Proposal for United States Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R23AS00076 

WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Planning 

Santa Monica OneWater Project – First 

Direct Potable Reuse Project in CA 

Applicant Information: 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Project Manager: 

Sunny Wang, P.E. – Water Resources Manager 

2500 Michigan Ave., Building 1, Santa Monica, CA 90404 

sunny.wang@santamonica.gov 

(310) 458-8230 

i 
Table of Contents 

1 Executive summary................................................................................................................. 1 

2 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 1 

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

4 Technical proporsal: Evaluation criteria ................................................................................. 4 

4.1 Evaluation Criterion 1: Project Planning and Analysis..................................................... 4 

4.2 Subcriterion No.1b – Evaluation of Project Alternatives................................................. 6 

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

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

4.5 Evaluation Criterion 4: Department of the Interior Priorities........................................ 16 

4.6 Evaluation Criterion 5: Watershed Perspective and Stakeholder Involvement............ 19 

5 Project Budget ...................................................................................................................... 21 

5.1 Funding Plan................................................................................................................... 21 

5.2 Budget Proposal ............................................................................................................. 21 

5.3 Budget Narrative ............................................................................................................ 22 

5.4 Letters of Funding Commitment.................................................................................... 26 

6 Required Permits or Approvals............................................................................................. 26 

7 Official Resolution................................................................................................................. 27 

8 Letters of Support................................................................................................................. 27 

9 Overlap or duplication of effort statement.......................................................................... 27 

10 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement............................................................................. 27 

11 Uniform Audit Reporting Statement .................................................................................... 27 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Date: February 23, 2023 

Applicant Information: City of Santa Monica – Department of Public Works, Water Resources 

Division (Los Angeles County, State of California). 

As the Western United States is experiencing worsening drought conditions due to climate 

change, innovations to conserve and use water more efficiently are needed to develop a 

sustainable water supply for the region. The City of Santa Monica (City) is applying for the 

WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning grant for its Santa Monica 

OneWater Project (Project) to expand indirect potable reuse (IPR) and/or implement direct 

potable reuse (DPR) to further its efforts to reduce its reliance on imported water supplies 

(e.g., oversubscribed Colorado River). Since 2017, the City has imported approximately 30-

40% , or 3,400 to 4,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) of its water supply from the Colorado River 

and State Water Project water. Increasing water recycling through IPR and/or DPR in the City 

may provide up to an additional 4,500 AFY of locally sourced water supply. The grant from 

the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) No. 

R23AS00076 would assist the City in accelerating planning and preliminary design efforts to 

prioritize IPR and DPR solutions to augment local water supplies for domestic potable water 

use). In doing so, this Project would reduce demand on imported water supplies, support the 

State of California’s mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment to add roughly 9,000 

housing units in Santa Monica (69% of which are affordable housing for the region), help 

maintain eco-systems and protect the environment, aid in local and regional economic 

recovery efforts from the COVID-19 pandemic, and adapt to climate change impacts by 

diversifying the City’s water supply sources. Specifically, the funds would be used to: 1) 

confirm feasible locations to increase groundwater recharge via direct injection and begin 

preliminary design of the injection well(s); 2) map out a timeline, necessary infrastructure 

additions, cost, and agreements to implement a regional IPR project with the City of Los 

Angeles’ Operation NEXT; and, 3) advance the DPR treatment train with State regulators, 

develop treatment strategies to achieve 20/14/15 log reduction values (LRV) for virus, 

Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, respectively, and confirm infrastructure upgrades (e.g., 

recycled water booster pump station and pipeline) to integrate the City’s existing advanced 

water treatment facilities for DPR (note the City’s existing advanced water treatment 

facilities already achieve 19.5/18/18.5 LRV for virus, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, 

respectively, and only needs minor improvements to satisfy California’s State Water 

Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW) draft DPR treatment criteria). 

The City estimates the proposed Project would take approximately 15 months to complete. 

Assuming a grant award date of October 2023, the planning and preliminary design efforts 

for the Project could be complete by the end of 2024. The Project will not be on a Federal 

Facility or involve Federal land. 

2 PROJECT LOCATION 

The Project locations, either located within the City of Santa Monica or in West Los Angeles, 

are summarized in Figure 1. The City does not need to acquire any new property for the 

Evaluation Criteria - 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

proposed Project. The Project will not be on a Federal Facility or involve Federal land. 

Figure 1: Project Locations 

TECHNICAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The City is applying for the USBR WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Planning 

grant for the Santa Monica OneWater Project. The Project would advance the 

planning/preliminary design of expanding IPR and/or implement DPR to augment the City’s 

raw drinking water supply. The City is applying for grant funding under Funding Group I 

under USBR’s NOFO No. R23AS00076 and is an eligible applicant as a municipal water 

supplier in the State of California. The grant funds would be used to assess the feasibility of 

expanding IPR or implementing DPR, prepare preliminary cost estimates, evaluate project 

alternatives, and advance preliminary design for the selected project alternative. 

As California enters the 3rd year of the current historic multi-year drought, it is clear that 

alternative water supplies such as water recycling, potable reuse, and desalination will play a 

critical role in water supply sustainability and reliability across the Western United States. 

The City’s Project will build on innovations already implemented to increase local water 

supply resiliency and reduce its reliance on imported water supplies (e.g., oversubscribed 

Colorado River). The City partnered with California’s State Water Resources Control Board, 

Department of Water Resources, Los Angeles County, and the Metropolitan Water District of 

Evaluation Criteria - 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southern California (MWD) to deliver several first of its kind innovations in water reuse and 

desalination that included the first stormwater direct injection project in California, the first 

membrane bioreactor and cartridge filter permitted for potable reuse in California, and the 

first Flow Reversal Reverse Osmosis (FRRO) system in the United States. The City seeks to 

partner with USBR, through the WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination grant, to 

deliver the first DPR project in California. 

The proposed Project would not only address water supply shortages and reliability issues in 

the West, but it will also help the City address groundwater depletion and water quality 

issues, reduce pollution in the Santa Monica Bay, support regional affordable housing needs, 

reduce the City’s water supply energy footprint, protect the City’s water supply against 

natural disasters, maintain overall affordability in its water supply, and provide a OneWater 

model that other utilities can emulate to enhance their own sustainable and reliable local 

water supplies The City’s efforts to develop a local, resilient, and sustainable water supply 

will also benefit local Disadvantage Communities (DACs) and Severely Disadvantaged 

Communities (SDACs) that represent nearly 17% of the local community. The City’s efforts 

will also support economic sustainability and growth in the region, such as the tourism and 

hospitality industries that are recovering to pre-pandemic levels that supported over 12,600 

jobs (majority of which employs DAC and SDAC members in the region) and generated over 

$1.9 billion for the local economy in 2019. Specifically, the overall goals of the Project are to: 

1. Reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies and alleviate pressures on the 

Colorado River and State Water Project. 

2. Maximize water recycling and water use efficiency through IPR and DPR 

3. Enhance sustainability and drought resiliency to create flexibility in adapting to climate 

change impacts on the City’s water supply (e.g., stormwater harvesting during wet 

weather events for potable reuse and reducing pollution discharge into the Santa 

Monica Bay or leveraging municipal wastewater for DPR during drought periods). 

These goals are in alignment with priorities outlined by the Biden-Harris administration (e.g., 

EO 14008), the California Governor’s Water Supply Strategy, and several regional watershed 

and water supply plans (e.g., Greater Los Angeles Integrated Water Management Plan, 

MWD’s Integrated Resources Plan, and Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Santa 

Monica Basin). To achieve these goals, the City has already identified three alternatives that 

could add up to 4,500 AFY of locally sourced water through potable reuse and aims to 

develop and refine each alternative through the work plan detailed within this proposal. The 

work plan consists of: 1) stakeholder coordination and public outreach to solicit feedback on 

each alternative or develop new ones; 2) reviewing existing data, facilities, and operations to 

establish baseline conditions for each alternative; 3) outlining regulatory compliance 

strategies and identifying compliance gaps within each alternative; 4) developing and ranking 

each alternative while considering environmental impacts, treatment requirements, 

operation requirements, and life-cycle cost; 5) advancing feasible projects to preliminary 

design; and 6) meet all of the requirements of Reclamation’s Feasibility Study D&S WTR 11-

01. 

