a net reduction of energy use. 

4. Will the project include any innovative components to reduce energy consumption 

or to recover energy? 

The South County Project does not include any innovative components to reduce energy 

consumption or to recover energy. 

5. How does the project’s energy consumption compare to other water supply
 

options that would satisfy the same demand as the project?
 

This project will distribute approximately 3,700 acre-feet of tertiary-treated recycled water which 

has the lowest energy intensity of all potential water supply sources. The District identified a 

number of water supply sources, including recycled water, blended recycled water, south Santa 

Clara County water supply mix, imported water, IPR blend, and 100% pure Advanced Treatment 

Recycled Water (ATRW) and compared the energy consumption for each of these supply 

sources as shown on Figure 13. Desalination was not considered because it is not currently a 

water supply source and facility construction plans are still in the feasibility stage. In comparison 

to the rest of the water supply options, tertiary treated recycled water compared very favorably to 

the other water supply sources noted below. 

Figure 13 Energy Intensity of Water Supply Sources 

As shown on Figure 13, water 

conservation and water recycling save 

energy when compared to the option of 

the District Water Supply mix of half 

groundwater and half imported water to 

meet the same demand. To compare 

these options, the District developed 

energy use factors, ratios of energy 

compared to volume of water 

processed (conveyed, pumped, and 

treated to drinking water and 

wastewater standards) in its publication 

From Watts to Water (May 2011). It was 

found that of the potential solutions 

identified, imported water or 

groundwater pumping could satisfy the same demand, however these two supply sources 

utilized a high energy consumption than recycling and would not be equally reliable, and drought 

proof. The energy intensity of the imported water supply option has twice the energy requirement 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 32 
 

 

 

 

 

per acre-foot of water produced compared to the energy to produce recycled water for the South 

County Project. 

EVALUATION CRITERION 5: COST PER ACRE-FOOT OF WATER AND 

OTHER PROJECT BENEFITS (25 points) 

Points will be awarded based on the cost per acre-foot of water expected to be delivered upon 

completion of the project and other benefits of the project. Please use costs related to the 

entire authorized project, not just the cost of work through September 30, 2018. 

Background 

In 2004, the District and SCRWA, with participation from the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, 

jointly prepared the South County Recycled Water Master Plan (Master Plan, 2004) to maximize 

the use of recycled water in south Santa Clara County and limit use of potable water for uses in 

which recycled water is a reasonable alternative. The Master Plan laid out an implementation 

plan, consisting of the South Pipeline and the Immediate-, Short-, and Long-Term capital 

improvement projects (CIPs). 

As previously described, the South County Project, as included in the Bureau approved Santa 

Clara County Recycled Water Master Plan Implementation Determination of Feasibility Study 

(August 31, 2009) (Feasibility Study) consisted of the South Pipeline and the Immediate-term, 

Short-term, and Long-term CIPs of the Master Plan (2004) at an estimated cost of $28 million 

(2004). Upon completion of the South County Project, the Feasibility Study estimated the 

projected annual water deliveries would increase to 3,427 acre-feet. 

The South Pipeline and Short-term CIPs, as defined by the Feasibility Study, is estimated to cost 

$41.1 million, with the Short-term Phases 1B and 2A estimated to cost $31.2 million. The Shortterm CIPs consist of the following: 

•	 Phase 1A (Completed) - Improvements included a 30-inch recycled water pipeline 

extending from an existing recycled water pipeline near the SCRWA Wastewater 

Treatment Plant to Southside Drive. The pipeline connects to an existing pipeline 

located just north of the water recycling facility and heads northerly along Engle Way to 

Southside Drive, continues westerly along Southside Drive and ends at the northern 

Boundary of SCRWA's property. 

•	 Phase 1B - Consists of the installation of three pipeline segments, ranging in size from 

12 inch to 36 inch in diameter (11,100 feet) including: Existing SCRWA WWTP to 

Phase 1A, Phase 1A to intersection of Luchessa Avenue/Monterey Road, and Existing 

Recycled Water Pipeline to new Industrial Customer, Cintas Corporation. 

•	 Phase 2A – Installation of a 30 inch pipeline (3,400 feet) to extend recycled water along 

West Luchessa Avenue from Monterey Road to Thomas Road. 

•	 Phase 2B - Improvements include 2.9 miles of recycled water pipeline, assorted 

appurtenances, 3 million gallon reservoir, and a three-million-per-day pump 

station/booster station. Implementation of all segments of the Short-term Phase 2B is 

currently uncertain due to lack of secured funding, changes in customer demand and 

delayed development of infrastructure. 

This funding proposal seeks Federal cost share for the following authorized Title XVI project 

Short-term elements: 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Phase 1B - Camino Arroyo Service Line Extension: Installation of 18 inch diameter pipe 

(2,100 linear feet) and associated appurtenances starting near the Princeville Storm 

Drain, traversing Venture Way to Camino Arroyo, to Holloway Road, and ending at 

Sillaci Way. (Completed in June 2015). 

•	 Phase 1B - Wastewater Treatment Plant Line: Installation of a 36 inch pipeline (800 

feet) that extends northwesterly from the existing SCRWA WWTP and connecting to 

the Phase 1A pipeline (installed in 2012) on Engle Way. 

•	 Phase 1B - Trunk Sewer Alignment: Installation of a 30 inch pipeline (3,100 feet) from 

the Phase 1A pipe on Southside Drive northwest and parallel to SCRWA's Trunk Sewer 

to the future extension of East Luchessa Avenue. 

•	 Phase 1B - East Luchessa Avenue Line: Installation of a 30 inch pipeline (5,100 feet) 

that runs from the Trunk Sewer Alignment segment and heads west to Monterey Road. 

•	 Phase 2A - West Luchessa Line: Installation of a 30 inch pipeline (3,800 feet) to extend 

recycled water along West Luchessa Avenue to Thomas Road, where it will be 

connected to a recycled water pipeline being installed by a private developer. 

Costs for the Title XVI authorized project components, including the South Pipeline, and the 

Short-term (Phase 1A and Phases 1B and 2A), are presented below. The project costs below do 

not include the Immediate-term CIP costs as the project was completed prior to the 

authorization. 

1. Reclamation will calculate the cost per acre-foot of the project using information 

provided by project sponsors. Please provide the following information for this 

calculation. 

(a) The total estimated construction costs, by year, for the project (include all 

previous and planned work).
 

The total design and construction costs of the Title XVI South County Project through September 

2019 are anticipated to be $41.1 million dollars as shown in Table 7 below. In alignment with the 

partnership agreement, the District has paid or will pay for the design and construction of the 

South County Project South Pipeline and Short-term phases through a combination of various 

funding sources including: cash reserves, Water Enterprise Fund, and recycled water rates. The 

District is financing the implementation of the South Pipeline and Phases 1B and 2A project. 

The District will begin construction of the Phases 1B and 2A project in January 2017. The 

recycled water pipelines will be operational by June 2018. The total Planning & Design and 

Construction costs of the Phases 1B and 2A project is approximately $31.2 million. 

(b)The total estimated or actual costs to plan and design the project (note: this 

should include the cost to complete a Title XVI feasibility study). 

The total cost to plan and design the project as summarized in Table 7, is $10,463,005, which 

includes the development of the Title XVI Feasibility Study which was completed on 

August 31, 2009. 