Evaluation Criteria - 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 TECHNICAL PROPORSAL: EVALUATION CRITERIA 

4.1 Evaluation Criterion 1: Project Planning and Analysis 

Subcriterion No.1a – Water Recycling Needs and Opportunities 

4.1.1 Describe the problems and needs in the project area. 

In recent years, many regions around the globe have adopted new water supply 

management strategies to address the effects of climate change. In the State of California, 

traditional water supplies from the State Water Project and the Colorado River are 

experiencing ongoing, historic drought conditions that would take years, or even decades, to 

recover from. Every gallon or acre-feet of imported water that the City replaces with locally 

sourced water is made available to other users or eco-systems that are more heavily 

dependent on the Colorado River or State Water Project. All water agencies must do their 

part to diversify and develop sustainable solutions to combat climate change. 

The City of Santa Monica aims to address numerous water supply issues to secure a 

sustainable and climate change resilient water supply, including: 

• Water supply shortages and reliability. The City’s imported water supply (Colorado River 

and State Water Project) has faced historic shortages and its reliability has been 

compromised due to climate change . Extreme drought conditions have resulted in 0% 

allocation of State Water Project water for Southern California on December 1, 2021, and 

a starting allocation of only 5% for December 1, 2022, which contributed to a Regional 

Drought Emergency declared by the MWD for the Southern California region. During this 

period, MWD had to borrow water from the State Water Project to meet human health 

and safety needs in areas that are solely dependent on the State Water Project. The 

Colorado River is also facing historic low levels in its reservoirs at Lake Mead and Lake 

Powell after 23 years of drought, calling for all seven states reliant on the Colorado 

River’s supply to collaboratively develop a plan reducing their use immediately. 

• Mitigate risk of groundwater depletion and deteriorating groundwater quality. Climate 

change has not only impacted the City’s imported water supply, but it has also impacted 

the City’s groundwater supply and the natural recharge cycle of the Santa Monica 

Groundwater Subbasin to maintain service levels for drinking water production. 

Reduction of groundwater levels impacts the City’s ability to restore two contaminated 

groundwater basins that are impaired from historical industrial activities. 

• Support regional affordable housing needs. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment, as 

mandated by California State Law, required the City to plan for approximately 9,000 new 

housing units that would add approximately 1,500 AFY to the City’s total water demand. 

Roughly 69% of 9,000 new housing units are slated to be affordable housing for the 

region. 

• Prevent disruption of water supply from natural disasters. The City’s imported water 

supply from the Colorado River and State Water Project is susceptible to service 

interruptions from earthquakes. For example, following the 1994 Northridge 

earthquake, the City’s imported water supply was interrupted for a few days where the 

Evaluation Criteria - 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City had to rely solely on local groundwater supplies while emergency repairs were 

completed on conveyance infrastructure. 

• Support water affordability and economic recovery. Reliance on imported water 

supplies from the Colorado River and State Water Project also subjects the City’s 

residents and local economy to price volatility. Imported water is also more expensive 

than locally-sourced water supplies. Having an affordable and resilient water supply is 

key for economic recovery efforts in the region. 

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

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

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

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

climate change information. 

Through water conservation efforts alone, the City has already permanently reduced 2,500 

AFY per year of water demand on imported water supplies. As outlined in the City’s 2018 

Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP), the City aims to further reduce its reliance on 

imported water supplies (State Water Project and Colorado River) from 4,500 acre-feet per 

year (AFY), or roughly 40% of the City’s water supply, to less than 200 AFY (<2% of the City’s 

water supply). The City recently completed its Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project 

(SWIP), home to several “firsts” in water recycling, including the first membrane bioreactor 

and cartridge filter system in California to be granted pathogen removal credits for potable 

reuse, the first stormwater harvesting project that meets potable reuse standards for 

groundwater augmentation through subsurface applications, and the first below-grade 

advanced water treatment facility that purifies wastewater and stormwater to groundwater 

recharge standards all within a single facility. 

The City’s goal of achieving 99% water self-sufficiency by 2023, as outlined in the 2018 

SWMP, has been impacted by climate change and the 2020 Regional Housing Needs 

Assessment where only 80% water self-sufficiency is achievable with current water supply 

infrastructure. Various future climate change scenarios were modeled in the City’s 2020 

Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and 2022 GSP for the Santa Monica Groundwater 

Subbasin, where extreme, multi-year drought periods could impact the availability and 

sustainable yield of local groundwater supplies. The estimated future climate impact 

indicates the City may still need 3,000-4,000 AFY of imported water supplies to meet its 

projected future water demands or bridge the gap of any shortfalls on groundwater 

availability from reduced natural recharge. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment, as 

mandated by California State Law, also required the City to plan for over 9,000 new housing 

units that would add approximately 1,500 AFY to the City’s total water demand. 

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

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

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

generation, and recreation). 

The planning grant from USBR would assist the City in accelerating planning and preliminary 

Evaluation Criteria - 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

design efforts to prioritize IPR and DPR solutions to augment local water supplies for 

domestic potable water use. These solutions would replace imported water supplies from 

the Colorado River, support required housing development in Santa Monica, and adapt to 

climate change impacts on the City’s water supply sources through diversification and 

resiliency. The City’s Recycled Water Master Plan has already identified ultimate nonpotable recycled water demands for commercial, industrial, cooling, and recreation 

purposes. The focus of this Project is to augment drinking water supplies. 

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

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

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

The source water that will be considered for the proposed Project includes advanced treated 

recycled water, treated stormwater/dry-weather urban runoff, and/or saline brackish water 

from the City’s SWIP or advanced treated recycled water from a regional advanced water 

purification facility being planned by the City of Los Angeles in its Operation NEXT program. 

Please see summary in Table 1 on source water that will be considered for the Project, 

including location of the facilities, capacities, existing and available source water flows, 

existing demand, and available water for IPR and DPR applications. 

4.2 Subcriterion No.1b – Evaluation of Project Alternatives 

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

water supply alternatives and project alternatives will be investigated? 

The primary objectives of the proposed Project are to: 1) reduce the City’s reliance on 

imported water supplies (Colorado River and State Water Project); 2) maximize water 

recycling within the City; and, 3) enhance sustainability and drought resiliency in the City’s 

water supply portfolio through water conservation, water recycling, and desalination. The 

City is leveraging brackish groundwater, contaminated groundwater, stormwater, dryweather urban runoff, and municipal wastewater in its local water supply portfolio. 

Collectively, all of these water sources work together as “One Water,” due to their 

interdependencies, and a holistic approach has been used to evaluate the City’s one water 

supply against imported water supplies. 

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

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

investigated. 

The proposed Project will focus on advancing each project alternative summarized 

previously for IPR and DPR options. A preliminary scope of work is outlined in Table 2 to 

develop and evaluate the project alternatives. A more detailed description of each task is 

provided in the Project Budget section of the City’s grant proposal. 

Evaluation Criteria - 6 
Table 1: Summary of Source Water for the Project 

Facility (Location) 

Treatment Processes Available 

Source Water 

Capacity 

SWIP AWTF (1771 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90401) 

1.5 to 15 million gallons per day (mgd) (stormwater + urban runoff + wastewater) 

1 mgd 

SMURRF + Clean Beaches Tank (1623 Appian Way, Santa Monica, CA 90401) 

Up to 0.5 mgd (stormwater + urban runoff + brackish groundwater) 

0.5 mgd 

Operation NEXT – Hyperion WRP (12000 Vista Del Mar, Playa Del Rey, CA 90293 

(Planned) 

275 mgd (wastewater, on average) 

217 mgd (projected
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Summary of Planning Activities to Develop and Rank Project Alternatives 

Task Description 

Task 1 – Project 

Coordination and 

Stakeholder 

Engagement 

Throughout the Project, the City will engage key stakeholders (e.g., 

City leadership, community groups, non-profits, etc.) and 

continuously hold various public outreach efforts to develop and 

refine each Project alternative. 

Task 2 – Data 

Collection 

Collect and review data on recycled water/water production, facility 

operations, design criteria of existing treatment facilities and 

conveyance infrastructure, and water quality. The data collection 

effort will help establish baseline conditions for each Project 

alternative to be evaluated. 

Task 3 – Regulatory 

Considerations 

Identify and outline regulatory compliance strategies for both IPR 

and DPR. Although IPR is well established in California, DPR 

regulations are set to be finalized in 2023. The initial effort for DPR 

alternatives will utilize anticipated regulatory context based on draft 

regulations and public review sessions held by the DDW. 