(c) The average annual operation and maintenance costs for the life of the project 

(note: this is an annual not total cost). 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 34 
 

 

 

Table 7 South County Project Design and Construction Costs 

Calendar Year Cost Category Cost 

South Pipeline (Completed) 

2002-2012 Planning & Design $844,113 

Phase 1A (Completed) 

2004-2012 Planning & Design $3,687,891 

Phases 1B and 2A 

2012-2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Planning & Design 

Planning & Design 

Planning & Design 

Planning & Design 

$5,174,000 

$448,000 

$294,000 

$15,000 

Planning & Design Subtotal Planning and Design $10,463,005 

South Pipeline (Completed) 

2004-2012 Construction $3,376,454 

Phase 1A (Completed) 

2010-2012 Construction $1,965,605 

Phases 1B and 2A 

2012-2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Construction Subtotal 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

$2,678,000 

$10,594,828 

$11,993,329 

$0 

$30,608.216 

Total Project Cost $41,071,220 

The Immediate-term, Short-term Phase 1A, and the South Pipeline components of the South 

County Project have been in operation since fiscal year 2012 and the District will have delivered 

approximately 1,500 acre feet (or 500 acre feet per year) of recycled water by the end of 2015. 

With the completion of Short-term CIP (including Phases 1B and 2A), the recycled system will be 

delivering approximately 3,100 AFY of recycled water. Upon completion of the whole Title XVI 

project, the recycled system will be delivering approximately 3,700 AFY of recycled water. 

As discussed in the Master Plan, the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with 

the recycled water system include costs of power for pumping, distribution system maintenance 

(including labor and materials), and general administration. The O&M costs associated with 

treatment is not included as that is included as part of the SCRWA facility O&M costs. It is 

assumed that the cost of electricity is assumed to be $0.14 per kilowatt hour. The average 

annual maintenance expense for the recycled water distribution system was assumed to be 

$2,800 per mile and General Administration costs (including customer accounting, meter 

reading, and other miscellaneous costs) were assumed to be $1,500 per mile of distribution 

pipeline per year. The total O&M cost associated with the South County Project facilities 

(Short-term Phases 1A and 1B and 2A and South Pipeline) is $74,000 per year. 

(d)The year the project will begin to deliver recycled water. 

The South County Project Short-term Phase 1A and South Pipeline were completed in 2012. 

The South Pipeline has been delivering recycled water since project completion. The Short-term 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase 1A project segment currently delivers 0 AFY. Until the Short-term Phases 1B and 2A 

project segments are completed, the already constructed Phase 1A cannot achieve the 

anticipated Short-term deliveries of 1,480 AFY. The proposed Short-term Phases 1B and 2A will 

be completed in 2018, and along with the Immediate-term and South Pipeline phases, the 

system is anticipated to support delivery of 3,100 AFY of recycled water, based on the 2015 

projections for the Short-term CIPs (including Phase 1A, 1B and 2A), upon project completion. 

(e) The projected life (in years) that the project is expected to last (note: this should 

be measured from the time the project starts delivering water). 

The assumed life of the recycled water treatment distribution system is 50 years, assuming no 

salvage value and an annual delivery of approximately 3,100 AFY of recycled water for a total of 

155,000 acre feet over the life of the facilities. 

(f) All estimated replacement costs by year. 

The total replacement costs are assumed to be 5% a year of the construction cost for 

mechanical equipment, which is estimated at 5% of the costs. Therefore, replacement costs for 

the Immediate-term, Short-term and South Pipeline facilities are estimated to be 5% of 5% of 

$41.1 million, or $102,678/year. 

(g)The maximum volume of water (in acre-feet) that will be produced upon 

completion of the project.
 

Completion of the South County Project, including the Immediate-term, Short-term, Long-term 

and South Pipeline efforts will increase the annual delivery of recycled water by approximately 

2,500 acre-feet a year for a total delivery of approximately 3,700 acre-feet per year of recycled 

water usage (based on the 2015 Master Plan update) or a total of 185,000 acre feet over the life 

of the facilities. 

2. Comparison of the cost per acre-foot of the project to the cost per acre- foot of 

one alternative (i.e., non-recycled water option) that would satisfy the same 

demand as the proposed project. Provide the cost per acre-foot for one nonrecycled water alternative that would satisfy the same demand. Reclamation will 

compare the cost per acre-foot that it calculates using the information requested 

in question No. 1 to the cost per acre-foot for the non-recycled water alternative 

provided by the project sponsor. 

Recycled water provides multiple benefits to District's diversified water portfolio including but 

not limited to: being drought resistant; being independent of the Bay Delta; providing 

environment enhancement to the South San Francisco Bay; and being resistant to long-term 

climate change. Due to these benefits, recycled water is considered the critical elements to the 

well-constructed water portfolio. 

In terms of cost, the District's analyses indicated that recycled water is cost competitive to 

other alternatives such as new storage and sea water desalination. The proposed Title XVI 

project constructs infrastructure to expand the non-potable recycled water uses in South Santa 

Clara County. The annual cost of delivered recycled water was estimated based on the project 

costs and O&M costs. A 5.5% interest rate, over 50 years, was assumed in order to convert the 

project costs to an annual basis. Each phase of the Master Plan CIP included incremental 

project costs and incremental O&M costs that all the calculation of the cost per additional acrefoot of recycled water use in each phase. With the full implementation of Immediate-, Short-, and 

Long- term program elements, at an estimated ultimate annual recycled water usage of 3,700 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

acre-feet a year, the cost of recycled water distribution is $841 per acre foot delivered. With the 

implementation of just the Short-term program and South Pipeline elements, at an estimated 

annual recycled water usage of approximately 3,100 acre-feet a year, the cost of recycled water 

distribution is $898 per acre foot delivered. 

The only other water supply under consideration that is drought tolerant (like recycled water) is 

desalination. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Study estimated that desalination would 

cost between $1,237 and $1,363 per acre-feet. Expanding the south Santa Clara County 

recycled water system is more cost effective and preferable to other options considered while 

also providing a drought tolerant supply. 

3. Some Title XVI project benefits may be difficult to quantify. Describe any 

economic benefits of the project that are not captured by the cost per acre-foot 

analysis or that are difficult to quantify. Points will be awarded based on the 

potential economic impact of the project-related benefits. 

In addition to the direct availability of delivery recycled water, the South County Project 

Immediate-term, Short-term and South Pipeline elements provides several economic benefits to 

the region as well. The availability of recycled water accomplishes the following benefits: 

•	 Promotes water conservation. 

•	 Avoids or defers water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal costs. 

•	 Provides in-lieu recharge of the Llagas Sub-basin. 

•	 Promotes the use of recycled water in new applications. 

•	 Produces approximately 3,100 acre-feet a year of recycled water which is reliable, 

drought tolerant, sustainable water supply. 

•	 Maximizes the wastewater flows for irrigation and delivers recycled water to various 

users in lieu of continuing to pump from the groundwater basin or importing water. 

In Santa Clara County, where water supply options are increasingly limited and wastewater 

discharge requirements are becoming more rigorous, the avoided costs realized through water 

recycling are significant. In addition, the construction of the South County Project decreases 

reliance on environmentally sensitive projects such as the construction of a desalination facility 

and an increase in CVP/SWP water deliveries. This not only helps preserve the environmental 

quality of the county, but also the Delta of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. 

EVALUATION CRITERION 6: RECLAMATION'S OBLIGATIONS AND 

BENEFITS TO RURAL OR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 

COMMUNITIES 

Subcriterion No. 6a. Legal and Contractual Water Supply Obligations—10 Points 

Points will be awarded for projects that help meet Reclamation’s legal and contractual 

obligations. 