Task 4 – 

Alternatives 

Development and 

Ranking 

The Project will refine alternatives already identified in this proposal 

as well as develop up to three additional alternatives, which may be 

a combination of IPR and DPR solutions. Development and ranking 

will focus on environmental considerations, future climate change 

scenarios, treatment requirements (LRV for pathogen removal) to 

protect public health, operation requirements, and life-cycle cost. 

Task 5 – Planning 

Study Report 

A draft and final report of the Project to summarize alternatives 

development and ranking will be prepared and submitted to the 

USBR for review and input. 

Task 6 – Preliminary 

Design 

For the top-ranking alternative(s), each alternative would be 

advanced to the preliminary design phase for 30-percent level 

design and cost estimate (Class 5 Construction Estimate). 

4.2.3 Provide a general description of the selected project, including project features, 

benefits, anticipated costs, and analyses conducted. 

The proposed Project will evaluate both IPR and DPR options for the City to maximize its 

available recycled water supply to prioritize expanding IPR to recharge local groundwater 

aquifers and/or directly augment the City’s raw groundwater supply sent to the Olympic 

Advanced Water Treatment Facility (Olympic AWTF) and Arcadia Water Treatment Plant 

(WTP) as a DPR application. A summary of the Project alternatives, including key features, 

benefits, anticipated total project costs (including planning, feasibility design, preliminary 

and detailed design, and construction), and analyses conducted to date is provided in Table 3 

and its location, capacities, treatment processes and available flows for each alternative is 

summarized in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4. 

Evaluation Criteria - 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Summary of Proposed Project Alternatives for Water Recycling 

Alternative 

(Total Cost) 

Key Features, Benefits, and Analysis Conducted 

1A - Expand IPR 

Injection at City 

Yards using 

SWIP 

($9.5 million) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Leverage available 1 million gallons per day (mgd) from SWIP and 

maximize use of existing recycled water infrastructure. 

Hydrogeologic modeling indicates two groundwater recharge wells 

(~200-250 gallons per minute [gpm] each) could be supported to 

increase IPR at the Olympic Well Field. 

Maintain sustainable yield at the Olympic Well Field (~ 2,000 acreAFY). 

Development of this alternative will focus on confirming location, 

footprint, ancillary equipment and support requirements, and 

establishing design criteria for the injection wells. 

1B - Regional 

IPR at Charnock 

Well Field 

($30 million) 

• Leverage Operation NEXT’s potential 217 mgd of advanced treated 

recycled water from the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant. 

• Preliminary estimates indicate each recharge well could inject up to 

500 gpm at the Charnock Well Field and suggest 3 recharge wells 

may be feasible to support sustainable yield of local groundwater 

supplies (~ 7,000 AFY). 

• Development of this alternative will consider schedule of Operation 

NEXT, conveyance infrastructure requirements, and refining 

hydrogeologic models to confirm recharge capacity and location at 

the Charnock Well Field. 

2 - Implement 

DPR with SWIP, 

Olympic AWTF, 

and Arcadia 

WTP 

($13.5 million) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Leverage the SWIP and Olympic AWTF to meet California’s DPR 

requirements while maximizing water recycling efficiency and use of 

existing recycled water infrastructure. 

Directly augment the raw groundwater supply treated at the City’s 

Arcadia WTP to augment ~1,000 AFY in drinking water supply. 

Provide a road map to implement DPR in California for augmenting 

local groundwater supplies. 

Based on initial discussions with state regulators, the City would 

need to evaluate the following: 1) adding a chemical disinfection 

treatment step (e.g., ozone or chlorine dioxide) to provide 1 LRV for 

virus, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, and 2) installing a new recycled 

water booster pump station and connection to the Arcadia WTP to 

complete the DPR treatment train. 

. 

Evaluation Criteria - 9 
Figure 2: Summary of Alternative 1A – Expand IPR at City Yards with SWIP 

E
Figure 3: Summary of Alternative 1B – Expand IPR at Charnock Well Field with Operation N

E
Figure 4: Summary of Alternative 2 – Implement DPR w/SWIP, Olympic AWTF, and Arcadia 

E
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Santa Monica - Direct Potable Reuse Project and Groundwater Recharge Expansion Project Schedule 

2023 2024 2025 2026 

Task Duration O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 

USBR Grant Tasks 

Task 1 - Project Coordination 

and Stakeholder Engagement 15 months 

Task 2 - Data Collection 3 months 

Task 3 - Regulatory 

Requirements Analysis 3 months 

Task 4 - Alternatives 

Development and Ranking 6 months 

Task 5 - Planning Study 5 months 

Task 6 - Preliminary Design 6 months 

Future Tasks 

Permitting and CEQA 6 months 

Detailed Design 11 months 

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

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

A preliminary schedule for the Project to support the proposed tasks above is provided in 

Figure 5. It is estimated that the City would complete the requested funding tasks within 15 

months. 

Construction 16 months 

Figure 5: Preliminary Schedule for Each Project Alternative 

4.3 Evaluation Criterion 2: Stretching Water Supplies (20 points) 

4.3.1 Describe the potential for the project to reduce, postpone, or eliminate the 

development of new or expanded non-recycled water supplies. 

With over $200 million invested in the past 5 years in local water supply projects from the 

City’s 2018 SWMP, the City has stretched multiple local resources including brackish 

groundwater, contaminated groundwater, stormwater, dry weather urban runoff, and 

municipal wastewater to reduce the City’s reliance on imported waters. In doing so, the City 

has implemented several first of its kind technologies (e.g., membrane bioreactor for potable 

reuse applications in California) and Flow Reversal Reverse Osmosis (first municipal 

installation in the United States) to stretch local water resources to its highest beneficial use 

as drinking water. The proposed Project would further enhance sustainability and resiliency 

by providing up to an additional 4,500 AFY through potable reuse. 

4.3.2 Describe the potential for the project to alleviate pressure on existing water supplies 

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

and/or facilities that will be impacted and explain how they will be impacted by the 

Project, including quantifications where applicable. 

The City’s proposed Project will maximize available advanced treated recycled water – both 

locally through the City’s SWIP (up to 1 mgd or 1,100 AFY of available supply) or regionally 

through the City of Los Angeles’ Operation NEXT (estimated to produce up to 217 mgd or 

243,000 AFY) – to expand IPR and/or add DPR to further enhance the sustainability and 

drought-resiliency of the City’s local water supply. Since 2017, the City has purchased 

approximately 30-40% (~3,400 to 4,500 AFY) of its water supply from MWD, Southern 

Evaluation Criteria - 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California’s regional water supplier that imports Colorado River and State Water Project 

water. Increasing water recycling through IPR and/or DPR in the City may provide up to an 

additional 4,500 AFY of locally sourced water supply. Every gallon or acre-foot of demand on 

imported water that is reduced through the Project will free up water supplies to areas that 

are more heavily dependent on the State Water Project or Colorado River or help maintain 

ecosystems supported by those sources. 

4.3.3 Describe the potential for the project to make water available to address a specific 

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

project being investigated in addressing that concern and the extent to which the 

project will address it. 

Expanding IPR and/or adding DPR to the City’s water supply portfolio not only provides a 

sustainable, drought resilient water supply to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water 

supplies, but also addresses several other areas of concern that are listed below. 

• Water supply shortages and reliability. A Regional Drought Emergency was declared by 

MWD in December 2022 due to extreme shortages in both the State Water Project and 

Colorado River that not only impact the reliability of the region’s water supply, but also 

put the region’s major hydroelectric power generation facilities at risk. The City’s 

proposed Project would add up to 4,500 AFY of local sourced water supply that would 

reduce its demand on the Colorado River or State Water Project. 

• Groundwater depletion. The proposed IPR and DPR projects align with the sustainable 

management actions outlined in the 2022 GSP for the Santa Monica Groundwater 

Subbasin per the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in California to help 

sustain 10,000 to 11,000 AFY of local groundwater production. 

• Water quality issues. Expanding IPR and/or adding DPR to the City’s water supply 

portfolio would aid in maintaining the sustainable yield of the local groundwater basins, 

which is critical to restoring water quality in the groundwater basins due to historical 

industrial contamination at the Olympic and Charnock well fields. 

• Natural disasters that may impact water supply infrastructure. Having a diverse, 

sustainable, and locally sourced water supply will reduce the City’s reliance on imported 

water supplies which are susceptible to interruptions from a natural disaster (e.g., 

earthquakes). After the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the City assisted in the emergency 

recovery efforts by relying solely on local water supplies while imported water supplies 

were interrupted by emergency repairs. 

• Availability of alternative water supplies. The City’s proposed Project will leverage and 

maximize use of available alternative water supplies, up to 1 mgd or 1,100 AFY locally, or 

tap into Operation NEXT’s 217 mgd that would be available from the Hyperion Water 

Reclamation Plant. 

• Increasing cost of water supplies. One of the main benefits in developing a diverse, 

sustainable local water supply is to provide long term cost certainty for the City’s water 

supply to support a sustainable community and economy. Imported water rates 

currently exceed costs for local water supply production, and by 2029, imported water 

supplies are projected to increase to $300 more per AFY compared to implementing the 

Evaluation Criteria - 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City’s OneWater program. Outside funding support, in both low interest loans and grants, 

have been able to accelerate the payback period of investing in local water supplies. 

4.3.4 Describe the potential for the project to help create additional flexibility to address 

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

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

the project being investigated more drought resistant than alternative water supply 

options? Explain 

The evaluation will consider climate change vulnerability (already quantified in the City’s 

2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the Santa Monica Groundwater Subbasin’s 2022 

Groundwater Sustainability Plan), life-cycle cost, regulatory monitoring and compliance, 

environmental impacts, operation requirements, use of existing facilities, and 

footprint/location of new facilities. Flexibility and adaptability of local water supplies are 

essential in combating climate change impacts where increasing unpredictability in weather 

patterns often result in severe, multi-year drought conditions in the Western United States. 

The City’s proposed Project aims to maximize its available advanced treated recycled water 

to expand IPR, recharging local groundwater aquifers to maintain sustainable yield, and/or to 

expand DPR to directly augment drinking water supplies. Advancing and adding DPR to the 

City’s water supply portfolio will further enhance the City’s drought resiliency and increase 

water use efficiency over IPR. 

4.4 Evaluation Criterion 3: Environment and Water Quality (20 points) 

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

groundwater. 

Increasing water recycling through IPR and/or DPR in the City will improve water quality in 

the Olympic and Charnock sub-basins, which account for nearly 9,000 AFY of the City’s local 

groundwater supply. Due to historical industrial contamination, both sub-basins are 

currently being restored through advanced water treatment technologies that remove the 

contaminants and produce safe, high-quality drinking water. Expanding potable reuse would 

help maintain water levels to sustain groundwater remediation activities by maintaining 

groundwater levels and sustainable yield. In addition, the City’s SWIP, which will be 

providing the source water for IPR/DPR, also diverts stormwater and urban runoff pollution 

away from the Santa Monica Bay, improving surface water quality. 

4.4.2 Describe the potential for the project to improve effluent quality beyond levels 

necessary to meet State or Federal discharge requirements. Describe the potential for 

the project to improve flow conditions in a natural stream channel. 

The Project would maximize the source water from the SWIP, which diverts stormwater and 

dry weather runoff pollution away from the Santa Monica Bay and reduces treated 

wastewater that is discharged into the ocean. On average, the SWIP is estimated to divert 

over 40 million gallons of stormwater and urban runoff pollution away from the Santa 

Monica Bay. In addition, when stormwater and dry weather urban runoff are not available, 

the SWIP is designed to purify up to 1,100 AFY of wastewater that would otherwise be 

Evaluation Criteria - 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

treated to lower, secondary effluent standard at the Hyperion Treatment Plant and 

discharged to the ocean. The SWIP purifies these water sources to meet or exceed drinking 

water regulations for its highest beneficial reuse to indirectly or directly augment drinking 

water supplies for the City. The City’s SWIP has already obtained its permit for Waste 

Discharge Requirements and Water Reclamation Requirements from the Los Angeles 

Regional Water Quality Control Board for non-potable use (Order No. R4-2021-0044) and is 

in the process of amending the permit for IPR (scheduled for September 2023). 

4.4.3 Describe the potential for the project to restore or enhance habitat for non-listed fish 

and wildlife species. 

This Project allows for the City to reduce its reliance on imported water and utilize local 

water sources, thus alleviating stresses on the Colorado River and State Water Project. As 

less water is extracted from these sources, native habitats for non-listed fish and wildlife 

species will experience less disturbance and can be enhanced. Non-listed wildlife will benefit 

from the reduction in freshwater outflows and entrainment losses to water diversion, which 

are major causes for habitat destruction. As an example, reducing the City’s use of State 

Water Project would contribute to maintaining the delicate environmental balance at the 

Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta for at risk species such as the longfin smelt, Central Valley 

steelhead, spring-run Chinook salmon, and the green sturgeon. The Colorado River is the 

lifeblood of the American West that span over seven states where wetlands and riparian 

forests along its banks support habitat for hundreds of species of birds, including a total of 27 

at-risk species such as the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, Rideway’s Rail, Arizona Bell’s Vireo, 

California Black Rail, Flannelmouth Sucker, and Yuma Hispid Cotton Rat. 

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

threatened or endangered species. 

The Project will also aid in protecting listed threatened and endangered species, the City 

would help limit impacts to the Bay-Delta by reducing demand on the State Water Project. 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is home to the Delta Smelt, which is listed as threatened 

and endangered on the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts, respectively. Causes 

for the decline to the Delta Smelt include reduction in freshwater outflows, entrainment 

losses to water diversion, and high outflows. For the Colorado River, reducing water from 

the river would help preserve natural stream flows that support threatened/endangered 

species such as the bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker. 

This Project will reduce imported water supplies and maximize local, sustainable water 

supplies lessening the City’s impact on endangered species. 

4.5 Evaluation Criterion 4: Department of the Interior Priorities 

4.5.1 Combating Climate Change and Strengthen Water Supply Sustainability/Resilience 

Climate change is resulting in longer and more severe droughts in western United States. By 

maximizing water recycling opportunities such as IPR and DPR, the City would meet its water 

demands locally through multiple sources and adapt to climate change impacts, such as 

harvesting stormwater during heavy rain events or purify wastewater as a drought resilient 

water supply, without having to import water from the Colorado River or State Water 

Evaluation Criteria - 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project. The City is positioned to be the first in California to leverage multiple water sources 

during both rain and drought events to increase IPR and implement DPR to provide a climate 

resilient, local water supply for the community. The proposed Project also aligns with 

several priorities outlined by the Biden-Harris Administration, including E.O. 14008: Tackling 

the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad as summarized in Table 4. 

Table 4: Summary of Climate Change Priorities Addressed by the Project 

Priority Benefit Provided by Proposed Project 

E.O. 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad 

Section 102: we will help build 

upon the Paris Agreement’s 

overarching goals 

• Investing in DPR and IPR will help with drought 

impacts and advance climate resilience efforts. 

• A sustainable, local water supply will also help 

sustain local/regional economy including the local 

hospitality and tourism sector that generated $1.9 

billion in 2019 prior to the pandemic. 

Section 102d: one of the United 

States’ priorities will be enhanced 

climate ambition and integration of 

climate considerations, including 

sustainable development 

• DPR and IPR will help with sustainable development 

of much needed housing in the State as identified in 

the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, while not 

increasing the strain on our water supplies 

Section 203b: the National Climate 

Task Force will organize and deploy 

a government-wide approach to 

combat the climate crisis; increase 

climate resiliency, conserve our 

waters and biodiversity, spur wellpaying union jobs and economic 

growth 

• Reducing strain on the Colorado River and State 

Water Project, resulting in less pumping and 

disturbance of fish and wildlife to help retain 

biodiversity and increase conservation efforts. 

• Creating additional operations and administrative 

jobs, thus creating skilled well-paying union jobs 

locally. 

• Having a sustainable, drought-resilient water supply 

also supports economic recovery and growth efforts. 

Section 216: Task Force will work 

with state and local governments 

to conserve 30% of land and 30% of 

water by 2030 

• Increasing IPR and DPR in the City will replace up to 

10% of the City’s imported water use through local 

water recycling efforts. 

• Increasing local water supplies will support regional 

housing needs without increasing use of 

land/footprint (10% increase in population in the 

City) 

Section 219: we must ensure that 

environmental and economic 

justice are key considerations in 

how we govern. 

• Having a local, sustainable water supply benefits the 

entire City, which includes residents that live in 

severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged 

communities and allows our community to thrive, 

create jobs, and sustain local economies. 