1. Does the Title XVI Project help fulfill any of Reclamation’s legal or contractual 

obligations such as providing water for Indian tribes, water right settlements, river 

restoration, minimum flows, legal court orders, or other obligations? Explain. 

Yes, the South County Project may help the Bureau mitigate their Central Valley 

Project's obligation. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 37 
 

 

 

The District is one of the Bureau's Central Valley Project’s (CVP) contractors, and Santa Clara 

County is within the Bureau’s contractual service area for this CVP water. The 1960s and 1970s 

were decades of rapid growth for Santa Clara County’s population and employment, including 

the semiconductor and computer manufacturing industries. To increase the reliability of the 

county’s water supply, the District contracted with the Bureau for the delivery of water from CVP 

through the San Felipe Project. The first delivery of CVP water took place in 1987, and in 1989 

the Santa Teresa Water Treatment Plant began operations, giving the District the ability to fully 

utilize this additional source of imported water. 

The District imports approximately 55% of its water supply. The District has a contract for 

100,000 AFY from the State Water Project (SWP), and 152,500 AFY from the CVP. Actual water 

deliveries vary greatly depending on precipitation and annual hydrological conditions. As 

illustrated in Table 8, water supplied by the Bureau's CVP ranges from 69,000 acre-feet in a 

single dry year to 108,000 acre-feet in a normal rainfall year. In 2015, the allocations were cut to 

20% of the SWP allocation and to 25% of historical demands for the CVP - for a total of 40,300 

AFY. In addition, the District is projecting that the climate change will provide a negative longterm impact to the Sierra snowpack, further reducing the reliability of the District’s imported water 

supply and the Bureau’s ability to deliver its contracted CVP obligation. All of these issues 

support the need of a supplemental, locally-controlled, and drought-resistant water supply. 

All recycled water uses in Santa Clara County may provide the potential opportunity to reduce 

the District’s reliance on importing water from the Delta. Recycled water uses currently account 

for just over 5% (or 20,000 acre-feet per year) of the total county water uses. This usage, 

currently all non-potable uses, on the other hand, signals a great future potential for this droughtproof water source. Building this South County Project will help provide an all-weather, drought 

proof and robust non-potable water supply that can help the District stretch potable supplies. 

Should there be emergencies or outages in the Bay Delta, or other flow constraints due to 

environmental sensitivities in the Delta region, some amount of these shortfalls in CVP supplies 

due to these challenges may be met by local recycled water. District is planning on recycled 

Table 8 Central Valley Project and State Water Project Deliveries 

Source 

Contract 

Amount 

Normal 

Year 

(2002) 

Multiple Dry 

Year Avg. 

(1987-1992) 

Single Dry 

Year (1977) 

SWP(1) 100,000 64,000 31,830 11,000 

CVP(1) 152,500 108,120 80,270 69,180 

SFPUC supplies through 2018(2) - 65,500 50,150(3) 52,600(3) 

SFPUC supplies after 2018(4) - 63,850 48,500(3),(5) 50,950(3),(5) 

Notes: 

(1) SWP & CVP values are based on DWR 2009 Reliability Study and CALSIM II modeling results for future 

2029 conditions with climate change and include both M&I and Ag. 

(2) Based on Interim Supply Allocations adopted by SFPUC in December 2010. 

(3) Based on "Procedure for Pro-Rata Reduction of Wholesale Customers' Individual Supply Guarantees" 

under 2010 demand conditions and Tier Two Allocations calculation spreadsheet provided by BAWSCA. 

(4) Based on SFPUC Individual supply guarantees (ISGs). 

(5) For planning purposes, BAWSCA has recommended that all its agencies use the values associated with 

the Tier Two Drought Allocation Plan for all years out to 2035. San Jose and Santa Clara have 

temporary/interruptible contracts with the SFPUC. If a drought were to occur at such time that the SFPUC 

has terminated or reduced either or both of these cities' individual contracts, their drought allocations would 

be diminished. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

water providing 10% of the county’s water supply by year 2025 (i.e. approximately 35,000 acrefeet recycled water) and up to 50,000 acre-feet by 2030. However, to get to these levels, 

significant capital is needed to construct the recycled water distribution infrastructure. Any 

financial assistance from the Bureau to implement the District’s recycled water strategy will help 

the District to reduce the reliance on the Federal facility and CVP supplies. 

Subcriterion No. 6b. Benefits to Rural or Economically Disadvantaged Communities (10 

Points) 

Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the Title XVI Project serves rural 

communities or economically disadvantaged communities in rural or urban areas. 

Does the project serve a rural or economically disadvantaged community? (A rural 

community is defined as a community with fewer than 50,000 people. 

Are any rural or economically disadvantaged communities within the Title XVI Project 

sponsor’s service area? 

Yes, the South County Project serves and directly benefits the rural and disadvantaged

communities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the surrounding agricultural areas. 

The south Santa Clara County communities and Gilroy and Morgan Hill depend on groundwater 

from the Coyote Valley (Santa Clara sub-basin) and the Llagas Sub-basin for their water supply. 

The amount of groundwater pumped from the sub-basins is almost two times the amount that 

nature replenishes. Groundwater pumping in these basins has increased by more than 30% over 

the last 20 years. The District actively manages these sub-basins and on average has 

augmented the Llagas Sub-basin with 24,000 acre-feet per year, of which 50% was imported 

water. 

District's South County Water Supply Planning Project, Project Report (July 2010) supported the 

need for the project. Findings included: 

•	 Groundwater demands in the Llagas Sub-basin are expected to increase by about 

7,000 AFY from about 44,000 AFY in 2001 to about 51,000 AFY in 2030. These 

projections include about 4,100 AFY of additional conservation and 1,900 AFY of 

additional recycling by 2030. 

•	 Additional supplies are needed to meet future demands. The District staff anticipates a 

water supply shortfall of 4,000 (likely) -16,000 (conservative) AFY of the 2030 

demands. 

•	 Groundwater elevations should be maintained at levels above those seen in 1990 to 

avoid adverse groundwater impacts such as minimizing the sub-basin exchange 

between Llagas and Bolsa Sub-basins and to avoid significant drawdown in the 

groundwater wells. 

Based on historical groundwater production data it has been demonstrated that with the 

decrease in rainfall and imported water supply and sustained water supply demands, the result 

is an impact to the groundwater table. This condition has been observed in the Llagas Sub-basin 

groundwater elevations during the last several years of drought. Although water levels are 

recovering due to significant water use reduction and improved water supply available for 

recharge, the District must plan for continued or future drought. The concern associated with the 

long-term water level declines in south Santa Clara County is the potential for some groundwater 

wells to go dry and/or the increase in pumping costs for well owners. The District is developing 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 39 
 

 

 

 

and implementing recycled and purified water projects to help ensure water supply reliability and 

groundwater sustainability. The use of delivered recycled water over pumped groundwater is 

considered "in lieu recharge" and directly benefits the communities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, 

which rely on the groundwater resources. 

With a population of 48,821 (2010 census data) and an unemployment rate of 10.7% (as of 

August 2013) compared to the state average of 8.5% (as of October 2013), Gilroy is 

economically disadvantaged and rural. More telling of the economic state of the area is the 

extremely low per capita income of $22,071 and the 10.4% of the population that lives below the 

poverty line. With a population of 33,556 (2010 census data), Morgan Hill is considered a rural 

community with 4.7% of the population below the poverty threshold. Several of the largest 

employers in the area are agricultural companies, which are highly dependent on a reliable 

water supply (e.g., Christopher Ranch Garlic and Olam Spices and Vegetables). 