Evaluation Criteria - 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5.2 Project Benefits to Disadvantaged or Underserved Communities 

The proposed Project benefits the entire City by maximizing local water supplies and limiting 

imported water deliveries while providing local cost certainty and affordability to its water 

supply. The City incorporates a significant portion of underrepresented and disadvantaged 

communities. Implementation of this project will ensure these communities do not 

experience significant and unreasonable impacts to their water supply incurred by ongoing 

water shortage measures in response to severe drought conditions. 

Project benefits allocated to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and Severely Disadvantaged 

(SDACs) were calculated by geographic area and population as defined by California’s 

Department of Water Resources DAC Mapping Tool. Within the City of Santa Monica, DACs 

geographically occupy approximately 12% of the area of the City’s distribution network and 

SDACs occupy approximately 17% based on 2016 – 2020 Census Block Group, Tract, and 

Places data from the American Community Survey provided through the DAC Mapping Tool. 

By population within the City of Santa Monica, approximately 4% of the population is within 

an SDAC, and approximately 9% is within a DAC. The DAC and SDAC in the City are a result of 

historic structural racism in local housing policies, such as exclusionary zoning, which was 

used to create neighborhoods in Santa Monica. Local discriminatory laws were reinforced by 

federal redlining policies, which determined mortgage qualifications based on race, ethnicity, 

religion, or immigrant status. In Santa Monica, the Pico neighborhood and parts of the Mid 

City and Ocean Park neighborhoods were redlined. In the 1950s, freeways were purposely 

constructed to separate white and non-white residents. In Santa Monica, the I-10 freeway 

was constructed through the Pico neighborhood, where most residents were POC. Countless 

homes were demolished for the construction and resulted in loss of home ownership for Pico 

residents. Today, lower income residential areas in the City reflect the redline maps, with 

the highest percentage of low-income residents being in the Pico neighborhood. Pico 

residents are mostly renters, with a high concentration of minorities, limited in English 

proficiency, in close proximity to poor environmental conditions (e.g., pollution from the I-10 

freeway and the landfill that once existed in the area). 

4.5.1 Project Tribal Benefits 

The City’s proposed Project aims to promote sustainable management of natural resources 

in the Santa Monica Groundwater Subbasin through IPR, replenishing local groundwater 

aquifers and restoring water quality, and/or DPR, to reduce the City’s reliance on both 

imported water supplies (from the Colorado River and State Water Project) and local 

groundwater production. By promoting sustainable management of natural resources, the 

City acknowledges the Gabreileno (Tongva) Band of Mission Indians who is the first and only 

State recognized tribe in the greater Los Angeles area. Their lineage dates back before the 

time of the California missions. 

Evaluation Criteria - 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.6 Evaluation Criterion 5: Watershed Perspective and Stakeholder 

Involvement 

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

resource management plan? Explain. 

The proposed Project is in alignment with key state and regional integrated planning efforts 

to secure a sustainable, climate resilient water supply as listed below. 

• California’s Water Supply Strategy – Adapting to a Hotter, Drier Future (August 2022). 

The Water Supply Strategy includes: 1) creating storage space for up to 4 million acrefeet of water, 2) recycling and reusing at least 800,000 acre-feet of water per year by 

2030, 3) freeing up 500,000 acre-feet of water through water use efficiency and 

conservation, and 4) capturing stormwater and desalinating ocean water and salty water 

in groundwater basins. The City’s proposed Project aligns with the State’s Water Supply 

Strategy by maximizing water recycling, stormwater harvesting, and brackish 

groundwater supplies available for expanding IPR and/or adding DPR to the City’s local 

water supply portfolio. 

• Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The 

proposed Project is outlined in the IRWMP, which promotes efforts to develop and utilize 

urban stormwater runoff and recycled water to promote local water supply resiliency, 

conserve habitat, improve surface water quality, preserve flood protection, and expand 

recreation access in the region. The City’s stormwater harvesting and water recycling 

efforts as part of this Project to increase water recycling via IPR/DPR are included in the 

IRWMP that would improve local water supply reliability, contribute to the IRWMP’s IPR 

goal of 80,000 AFY by 2035, and improve water quality in the Santa Monica Bay. 

• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Integrated Water Resources Plan 

(IRP). MWD’s IRP serves as a framework for future activity by Metropolitan and its 

member agencies. Specifically, the IRP identifies regional targets for local water resource 

development to ensure water supply reliability for its service area through the year 2040. 

The SWIP that will be producing the advanced treated recycled water for the proposed 

Project has received funding from MWD’s Local Resources Program to increase local 

water supplies as identified in the IRP. 

4.6.2 Will the proposed project help meet the water supply needs of a large geographic 

area, region, or watershed? Explain. 

The proposed Project is also included in regional and watershed planning documents to 

secure a sustainable, climate resilient water supply as listed below. 

• Los Angeles County Water Plan. The LA County Water Plan aims to articulate a shared, 

inclusive, regional path forward to sustainability and achieve safe, clean, reliable water 

resource for the county. The proposed Project aligns with the plan by addressing water 

supply resilience, drinking water equity, promoting a healthy watershed, increasing 

public engagement, and promoting regional collaboration. 

• Santa Monica Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The City is a 

member of the Santa Monica Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and is also 

Evaluation Criteria - 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the leading agency in the GSA. By implementing this proposed Project, the City will help 

improve groundwater levels, increase the subbasin’s sustainability, and improve 

groundwater quality in the basin, consistent with the sustainable management goals 

outlined in the GSA’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 

4.6.3 Will the proposed project promote collaborative partnerships to address waterrelated issues? Explain. Describe stakeholder involvement in the project planning 

process. 

The City has leveraged collaborative partnerships on multiple fronts to secure a sustainable, 

drought-resilient local water supply to support a sustainable community. The City partnered 

with the State Water Resources Control Board, Los Angeles County, Department of Water 

Resources, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to deliver 

several first of its kind innovations that advanced the state-of-the art in water recycling and 

desalination, including the first stormwater direct injection project in California, the first 

membrane bioreactor and cartridge filter permitted for potable reuse in California, and the 

first Flow Reversal Reverse Osmosis (FRRO) system in the United States. The City seeks to 

partner with USBR, through the WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination grant, to 

deliver the first DPR project in California. 

The City is the leading agency of the five member Santa Monica Basin Groundwater 

Sustainability Agency (GSA) that also includes the City of Beverly Hills, City of Culver City, City 

of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County that work collaboratively to sustainability manage 

the Santa Monica Groundwater Subbasin. The GSA published the first comprehensive 

Groundwater Sustainability Plan on January 2022. The City also works with MWD and Los 

Angeles County on regional and integrated water supply planning efforts aimed to enhance 

local water supply resiliency. The Project will continue to promote collaborative partnerships 

to develop and refine project alternatives with all agencies in the State and region as we all 

must work together to secure a reliable and resilient water supply in the West. 

4.6.4 Will the proposed project include public outreach and opportunities for the public to 

learn about the project? Explain. 

Public outreach within the community and the industry is critical to a successful project. The 

City is committed to soliciting public input throughout the process of refining and developing 

each alternative. Examples of public outreach/engagement opportunities the City has 

participated in previously include: City Council and Board Meetings (e.g., GSA and RWQCB), 

City’s Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment, local 

citizen oversight committees, City’s seven neighborhood associations, industry conferences, 

and various public events in the City. In addition, the City is currently working with a local 

artist to educate the general public on local water supply through showcasing photographic 

portraits of workers, designing and developing public engagement programs that illuminate 

water, and creating a cartographic record of water systems to encourage public engagement. 

Evaluation Criteria - 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 PROJECT BUDGET 

5.1 Funding Plan 

Expansion of the City’s water recycling program to increase IPR – groundwater augmentation 

via subsurface application (injecting advanced treated recycled water from SWIP into the 

groundwater aquifer) is already included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 

Fiscal Year 22/23 and 23/24 and is fully funded by the City’s Water Enterprise Fund. Please 

refer to the link below for the City’s Adopted FY 2022-2024 Biennial CIP Budget and pages 87 

and 88 for Groundwater Recharge Well SM-11i and SM-12i. For Fiscal Year 2022-23, 

approximately $1.69 million is available to begin planning, site evaluation, permitting, and 

design tasks for the two groundwater recharge wells to expand IPR. The City is currently in 

the process of selecting an outside consultant through a competitive RFP process to provide 

professional engineering services for Groundwater Recharge Well SM-11i and 12i. 