Additionally, both the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill include census block groups that meet the 

definition of a California Disadvantaged Community, with a Median Household Income (MHI) of 

less than 80% of the Statewide annual MHI. The US Census American Community Survey 

(ACS) 5-Year Data reflects a California MHI of $61,094 and hence a calculated DAC threshold 

of $48,875. As depicted by the highlighted areas on Figure 14, there are DAC census block 

groups located within the both the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. There are 11,578 people 

within the DAC areas with an MHI of $39,599, well below the DAC threshold. 

Figure 14 Disadvantaged Community Areas 

EVALUATION CRITERION 7: WATERSHED PERSPECTIVE (15 points) 

Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the Title XVI project promotes or applies a 

watershed perspective by implementing an integrated resources management approach, 

implementing a regional planning effort, or forming a collaborative partnership with other 

entities. 

A watershed perspective generally means an approach to planning directed at meeting the 

needs of geographically dispersed localities across a region or a watershed that will take 

advantage of economies of scale and foster opportunities for partnerships. This approach also 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

takes into account the interconnectedness of water and land resources, encourages the active 

participation of all interested groups, and uses the full spectrum of technical disciplines in 

activities and decision making. 

1. Does the Title XVI Project implement a regional or State water plan or an 

integrated resource management plan? Explain.
 

Yes, the Title XVI Project implements the regional South County Recycled Water Master

Plan (2004 Master Plan), which was an interagency effort between the District, SCRWA, 

and with the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill as stakeholders and meets a high priority 

of the Pajaro River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM 

Plan), which was an interagency effort between the District, San Benito County Water 

District, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, and numerous water resource 

stakeholders. 

South County Recycled Water Master Plan 

In 1999, the District, SCRWA, and the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill entered into partnership 

agreements to develop a marketable recycled water program in South Santa Clara County and 

provide for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant and distribution system. Under 

these agreements, SCRWA serves as the recycled water supplier, the District as the wholesaler, 

and the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill are the recycled water retailers. 

In the same year (1999), the District's Board of Directors approved the following policy regarding 

recycled water: 

•	 Ends Policy 2.1.6 Water recycling is expanded in Santa Clara County in partnership 

with the community, consistent with the District's Integrated Water Resources Plan 

(IWRP), reflecting its comparative cost assessments and other Board Policies: 

–	 2.1.6.1 Target 2010, water recycling accounts for 5% of the total water use in 

Santa Clara County. 

–	 2.1.6.2 Target 2020, water recycling accounts for 10% of the total water use in 

Santa Clara County. 

The policy indicated that as an integral part of its comprehensive water management project, the 

District will, in a cost-effective manner consistent with its overall water supply mix, aggressively 

pursue opportunities to expand water recycling in Santa Clara County in partnership with other 

public entities as appropriate. The Board’s policy was periodically updated and the District 

currently has specific policies on recycled water development, and the District has a goal of 10% 

of total water used in the county coming from recycled water, by year 2025. Additionally, the 

District’s intent to increase recycled water use throughout Santa Clara County is discussed in the 

District's SCVWD policy documents, including the Urban Water Management Plan, Integrated 

Water Resources Plan, and Groundwater Management Plan. 

One of the elements of the 1999 agreement was the preparation of a Master Plan for additional 

recycled water projects. The Master Plan was completed in 2004. The Master Plan was an 

interagency effort between the District, SCRWA, and with the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill as 

stakeholders, and was based on the integration of numerous plans and data from each of the 

agencies (Table 9). 

The District and SCRWA developed the plan with the goal of expanding the use of recycled 

water to meet long-term water supply and wastewater needs in south Santa Clara County, 

specifically in and near the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill (Figure 15). The South County 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx	 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project identified in the Master Plan will increase the reliability of the County’s long-term water 

supplies. Increased recycled water usage will also lessen the demand on groundwater and 

provide SCRWA with additional discharge alternatives. 

Table 9 Summary of 2004 Master Plan Reports and References 

Title/Description Date Author 

Gilroy 2002-2020 General Plan June 2002 City of Gilroy 

SCRWA 2000 Annual Recycled Water Report January 2001 OMI 

SCRWA 2001 Annual Recycled Water Report January 2002 OMI 

SCRWA 2002 Annual Recycled Water Report January 2003 OMI 

Waste Discharge Requirements for SCRWA May 1999 RWQCB 

Water Reclamation Requirements for SCRWA May 1998 RWQCB 

District Groundwater Management Plan July 2001 District 

SCRWA 2001 Annual Treatment Plant Report January 2002 OMI 

SCRWA 2002 Annual Treatment Plant Report January 2003 OMI 

SCRWA Water Reclamation Planning Study February 1995 MWH 

District Urban Water Management Plan April 2001 District 

City of Gilroy Water Usage Data 2003 City of Gilroy 

Recycled Water Monitoring Data 2002-2003 District 

SCRWA Recycled Water Booster Pump Station & 

Reservoir ISMD May 2000 ESA 

District Water Use Efficiency Program Annual Report 2001-2002 District 

SCRWA WWTP effluent Disposal Capacity Analysis Annual 

Update 2001 MWH 

Figure 15 South County Master Plan Study Area 

Additionally, increased water 

recycling was identified as 

one of the highest priority 

water supply opportunities in 

the Pajaro River Watershed 

IRWM Plan. The Pajaro 

River Watershed IRWM 

Plan is a collaborative effort 

by the District and the 

Pajaro Valley Water 

Management Agency 

(PVWMA) and San Benito 

County Water District (SBCWD) to identify regional and multi-beneficial projects for the Pajaro 

River Watershed. On an individual basis, PVWMA, SBCWD, and District have each investigated 

and evaluated various water resource and environmental management options for the overall 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 42 
 

 

 

 

wealth and well-being of the watershed within their jurisdictions. The IRWM Plan integrates 

these various efforts and investigates the greater Pajaro River Watershed area in order to 

identify and prioritize integrated regional projects for the watershed to maximize benefits to the 

broadest group of stakeholders in the region. 

The Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Plan was developed in partnership and coordination with 

other watershed agencies and stakeholders. The involvement of regional stakeholders was 

integral to the development of the IRWM Plan. Because the lead agencies’ main interests are in 

water supply and water quality, coordination with other agencies and organizations helped to 

ensure that the IRWM Plan accurately captured other water resource interests in the region. The 

stakeholders included organizations dealing with all aspects of water resource management, 

including water supply, water quality, flood protection and environmental protection and 

enhancement. 

The South County Project helps meet the following IRWM Plan objectives: 

•	 Meet 100% of M&I and agriculture demands (both current and future conditions) in wet 

to dry years including the first year of a drought. 

•	 Meet 85% M&I and 75% agriculture demands (both current and future conditions) in 

second and subsequent years of a drought. 

•	 Identify and address water supply needs of disadvantaged communities in the Pajaro 

River Watershed. 

•	 Maximize the use of recycled water during the irrigation season and expand other uses 

of recycled water. 

•	 Optimize the use of groundwater and aquifer storage. 

•	 Maximize conjunction use opportunities including interagency conjunctive use. 

•	 Optimize and sustain use of existing import surface water entitlements from the San 

Felipe Unit. 

•	 Maximize the beneficial use of existing local water supplies while protecting existing 

surface water rights. 

•	 Meet or exceed delivered water quality targets established by recycled water users. 

Additionally, the project is consistent with and supported by the California Water Plan Update 

and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan. 

2. Does the Title XVI project promote collaborative partnerships to address waterrelated issues? Explain. 

Yes, the South County Project promotes a multi-agency collaborative partnerships to 

address both water supply and wastewater discharge issues. See Figure 16. 

The South County Project is a collaborative partnership between SCRWA as the recycled water 

supplier, the District as the wholesaler, and the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill as the recycled 

water retailers. The Master Plan defined the South Pipeline Project and the Immediate-, Short-, 

and Long-term CIPs to expand the use of recycled water in Gilroy and Morgan Hill. Figure 17 

contains the 2004 Master Plan original Short-term and Long-term Implementation map. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 43 
Figure 16 Letter from South County Regional Wastewater Authority 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 17 South County Project - Existing and Proposed Short-Term Facilities Phasing 

feet (8.29 miles) of pipeline ranging in size from 12-inch through 36-inch diameter pipeline, a 4.0 

million gallons per day booster pump station, and a 1.5 million gallon storage tank. The Shortterm CIP Phases 1B and 2A project will add 14,500 linear feet of pipeline and the 

implementation will increase recycled water use to approximately 3,100 AFY when completed. 

The SCRWA WWTP is 

located two miles southeast 

of downtown Gilroy, 

California, on Southside 

Drive. The SCRWA WWTP 

serves approximately 

80,000 people in the Cities 

of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 

The plant provides recycled 

water to customers to 

irrigate local parks, golf 

courses, sports complex, 

landscape medians, 

agricultural and industrial 

uses. The existing Recycled 

Water Distribution Pipeline 

consists of 43,772 linear 

Immediate-Term Project 

The Immediate-term CIP Project, which was completed in conjunction with SCRWA’s WWTP 

expansion project, included the construction of approximately 4,800 feet of 20-inch recycled 

water distribution pipeline, retrofit and rehabilitation of 7,500 feet of 20-inch recycled water 

distribution pipeline, and a 3 million gallon recycled water reservoir. The District leveraged its 

local dollars with a $2.2M state grant to help complete the immediate-term project. At the same 

time, SCRWA increased their tertiary filtration capacity and added a 3 million gallon per day 

pump station that feeds the new distribution pipeline. The completion of the Immediate-term 

Project increased recycled water use by approximately 500 acre-feet per year (AFY). 

Short-Term Project - Phase 1A (completed), Phase 1B and 2A (current) and Phase 2B

(future) 

The Short-term CIP Project was planned to meet the increasing demand for recycled water to 

both existing and new customers by adding a larger and new pipeline in areas where it is 

feasible and/or replacing the 12-inch pipeline if necessary. This Short-term Project was divided 

into Phase 1 and Phase 2. An element of the Short-term Project, the Gilroy Sports Park 

Extension, was completed, and consisted of approximately 3,400 feet of 12-inch diameter 

service pipeline extension from the existing 12-inch diameter distribution pipeline to provide 

recycled water to Gilroy Sports Park, and also constructed a separate turnout to Gilroy Golf 

Course. In addition, leveraging federal grant dollars, Phase 1A of this Short-term Project was 

also recently completed. In order to meet requirements of the Federal Bureau of Reclamation 

American Recovery and Reimbursement Act (ARRA) Grant, District staff decided to divide the 

Phase 1 work into Phases 1A and 1B, and proceeded with the design and construction of only 

Phase 1A in early 2011. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 45 
 

 

 

 

Figure 18 Recycled Water Currently Used for Agriculture 

The South County Project partners 

worked together to develop the 

current and future recycled water 

demand projections in south Santa 

Clara County. The 2004 Master 

Plan presented a CIP program to 

expand the use of recycled water in 

south Santa Clara County, over a 

20 year planning horizon, in order 

to meet recycled water demand 

projections. In April 2004, South 

County had a total of 5 approved 

application sites including: 2 agricultural irrigation users, 1 landscape irrigation user, 1 industrial 

user, and 1 cooling tower. In the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update (June 

2016), over 70 potential recycled water customers were identified within the study area including 

commercial and industrial, landscape irrigation users and agricultural users for a total demand of 

approximately 3,100 AFY. Table 10 summarizes the recycled water deliveries anticipated with 

the implementation of each of the South Pipeline, Immediate-term, Short-term and Long-term 

CIP phases, the total existing and new recycled water deliveries upon completion of the 2004 

Master Plan defined Short-term CIPs and South County Pipeline, and the total recycled water 

deliveries associated with the implementation of the entire authorized Title XVI project. 

Table 10 Title XVI Authorized Project Recycled Water Deliveries 

Phase 

2009 Annual Projected

Recycled Water 

Delivery per CIP

Phase(1) (Acre-Feet) 

2015 Annual Projected 

Recycled Water

Delivery(2) (Acre-Feet) 

Existing Recycled Water Supplies 

2004 Existing Supply 

Immediate-term CIP(1) 

Total Existing Recycled Water Supply 

--­

855 

711 

500 

1,211 

New Recycled Water Supplies 

Short-term CIP 934 1480 

South Pipeline 

Long-term CIP(3) 

1000 

648 

394 

611 

Total New Recycled Water Supply 2,582 2,485 

TOTAL: 3,437 3,696 

Notes: 

(1) Deliveries are based on the Santa Clara County Recycled Water - Determination of Feasibility Study 

(August 31, 2009). 

(2) Deliveries are based on the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update (May 2016). 

(3) The implementation of the Long-term CIP component is currently uncertain due to lack of secured 

funding, changes in customer demand and delayed development of infrastructure and therefore is not 

included in the New Recycled Water Delivery total. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In summary, the District has been implementing the Master Plan's recommended CIP projects 

since 2006. Design has been and construction continues to be closely coordinated by all of the 

project partners. The proposed project includes the design and construction of approximately 

14,500 linear feet of 18 to 36 inch diameter recycled water pipeline and appurtenances, and 

includes multiple turnouts for future service areas. 

Upon completion of the Short-term CIPs and the South Pipeline, the Title XVI authorized project 

will deliver approximately 1,900 AFY of new recycled water supplies, based on the 2015 Master 

Plan update. In addition, the construction of the Title XIV authorized project Short-term phase 

elements will rectify distribution system constraints, and address flow capacity limitations and 

reliability of the existing system, hence allowing for the full and reliable utilization of 1,200 AFY of 

existing supply. With the completion of the South County Project Title XVI Authorized project 

(South Pipeline, Immediate-term, and Short-term Phases), the District will achieve a total system 

capacity of 3,100 AFY of reliable recycled water deliveries, per the 2015 Master Plan update. 

With the completion of the entire South County Project Title XVI Authorized project, the District 

will achieve a total system capacity of 3,700 AFY of reliable recycled water deliveries, per the 

2015 Master Plan update, which exceeds that projected in the 2009 Feasibility Study. 

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

COMPLIANCE 

The District has obtained or is in the process of securing all necessary local, State and Federal 

environmental compliance documents (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)) for the South County Project to ensure the 

project construction start date of January 2017. 