There are no time constraints on the availability of funds and no other contingencies 

associated with the funding commitment. Funding for the IPR expansion, by adding 

Groundwater Recharge Well SM-11i and 12i, is available now and will be used as non-federal 

cost share of the total Project cost for USBR NOFO R23AS00076. The City is committed to 

provide the necessary matching funds, up to $1 million under Funding Group I, as 

summarized in the attached letter from the Mayor of City of Santa Monica. A formal 

resolution is being adopted by City Council on March 14, 2023, and it will be provided to the 

USBR as soon as it is adopted. 

https://finance.smgov.net/Media/Default/annual-reports/FYE2023/FYE2023-CIP-Budget.pdf 

5.2 Budget Proposal 

The proposed Project budget cost table, as required per NOFO No. R23AS00076, for nonfederal and federal funding sources and the total project cost is summarized in Table 5 and 

Table 6, respectively. A detailed cost breakdown for the proposed Project is provided in the 

Budget Narrative section below. 

Table 5: Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources 

Funding Sources Amount 

Non-Federal Entities 

1. City of Santa Monica $961,0331 

Non-Federal Subtotal $961,033 

REQUESTED Reclamation Funding 

1

Includes approximately $108,067 of in-kind contributions from the City 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6: Total Project Cost Table 

Source Amount 

Cost to be reimbursed with the requested Federal Funding $961,033 

Cost to be paid by the applicant $961,0331 

Value of third-party contributions $0 

TOTAL Project Cost $1,922,066 1

Includes approximately $108,067 of in-kind contributions from the City 

5.3 Budget Narrative 

A summary of the Project cost by category (Table 7) and relevant categories for 6a. 

Personnel (Table 8), 6b. Fringe Benefits (Table 9), and 6f. Contractual (Table 10)is provided 

below. A detailed narrative on the tasks to be completed by City staff and outside 

consultants (contractual cost) to complete the proposed Project is provided after the cost 

tables. 

Table 7: Summary of Project Cost by Category 

Summary 

6. Budget Object Category Total Cost 

Federal 

Estimated 

Amount 

Non-Federal 

Estimated 

Amount 

a. Personnel (see Table 8) $71,655 

b. Fringe Benefits (see Table 9 $36,411 

c. Travel $0 

d. Equipment $0 

e. Supplies $0 

f. Contractual (see Table 10) $1,813,999 

g. Construction $0 

h. Other Direct Costs $0 

i. Total Direct Costs $1,922,066 

i. Indirect Charges (see Error! Reference 

source not found.) $0 

Total Costs $1,922,066 $961,033 $961,033 

Cost Share Percentage 50% 50% 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8: Summary of City Personnel Cost (In-Kind Contribution) 

6a. Personnel 

Position Title Time 

(Hours) 

Rate 

(Hour) Total Cost Rate 

Basis Comments (as needed) 

Water Resources 

Manager 116 $98 $11,417 Current Salary hourly rate 

Supervising Civil 

Engineer 428 $66 $28,299 Current Salary 

hourly rate based on average 

rate for all personnel occupying 

this position 

Civil Engineering 

Assistant 720 $44 $31,939 Current Salary 

hourly rate based on average 

rate for all personnel occupying 

this position 

Total $71,655 

Additional Narrative/Comments: See tasks below that will be supported by City staff. City staff 

will be responsible for overall project management, stakeholder coordination, regulatory 

engagement, and USBR grant funding reporting requirements. The City certifies that current, 

actual hourly rates for each position listed is used to prepare the City Personnel cost. 

Table 9: Summary of City’s Fringe Benefits Cost (In-Kind Contribution) 

6b. Fringe Benefits 

Position Title Compensation Quantity 

(Hour) Total Cost Comments (as needed) 

Water Resources Manager $41.08 116 $4,765 

Supervising Civil Engineer $31,85 428 $13,632 

Civil Engineering Assistant $25.02 720 $18,014 

Total $71,655 

Additional Narrative/Comments: See tasks below that will be led and supported by City staff. 

Fringe benefits are estimated for each position listed. The fringe benefits are calculated based 

on each position’s hourly rate. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10: Summary of Contractual Services Cost 

6f. Contractual 

Contractor 

Name Purpose and Contracting Method Total Cost Description of costs Basis of cost 

Consultant -

IPR Scope of 

Work, TBD 

Contracting Method = Competitive 

RFP process 

Develop and refine IPR Project 

Alternatives, evaluate and rank 

alternatives, prepare cost estimate, 

and advance preliminary design 

$847,040 personnel 

cost and 

expenses 

Based on bids 

received by 

consultants through 

competitive bidding 

process to advance 

IPR 

Consultant -

DPR Scope of 

Work, TBD 

Contracting Method = Competitive 

RFP process 

Develop and refine IPR Project 

Alternatives, evaluate and rank 

alternatives, prepare cost estimate, 

and advance preliminary design 

$966,959 personnel 

cost and 

expenses 

Estimate provided 

by consulting firm 

providing 

preliminary support 

to the City on DPR 

options 

Subtotal $1,813,999 

Additional Narrative/Comments: See tasks below that will be completed by outside consultant’s 

contractual services that will be procured competitively through the City’s competitive bidding 

process, Request for Proposal, to secure professional engineering services. The basis of the 

cost estimate is based on estimates provided by engineering consulting firms. 

The proposed Project scope of work that will be completed through Contractual services to 

support the total Project cost and requested grant funding from USBR is summarized below. 

Task 1 – Project Coordination and Stakeholder Engagement 

Task 1.1 – Project Coordination. The City will provide overall project coordination with 

USBR, outside consultant teams, and all relevant stakeholders to keep the Project on 

schedule and budget. Regular progress reporting to USBR will be maintained 

throughout the project and progress meetings will be held at key stages of the Project to 

ensure the work product meets all goals and objectives. 

Task 1.2 – Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach. Throughout the Project, the 

City will engage key stakeholders and continuously hold various public outreach efforts 

to develop and refine Project alternatives. Key stakeholders of the Project include City 

leadership (City Council), City’s Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, 

and the Environment, City’s Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight 

Committee, the City’s seven neighborhood organizations, regulatory agencies (e.g., 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, and Los Angeles 

County Department of Public Health), and relevant local non-profit organizations (e.g., 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heal the Bay and Climate Action Santa Monica). 

Task 2 – Data Collection 

Collect and review data on recycled water/water production, facility operations, 

design/as-built information for treatment facilities and conveyance infrastructure, and 

water quality information for advanced treated recycled water, raw groundwater, 

groundwater aquifer, and drinking water. The data collection effort will help establish 

baseline conditions for each Project alternative to be evaluated. 

Task 3 – Regulatory Considerations 

Task 3.1 – Indirect Potable Reuse. Identify and outline regulatory compliance strategy 

for each IPR alternative, including Title 22 Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project, 

Anti-Degradation Policy or Salt and Nutrient Management Plant, and Sustainable 

Groundwater Management Act – Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 

Task 3.2 – Direct Potable Reuse. Identify and outline regulatory considerations and 

compliance strategy for DPR regulations in California that are set to be finalized in 2023. 

The initial effort will be based anticipated regulatory context based on draft regulations 

and public review sessions held by DDW. The strategy will include compliance 

approaches to meet required pathogen reduction, blending and final treated water 

quality, critical control points and monitoring requirements, enhancing local limits or 

pretreatment program, and operation requirements (e.g., operator certification, staffing 

levels, and financial stability). 

Task 4 - Alternatives Development and Ranking 

Task 4.1 – Alternatives Development. The Project will refine alternatives already 

identified in this proposal as well as develop up to three additional alternatives that may 

surface during stakeholder engagement, data collection, and regulatory review efforts 

during Task 1-3. 

• Task 4.1.1 - Environmental Considerations. A preliminary environmental assessment 

will be performed for each alternative to identify environmental considerations such 

as aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, traffic 

and circulation, recreation, biological resources, land use, noise, hydrology, and 

geological hazards. 

• Task 4.1.2 – Treatment Requirements. Current and future anticipated treatment 

requirements (e.g., required LRV for pathogen removal, travel/residence time for 

IPR, and blending requirements for DPR) for IPR and DPR scenarios will be outlined 

for each alternative. This task will also consider maximizing the use of existing 

facilities, identify footprint requirements for any new facilities that may be needed, 

and management of any new waste streams. 