The Bureau issued the "South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Master Plan Implementation 

- Determination of Feasibility Report for the Bureau of Reclamation" (Feasibility Study) in August 

2009 supporting the authorization and allowing for the issuance of grant agreements for the 

project. Subsequently in February 2010, in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA, the 

Bureau found that the execution of an agreement between District for the ARRA funding and 

Title XVI for the implementation of the Short Term Phase I Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 

was not a major federal action and an environmental impact statement was not required. The 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was supported by Reclamations Final Environmental 

Assessment, Recovery Act Funding for the Short-Term Phase I Component of the South County 

Recycled Water Master Plan Project (June 2010). Since the issuance of the Final Environmental 

Assessment, there have been some modifications to the proposed pipeline alignments (due to 

significant utility conflicts) which requires supplemental review. The Bureau, as the federal lead, 

is currently conducting the required review for the Phase 1B and 2A projects, and will be 

completed by January, 2017 prior to the start of project construction, as part of the conditions for 

receipt of WaterSMART 2016 funding. 

In March of 2011, the District's Board of Directors approved a Programmatic EIR (Final 

Program EIR for the South County Recycled Water Master Plan, March 2011 (2011 Program 

EIR)). This document also analyzed Short-Term Phase 1A and Phase 1B at a project specific 

level of detail and was approved as part of the certification of the Program EIR. Phase 1A 

construction was completed in 2012. Subsequently in 2013, a Planning Study Document was 

developed to evaluate new project alternatives, which resulted in modifications of the previously 

Phase 1B proposed alignments in the 2011 Program EIR. The District found that the new 

proposed Phase 1B alignment (West Luchessa Avenue portion) was covered by the Program 

EIR and no new mitigation measures were necessary to reduce potential impacts (District Board 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorandum, Use of the Approved 2011 Final Program EIR for the Installation of a Recycled 

Water Pipeline along West Luchessa Avenue in Gilroy, December 11, 2013) (District Board 

Memorandum, South County Recycled Water Pipeline Short-Term Phase 1B, May 9, 2014). 

Since the 2013 Planning Study Report, the Phase 1B pipeline alignments changed again, and 

the changes have been documented and approved in a Project Plan Revisions and Change 

Management Memo (August 2015). To support these changes, the project activities associated 

with the Short Term Phase 1B and Phase 2A were evaluated in an Initial Study (IS) South 

County Recycled Pipeline Short-Term Phase. The Camino Arroyo Service Line segment 

alignment did not change and had been covered at a Project Specific level in the Program EIR. 

Based on the IS and the result of the evaluation of the potential impacts that could result from 

the implementation of the Phases 1B and 2A project, it was found that there were no new 

significant environmental impacts anticipated and that the proposed activities would rely on the 

2011 Program EIR; therefore, no additional environmental documentation is required to meet the 

requirements of CEQA. 

Table 11 summarizes the pending environmental permits required for the South County Project 

(Phases 1B and 2A) implementation. Significant progress has been made in securing required 

environmental permits and it is not expected that there will be any difficulty in securing the 

remaining permits as preliminary discussions with permitting agencies have shown general 

support for the project. 

Table 101 Pending Environmental Permits 

Local, State, or Federal Permit Date/Status 

CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement – Bore & Jack under 

No-Named Ditch 

CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement – Directional Drill 

under Uvas Creek 

USACE Section 408 Permit – Directional Drill under Uvas 

Creek Levee 

NPDES Permit – Storm & Ground Water Management 

Completed 

Completed 

Underway, expected 

December 2016 

Underway, expected prior 

to construction 

Environmental impacts include: 

•	 Temporary construction related impacts to air quality, traffic, surface water and 

groundwater quality, Mitigations measures would be implemented to protect air quality, 

surface and groundwater, and traffic. 

•	 Temporary construction related impacts to burrowing owl habitat. The proposed project 

is within the 2013 approved Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (Valley HCP) 

and any potential impact to burrowing owl will comply with mitigations measures 

adopted in the Valley HCP. 

•	 Temporary impacts to a wetland located between the SCRWA WWTP and the ponds. 

•	 The proposed project activities would not cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a cultural resource (United Pacific Railroad track (mainline and spur) 

because the pipeline would be installed under the railroad track via jack and bore or 

micro-tunneling technique. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 48 
 

 

 

There are no anticipated impacts to archaeological sites, low income or minority populations, or 

Indian sacred sites. The project will not contribute to the introduction or spread of noxious weeds 

or not-native invasive species. 

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS 

The permitting tasks associated with the construction and operation of Phases 1B and 2A of the 

South County Project, as summarized in Table 12, have been acquired. Significant progress has 

been made in right-of-ways/easements. 

Table 112 Required Permits or Approvals 

Permits or Approvals Date/Status 

RWQCB Master Reclamation Permit 

CalTrans Encroachment Permit – Trenching under Hwy 101 

UPRR Agreement – Bore & Jack under Main-line and Spur-line 

City of Gilroy Encroachment Permit – East & West Luchessa 

Avenue 

CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement – Bore & Jack under 

No-Named Ditch 

CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement – Directional Drill 

under Uvas Creek 

USACE Section 408 Permit – Directional Drill under Uvas 

Creek Levee 

NPDES Permit – Storm & Ground Water Management 

May 29, 1998 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Underway, expected 

December 2016 

Underway, expected prior 

to construction 

For the production, delivery, and use of recycled water, a Title 22 Engineering Report is 

required. The Title 22 Engineers Report was submitted to the California Department of Public 

Health as part of the development of the Master Reclamation Permit. The Master Reclamation 

Permit covers the production of recycled water at the SCRWA WWTP, distribution of recycled 

water through the District facilities, and the use of recycled water by users. The Master 

Reclamation Permit was obtained from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 

in May 1998 prior to delivery of recycled water. In compliance with the Master Reclamation 

Permit, SCRWA has implemented a process for recycled water users to receive annual training, 

onsite inspections, and renewals for individual recycled water use permits. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0	 DESCRIPTION OF EXPENDITURES PLANNED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 

2019 AND FUNDING PLAN 

The evaluation criteria listed in section IV.D. of this FOA will be applied to the entire authorized 

Title XVI project. Applicants also must provide a description of planning, design, and 

construction activities that are planned through September 30, 2019, including a description of 

activities that have previously been completed without Federal funding that are the basis for a 

request for Federal funding under this FOA. Applicants also must provide a cost estimate for 

these activities. 

Please include the following chart (Table 15) to summarize your non-Federal and other 

Federal funding sources for that portion of the project that will be completed by September 30, 

2019. Denote in-kind contributions with an asterisk (*). In addition to the funding plan noted in 

Table 15, please provide information specific to funds expended to date for the entire project 

scope and proposed expenditures through September 2016 that notes both Federal and 

non-Federal funds. 

Planned Expenditures and Funding Plan 

The District is implementing the identified recycled water projects, in south Santa Clara County, 

to help address and prepare for potential water supply issues associated with a continued 

drought and/or future droughts, to mitigate the decrease in CVP and SWP imports, as well as to 

address groundwater pumping in the Llagas Sub-basin. The District and South County Regional 

Wastewater Authority (SCRWA), with participation from the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, 

jointly prepared the Santa Clara County Recycled Water Master Plan (Master Plan) (2004) which 

defined the South Pipeline, Immediate-term, Short-term and Long-term capital investment 

projects (CIPs) to expand the use of recycled water in the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 

The project was authorized for construction under the Bureau's Title XVI program under Section 

1647 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-229, 43 U.S.C. 390h30) (South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project, as added by Public Law 110-229, Title 

V, Section 512(a)(1)) and under the Bureau's Title XVI funding (Public Law 102-575, as 

amended (43 U.S.C. 390h through 390h-39). The Title XVI authorized project included the 

Immediate-term, Short-term and Long-term Phases and the South Pipeline of the Master Plan at 

an estimated cost of $28 million. 

The Immediate-term Phase was completed in 2006 at a cost of $3.2 million. The total estimated 

cost of the South County Project Short-term Phase and South Pipeline increased from the 

original estimated total project cost of $28 million to $35.4 million. Table 13 lists the major project 

costs for the South County Project Short-term Phase and South Pipeline by cost item. The 

Phases 1B and 2A estimated total costs increased from $14.3 million to $31.2 million and was 

subsequently adjusted in the 100% design costs. The increase in project costs is due to the 

following: 

•	 Inflation - The original project estimate was developed in 2009, Phases 1B and 2A will 

be constructed in 2016/2017/2018. 

•	 Additional environmental, design and right-of-way costs associated with the realignments caused by utility conflicts as well as the addition of the West Luchessa 

Segment, Phase 2A. 

•	 Additional construction costs associated with the West Luchessa Segment, Phase 2A. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 50 
 

 

 

 

 

• Increase on the construction costs of Phase 1B facilities. 

Table 123 South County Project Phase 1A, 1B and 2A and South Pipeline Project 

Costs 

Cost Item 

South County 

Phase 1A 

South County 

Phases 1B and 2A South Pipeline 

Total South 

County Project 

Planning 

Environmental 

Design 

Right of Way 

Construction 

Closeout 

$114,164 

$467,027 

$3,086,700 

$19,999 

$1,965,605 

$0 

$193,000 

$310,000 

$4,729,000 

$507,000 

$25,458,157 

$0 

--­

--­

$844,114 

--­

$3,376,454 

--­

$307,164 

$777,027 

$8,659,814 

$526,999 

$30,800,216 

$0 

Total $5,653,496 $31,197,157 $4,220,568 $41,071,220 

Table 14 provides a summary of the South County Project (Phases 1B and 2A) costs and 

associated expenditures by fiscal year. 

Table 14 Phases 1B and 2A Expenditures by Fiscal Year, Dollars in Thousands 

Phase 

Major Work 

Element 

Previous 

Years 

Current 

Year 

Future Year - End 

Year 

Planned Cost 

TOTALS 

Exp. 

($1,000's) 

2012-2016 2017 2018 2019 

Actual Exp. 

($1,000's) 

Exp. 

($1,000's) 

Exp. 

($1,000's) 

Exp. 

$1,000's) 

Administrative and legal 

expenses 

Land, structures, rights-ofway, appraisals, etc. 

Relocation expenses and 

payments 

Architectural and 

engineering fees 

Other architectural and 

engineering fees 

Project inspection fees 

Site work 

Demolition and removal 

Construction 

Equipment 

Miscellaneous 

Contingency 

Total by Fiscal Year 

Accumulated Costs 

$48 

$432 

$4,480 

$172 

$690 

$1,988 

$42 

$0 

$7,852 

$7,852 

$75 

$200 

$98 

$723 

$9,872 

$75 

$0 

$11,043 

$18,895 

$130 

$49 

$40 

$340 

$9,293 

$75 

$2,361 

$12,288 

$31,183 

$15 

$0 

$15 

$31,198 

$297 

$198 

$2,867 

$648 

$19,114 

$75 

$2,361 

$31,198 

$31,198 

As previously discussed, Federal funds were approved for the Short-term Phase and South 

Pipeline. The Short-term Phase was subsequently split into Phases 1A and 1B. Phase 1A was 

completed in 2012 with a 25% Federal cost share of $1,295,407.16. Subsequently, in 2016, the 

Short-term Phases 1B and 2A was awarded a WaterSMART Title XVI grant award - receiving a 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 51 
 

 

 

 

25% Federal cost share of $4,000,000 for the South County Project. This funding proposal 

seeks the remaining obligation amount of approximately $1.7 million (or the maximum allowable 

Federal cost share) for the authorized Title XVI South County Project (Phases 1B and 2A) which 

includes the following elements: 

•	 Phase 1B - Camino Arroyo Service Line Extension: Installation of 18-inch diameter pipe 

(2,100 linear feet) and associated appurtenances starting near the Princeville Storm 

Drain, traversing Venture Way to Camino Arroyo, to Holloway Road, and ending at 

Sillaci Way. (Completed in June 2015). 

•	 Phase 1B - Wastewater Treatment Plant Line: Installation of a 36 inch pipeline (800 

feet) that extends northwesterly from the existing SCRWA Wastewater Treatment Plan 

(WWTP) and connecting to the Phase 1A pipeline (installed in 2012) on Engle Way. 

•	 Phase 1B - Trunk Sewer Alignment: Installation of a 30 inch pipeline (3,100 feet) from 

the Phase 1A pipe on Southside Drive northwest and parallel to SCRWA's Trunk Sewer 

to the future extension of East Luchessa Avenue. 

•	 Phase 1B - East Luchessa Avenue Line: Installation of a 30 inch pipeline (5,100 feet) 

that runs from the Trunk Sewer Alignment segment and heads west to Monterey Road. 

•	 Phase 2A - West Luchessa Line: Installation of a 30 inch pipeline (3,400 feet) to extend 

recycled water along West Luchessa Avenue to Thomas Road, where it will be 

connected to a recycled water pipeline being installed by a private developer. 

The District is funding the $41.1 million South County Project through the following mechanisms: 

•	 $32.6 million from the District's Water Enterprise Funds with 100% of the cost allocated 

to Zone W-5 (south Santa Clara County). 

•	 $3.2 million from SCRWA. 

•	 $5.3 million from United States Bureau of Reclamation ARRA (Phase 1A, South 

Pipeline, and Phases 1B and 2A).
 

Of the $7 million Bureau obligation, $5,295,407 has been awarded, leaving an obligation 

balance of approximately $1.7 million, as shown in Table 15. This grant application is applying 

for a $1.7 million grant award (or maximum allowable Federal grant award) for the federally 

authorized South County Project thereby satisfying the remaining obligation. 

The SF-424C table below (Table 16) delineates the total eligible costs and the federal assistance 

requested for the South County Project. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 52 
 

 

 

Table 135 Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources - South Pipeline 

and Short-term project Phases 

Funding Sources to Date Funding Amount 

Non-Federal Entities 

1. 

2. 