• Task 4.1.3 – Operation Requirements. Current and future anticipated operation 

requirements (e.g., water quality monitoring and compliance, staffing levels 

between IPR and DPR, operator certification requirements, and financial stability) 

will be developed for each alternative for evaluation and ranking of each Project 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alternative. 

Task 4.2 – Life-Cycle Cost. A preliminary life-cycle cost will be prepared for feasible 

project alternatives to aid in ranking of each alternative. 

Task 4.3 – Alternatives Development and Evaluation Workshops. Two workshops will be 

held to develop and evaluate the Project alternatives. The first workshop will focus on 

developing and refining IPR and DPR alternatives to provide sufficient definition in each 

alternative for treatment and operation requirements to be detailed out. The second 

workshop will focus on evaluating and ranking the Project alternatives in order for the 

City to prioritize IPR and/or DPR to maximize available advanced treated recycled water. 

Task 5 – Planning Study Report. 

A draft report of the Project will be prepared and submitted to USBR for review and 

input. Upon receiving review comments from USBR, the City will work on finalizing the 

Project report for submission to USBR. 

Task 6 – Preliminary Design. 

For the top-ranking alternative(s), each alternative would be advanced to the 

preliminary design phase to support a comprehensive environmental assessment (e.g., 

California Environmental Quality Act) and to prepare 30 percent level design for each 

alternative. The preliminary design activities include establishing process treatment 

design criteria, civil site design/layout as well as structural, mechanical (hydraulic 

profile, equipment selection, and mechanical layout), electrical (e.g., single line 

diagrams and power plans), and instrumentation & control designs. A 30 percent design 

level cost estimate (e.g., Class 5 Construction Estimate) will also be prepared for each 

alternative that is advanced to preliminary design. 

5.4 Letters of Funding Commitment 

A letter from the Mayor of City of Santa Monica, committing the necessary funding for the 

Project is attached for USBR’s reference. 

6 REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS 

The City’s SWIP, which supplies the source water for the proposed Project, has already 

obtained its permit for Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Reclamation 

Requirements from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board for non-potable 

use (Order No. R4-2021-0044) and is in the process of amending the permit for IPR – 

groundwater augmentation via subsurface applications. The permit amendment request for 

IPR has already received conditional approval from the Division of Drinking Water and is 

scheduled for adoption by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s August 

2023 Board Meeting. For IPR alternatives in the Project, no additional permits of approvals 

are anticipated. 

For DPR implementation, the City has already held preliminary discussions with Division of 

Drinking Water staff as DPR regulations in California are being finalized by the end of 2023. 

The City’s proposed DPR treatment train, using multiple advanced water treatment facilities 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on the wastewater purification and drinking water treatment side, already achieves 19.5 log 

virus, 18 log Giardia, and 18.5 log Cryptosporidium reduction and only needs minor 

improvements to satisfy DDW’s DPR treatment criteria. Based on initial discussions with the 

State regulators, the City would need to add: 1) a chemical disinfection treatment step (e.g., 

ozone or chlorine dioxide) to provide 1 LRV for virus, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, and 2) a 

new recycled water booster pump station and connection to the Olympic AWTF and Arcadia 

WTP to complete the DPR treatment train. 

7 OFFICIAL RESOLUTION 

A letter of commitment from the Mayor of City of Santa Monica is attached while the official 

resolution to apply for the USBR WaterSMART NOFO No. R23AS00076 is scheduled for 

adoption by City of Santa Monica’s City Council on March 14, 2023. The adopted resolution 

will be provided to USBR as soon as it is available. 

8 LETTERS OF SUPPORT 

The letters of support for the City’s proposed Project and goal to reduce demand on 

imported water supplies from the Colorado River and State Water Project while enhancing 

local water supply sustainability and resiliency are attached for USBR’s use. 

9 OVERLAP OR DUPLICATION OF EFFORT STATEMENT 

The proposed Project submitted to USBR for consideration under NOFO No. R23AS00076 

does not in any way duplicate any proposals or projects that have been or will be submitted 

for funding consideration to any other potential funding source – whether it be Federal or 

non-Federal. 

10 UNIFORM AUDIT REPORTING STATEMENT 

The City of Santa Monica’s latest Single Audit Report is available through the Federal Audit 

Clearinghouse. The City’s Employer Identification Number (EIN) is 956000790. 

11 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

The City confirms that there is not any actual or potential conflict of interest that exists at 

the time of submission of this grant proposal for USBR NOFO No. R23AS00076. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal for United States Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R23AS00076 

WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Planning 

Santa Monica OneWater Project – 

Budget Narrative 

Applicant Information: 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Project Manager: 

Sunny Wang, P.E. – Water Resources Manager 

2500 Michigan Ave., Building 1, Santa Monica, CA 90404 

sunny.wang@santamonica.gov 

(310) 458-8230 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 PROJECT BUDGET 

5.1 Funding Plan 

Expansion of the City’s water recycling program to increase IPR – groundwater augmentation 

via subsurface application (injecting advanced treated recycled water from SWIP into the 

groundwater aquifer) is already included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 

Fiscal Year 22/23 and 23/24 and is fully funded by the City’s Water Enterprise Fund. Please 

refer to the link below for the City’s Adopted FY 2022-2024 Biennial CIP Budget and pages 87 

and 88 for Groundwater Recharge Well SM-11i and SM-12i. For Fiscal Year 2022-23, 

approximately $1.69 million is available to begin planning, site evaluation, permitting, and 

design tasks for the two groundwater recharge wells to expand IPR. The City is currently in 

the process of selecting an outside consultant through a competitive RFP process to provide 

professional engineering services for Groundwater Recharge Well SM-11i and 12i. 

There are no time constraints on the availability of funds and no other contingencies 

associated with the funding commitment. Funding for the IPR expansion, by adding 

Groundwater Recharge Well SM-11i and 12i, is available now and will be used as non-federal 

cost share of the total Project cost for USBR NOFO R23AS00076. The City is committed to 

provide the necessary matching funds, up to $1 million under Funding Group I, as 

summarized in the attached letter from the Mayor of City of Santa Monica. A formal 

resolution is being adopted by City Council on March 14, 2023, and it will be provided to the 

USBR as soon as it is adopted. 

https://finance.smgov.net/Media/Default/annual-reports/FYE2023/FYE2023-CIP-Budget.pdf 

5.2 Budget Proposal 

The proposed Project budget cost table, as required per NOFO No. R23AS00076, for nonfederal and federal funding sources and the total project cost is summarized in Table 1 and 

Table 2, respectively. A detailed cost breakdown for the proposed Project is provided in the 

Budget Narrative section below. 

Table 1: Summary of Non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources 

Funding Sources Amount 

Non-Federal Entities 

1. City of Santa Monica $961,0331 

Non-Federal Subtotal $961,033 

REQUESTED Reclamation Funding 

1

Includes approximately $108,067 of in-kind contributions from the City 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Total Project Cost Table 

Source Amount 

Cost to be reimbursed with the requested Federal Funding $961,033 

Cost to be paid by the applicant $961,0331 

Value of third-party contributions $0 

TOTAL Project Cost $1,922,066 1

Includes approximately $108,067 of in-kind contributions from the City 

5.3 Budget Narrative 

A summary of the Project cost by category (Table 3) and relevant categories for 6a. 

Personnel (Table 4), 6b. Fringe Benefits (Table 5), and 6f. Contractual (Table 6)is provided 

below. A detailed narrative on the tasks to be completed by City staff and outside 

consultants (contractual cost) to complete the proposed Project is provided after the cost 

tables. 

Table 3: Summary of Project Cost by Category 

Summary 

6. Budget Object Category Total Cost 

Federal 

Estimated 

Amount 

Non-Federal 

Estimated 

Amount 

a. Personnel (see Table 4) $71,655 

b. Fringe Benefits (see Table 5 $36,411 

c. Travel $0 

d. Equipment $0 

e. Supplies $0 

f. Contractual (see Table 6) $1,813,999 

g. Construction $0 

h. Other Direct Costs $0 

i. Total Direct Costs $1,922,066 

i. Indirect Charges (see Error! Reference 

source not found.) $0 

Total Costs $1,922,066 $961,033 $961,033 

Cost Share Percentage 50% 50% 

3 
Table 4: Summary of City Personnel Cost (In-Kind Contribution) 

4 

6a. Personnel 

Time Rate Rate Position Title Total Cost Comments (as needed) (Hours) (Hour) Basis 

Water Resources Current 116 $98 $11,417 hourly rate Manager Salary 

hourly rate based on average Supervising Civil Current 428 $66 $28,299 rate for all personnel occupying Engineer Salary this position 

hourly rate based on average Civil Engineering Current 720 $44 $31,939 rate for all personnel occupying Assistant Salary this position 

Total $71,655 

Additional Narrative/Comments: See tasks below outlined in 6f. Contractual that will be 

supported by City staff. The estimated hours for City staff for each task are summarized in the 

table below. The City certifies that current, actual hourly rates for each position listed is used to 

prepare the City Personnel cost. 