Santa Clara Valley Water District 

South County Regional Wastewater Authority 

$32,559,359 

$3,216,454 

Non-Federal Subtotal $35,775,813 

Other Federal Entities 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Title XVI/ARRA Grant 

Title XVI WaterSMART Grant (2016) 

Bureau In-kind Funding 

$1,295,407 

$4,000,000 

$0 

Other Federal Subtotal $5,295,407 

Requested Reclamation Funding (1) $1,704,593 

Total Project Funding $41,071,220 

Notes: 

(1) The project has been authorized to receive $7 million in Title XVI funding. The District has been 

awarded $5,295,407.16 of its $7 million obligation. The District is requesting the remaining 

authorization in this application and to close out the obligation. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 146 SF-424C: Project Budget 

COST CLASSIFICATION a. Total Cost 

b. Cost Not 

Allowable 

for 

Participation 

Total 

Allowable 

Cost 

(columns a-b) 

1. Administrative and legal expenses $307,164 $0.00 $307,164 

2. Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. $526,999 $0.00 $526,999 

3. Relocation expenses and payments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

4. Architectural and engineering fees $8,659,814 $0.00 $8,659,814 

5. Other architectural and engineering fees $777,027 $0.00 $777,027 

6. Project inspection fees $1,946,130 $0.00 $1,946,130 

7. Site work $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

8. Demolition and removal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

9. Construction $26,301,586 $0.00 $26,301,586 

10. Equipment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

11. Miscellaneous $192,000 $0.00 $192,000 

12. SUBTOTAL (sum of lines 1-11) $38,710,720 $0.00 $38,710,720 

13. Contingencies $2,360,500 $0.00 $2,360,500 

14. SUBTOTAL $41,071,220 $0.00 $41,071,220 

15. Project (program) income $0 $0.00 $0 

16. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 

(subtract #15 from #14) $41,071,220 $0.00 $41,071,220 (1) 

FEDERAL FUNDING (25% of eligible costs) 

17. Federal assistance requested, calculate as follows: $10,267,805 

Notes: 

(1) The total cost for the South County Project does not include the Immediate-term CIPs as this project was completed in 2006, prior 

to the Title XVI Project Authorization. The South County Project Feasibility Study (2009) documents that the District and project 

partners funded the construction of the Immediate-term CIPs at a cost of $3.2 million. 

pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CA/SCVWD/9977A00/Deliverables/Title XVI\Grant Application 2017AdminDraft.docx 54 
 

APPENDIX A: LETTERS OF SUPPORT 

- South County Regional Wastewater Agency 

APPENDIX B: OFFICIAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION
 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 


SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 


RESOLUTION NO. 16- 90 

AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO FILE AN APPLICATION AND 

EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF 

RECLAMATION FOR A WATERSMART: TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 

PROGRAM GRANT FOR THE SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECYCLED WATER 

(PHASES 1 B/2A) PROJECT 

The Board of Directors ("Board") of the Santa Clara Valley Water District does resolve as 

follows: 

WHEREAS, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) WaterSMART Title XVI Water 

Reclamation and Reuse Program for fiscal year 2017 is accepting grant applications for 

congressionally authorized Title XVI Projects (Public Law 102-575), as amended ( 43 United 

States Code [u.s.c.] 390h through 390h-30); and 

WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District's South Santa Clara County Recycled Water 

(Phases 1 B/2A) Project is eligible for the USBR's grant funding pursuant to the WaterSMART 

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program guidelines and published eligibility guidelines; 

and 

WHEREAS, the Board seeks to authorize such application to the USBR WaterSMART Title XVI 

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program for fiscal year 2017; and 

WHEREAS, the USBR requires grant applicants to provide a resolution adopted by the 

applicant's governing body designating an authorized representative to submit the funding 

application and execute an agreement with the USBR for a grant; and 

WHEREAS, the Board seeks to authorize the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the 

Santa Clara Valley Water District to enter into an agreement with the USBR; and 

WHEREAS, the Board seeks to authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or designee, to sign the 

USBR WaterSMART Grant Agreement and any amendments thereto. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley 

Water District, as follows: 

1. 	 That the Board hereby authorizes the submittal of a $1.7 million grant application for the 

South Santa Clara County Recycled Water (Phases 1 B/2A) Project on behalf of the 

Santa Clara Valley Water District, to the USBR; and 

2. 	 That the Chief Executive Officer, or designee, is hereby authorized and empowered to 

prepare the necessary data, conduct investigations, file such application, and, if a grant 

is awarded, conduct all negotiations, and execute in the name of Santa Clara Valley 

Water District all necessary grant related documents, including, but not limited to, 

agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for 

the funding of the South Santa Clara County Recycled Water (Phases 1 B/2A) Project, 

provided that the Santa Clara Valley Water District can satisfy the grant terms, 

RL14021.docx 	 Page 1 of 2 
Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to File an Application and Execute a Grant Agreement 

with the United States Bureau of Reclamation for a WaterSMART: Title XVI Water Reclamation 

and Reuse Program Grant for the South Santa Clara County Recycled Water (Phases 1 B/2A) 

Project 

Resolution No. 16- 9 o 

conditions, and requirements, and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and 

regulations including the California Environmental Quality Act. 

3. 	 Funds are available in District's Capital Improvement Program to provide the District's 

required funding and/or in-kind contributions for the $1. 7 million grant, if awarded. 

4. 	 That the Chief Executive Officer, or designee, will work with the USBR to meet 

established deadlines for entering into a USBR WaterSMART grant cooperative 

agreement. 

5. 	 That the Chief Executive Officer of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is authorized 

and directed, if said grant is awarded, to apply the monies received to the appropriate 

Santa Clara Valley Water District fund. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District by the 

following vote on December 13, 2016: 

AYES: Directors T~ Estremera, L. LeZotte, N. Hsueh 

B. Ke~=gan, G. Krem1~n, J. Varela 

NOES: Directors None 

ABSENT: Directors R~ Santos 

ABSTAIN: Directors None 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 

By: 

BARBARA KEEGA 

Chair/Board of Directors 

ATTEST: MICHELE L. KING, CMC 

~£l#t 

Clerk/Board of Directors 1 

RL14021.docx 	 Page 2 of 2 
OUTH OUNTY EGIONAL 1500 Southside Drive 

ASTEWATER A UTHORITY Gilroy, California 95020-7042 

Telephone (408) 848-0480 

Facsimile (408) 842-0873 

scrwamail@ci.gilroy.ca.us 

November 30, 2016 

Mr. Garth Hall 

Deputy Operating Officer 

Santa Clara Valley Water District 

5750 Almaden Expressway 

San Jose, CA 95118-3686 

Subject: Support of South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project 

Dear Mr. Hall, 

The South County Regional Wastewater Authority is pleased to support the Santa Clara Valley Water 

District (District) grant application in response to the new United States Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) WaterSMART Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program funding opportunity 

announcement, BOR-D0-17-F002, to use the remaining funds for the South Santa Clara County Recycled 

Water Project (Project), Phases 1 B and 2A. 

I am writing to express our strong support for the Project, to convey our desire to continue to work in 

partnership with the District to strengthen the water reuse projects and, in particular, furthering those that 

support to increase reusable water supplies. We understand the objectives of the Project are to: (1) 

expand the use of recycled water in the City of Gilroy up to approximately 3,000 acre-feet per year, (2) 

improve reliability of the existing recycled water system in south Santa Clara County, and (3) improve 

groundwater management of the Llagas subbasin that directly supports the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 

Additional assistance from Reclamation is needed in order to develop this sustainable water resource to its 

full potential. 

Specifically, we recommend that Reclamation use its discretion under the Title XVI of the Public Law 102­

575, as amended (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 390h through 390h-39) to: (1 ) approve additional 

planning and construction assistance grants to support regional-scale water reuse programs and (2) provide 

additional grant assistance for those water reuse projects that specifically incorporate system reliability and 

expansion as project elements. Adding reliability to existing recycled water systems and expansion will 

assist in managing groundwater basins and provide operational flexibility for state or Federal water projects 

in addition to larger Federal agency mandates. 

We look forward to working with the Reclamation to help ensure that, in the future, recycled water plays an 

even larger role in Reclamation's efforts to ensure adequate water supplies for drinking, agriculture, 

recreation, ecosystem health, and economic activity throughout the West. 

~ 

Sincerely, 

Saeid Vaziry, P.E. 


Environmental Programs Manager 


cc: Mr. Hossein Ashktorab, Santa Clara Valley Water District