City of Santa Monica 

Water Civil 

Resources Supervising Engineering 

Manager Civil Engineer Assistant 

TASK $ 98.42 $ 66.12 $ 44.36

Task 1 – Project Coordination and Stakeholder Engagement Hours Hours Hours 

Task 1.1 – Project Coordination 8 60 40 

Task 1.2 – Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach 40 40 80 

Task 2 – Data Collection 4 16 40 

Task 3 – Regulatory Considerations 

Task 3.1 – Indirect Potable Reuse 4 12 24 

Task 3.2 – Direct Potable Reuse 8 40 80 

Task 4 - Alternatives Development and Ranking 

Task 4.1 – Alternatives Development 

Task 4.1.1 - Environmental Considerations 4 24 40 

Task 4.1.2 – Treatment Requirements 8 80 120 

Task 4.1.3 – Operation Requirements 16 60 120 

Task 4.2 – Life-Cycle Cost 4 16 24 

Task 4.3 – Alternatives Development and Evaluation Workshops 8 24 40 

Task 5 – Planning Study Report. 4 16 32 

Task 6 – Preliminary Design. 8 40 80 

TOTAL HOURS = 116 428 720 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5: Summary of City’s Fringe Benefits Cost (In-Kind Contribution) 

6b. Fringe Benefits 

Position Title Compensation Quantity 

(Hour) Total Cost Comments (as needed) 

Water Resources Manager $41.08 116 $4,765 

Supervising Civil Engineer $31,85 428 $13,632 

Civil Engineering Assistant $25.02 720 $18,014 

Total $71,655 

Additional Narrative/Comments: See tasks below that will be led and supported by City staff. 

Fringe benefits are estimated for each position listed. The fringe benefits are calculated based 

on current fringe benefits provided for each position’s hourly rate. 

Table 6: Summary of Contractual Services Cost 

6f. Contractual 

Contractor 

Name Purpose and Contracting Method Total Cost Description of costs Basis of cost 

Consultant -

IPR Scope of 

Work, TBD 

Contracting Method = Competitive 

RFP process 

Develop and refine IPR Project 

Alternatives, evaluate and rank 

alternatives, prepare cost estimate, 

and advance preliminary design 

$847,040 personnel 

cost and 

expenses 

Based on bids 

received by 

consultants through 

competitive bidding 

process to advance 

IPR 

Consultant -

DPR Scope of 

Work, TBD 

Contracting Method = Competitive 

RFP process 

Develop and refine IPR Project 

Alternatives, evaluate and rank 

alternatives, prepare cost estimate, 

and advance preliminary design 

$966,959 personnel 

cost and 

expenses 

Estimate provided 

by consulting firm 

providing 

preliminary support 

to the City on DPR 

options 

Subtotal $1,813,999 

Additional Narrative/Comments: See tasks below that will be completed by outside consultant’s 

contractual services that will be procured competitively through the City’s competitive bidding 

process, Request for Proposal, to secure professional engineering services. The basis of the 

cost estimate is based on estimates provided by 

The proposed Project scope of work that will be completed through Contractual services to 

support the total Project cost and requested grant funding from USBR is summarized below. 

Task 1 – Project Coordination and Stakeholder Engagement 

Task 1.1 – Project Coordination. The City will provide overall project coordination with 

USBR, outside consultant teams, and all relevant stakeholders to keep the Project on 

schedule and budget. Regular progress reporting to USBR will be maintained 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

throughout the project and progress meetings will be held at key stages of the Project 

to ensure the work product meets all goals and objectives. 

Task 1.2 – Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach. Throughout the Project, the 

City will engage key stakeholders and continuously hold various public outreach efforts 

to develop and refine Project alternatives. Key stakeholders of the Project include City 

leadership (City Council), City’s Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, 

and the Environment, City’s Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight 

Committee, the City’s seven neighborhood organizations, regulatory agencies (e.g., 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, and Los Angeles 

County Department of Public Health), and relevant local non-profit organizations (e.g., 

Heal the Bay and Climate Action Santa Monica). 

Task 2 – Data Collection 

Collect and review data on recycled water/water production, facility operations, 

design/as-built information for treatment facilities and conveyance infrastructure, and 

water quality information for advanced treated recycled water, raw groundwater, 

groundwater aquifer, and drinking water. The data collection effort will help establish 

baseline conditions for each Project alternative to be evaluated. 

Task 3 – Regulatory Considerations 

Task 3.1 – Indirect Potable Reuse. Identify and outline regulatory compliance strategy 

for each IPR alternative, including Title 22 Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project, 

Anti-Degradation Policy or Salt and Nutrient Management Plant, and Sustainable 

Groundwater Management Act – Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 

Task 3.2 – Direct Potable Reuse. Identify and outline regulatory considerations and 

compliance strategy for DPR regulations in California that are set to be finalized in 2023. 

The initial effort will be based anticipated regulatory context based on draft regulations 

and public review sessions held by DDW. The strategy will include compliance 

approaches to meet required pathogen reduction, blending and final treated water 

quality, critical control points and monitoring requirements, enhancing local limits or 

pretreatment program, and operation requirements (e.g., operator certification, 

staffing levels, and financial stability). 

Task 4 - Alternatives Development and Ranking 

Task 4.1 – Alternatives Development. The Project will refine alternatives already 

identified in this proposal as well as develop up to three additional alternatives that 

may surface during stakeholder engagement, data collection, and regulatory review 

efforts during Task 1-3. 

• Task 4.1.1 - Environmental Considerations. A preliminary environmental assessment 

will be performed for each alternative to identify environmental considerations 

such as aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, 

traffic and circulation, recreation, biological resources, land use, noise, hydrology, 

and geological hazards. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Task 4.1.2 – Treatment Requirements. Current and future anticipated treatment 

requirements (e.g., required LRV for pathogen removal, travel/residence time for 

IPR, and blending requirements for DPR) for IPR and DPR scenarios will be outlined 

for each alternative. This task will also consider maximizing the use of existing 

facilities, identify footprint requirements for any new facilities that may be needed, 

and management of any new waste streams. 

• Task 4.1.3 – Operation Requirements. Current and future anticipated operation 

requirements (e.g., water quality monitoring and compliance, staffing levels 

between IPR and DPR, operator certification requirements, and financial stability) 

will be developed for each alternative for evaluation and ranking of each Project 

alternative. 

Task 4.2 – Life-Cycle Cost. A preliminary life-cycle cost will be prepared for feasible 

project alternatives to aid in ranking of each alternative. 

Task 4.3 – Alternatives Development and Evaluation Workshops. Two workshops will be 

held to develop and evaluate the Project alternatives. The first workshop will focus on 

developing and refining IPR and DPR alternatives to provide sufficient definition in each 

alternative for treatment and operation requirements to be detailed out. The second 

workshop will focus on evaluating and ranking the Project alternatives in order for the 

City to prioritize IPR and/or DPR to maximize available advanced treated recycled water. 

Task 5 – Planning Study Report. 

A draft report of the Project will be prepared and submitted to USBR for review and 

input. Upon receiving review comments from USBR, the City will work on finalizing the 

Project report for submission to USBR. 

Task 6 – Preliminary Design. 

For the top-ranking alternative(s), each alternative would be advanced to the 

preliminary design phase to support a comprehensive environmental assessment (e.g., 

California Environmental Quality Act) and to prepare 30 percent level design for each 

alternative. The preliminary design activities include establishing process treatment 

design criteria, civil site design/layout as well as structural, mechanical (hydraulic 

profile, equipment selection, and mechanical layout), electrical (e.g., single line 

diagrams and power plans), and instrumentation & control designs. A 30 percent 

design level cost estimate (e.g., Class 5 Construction Estimate) will also be prepared for 

each alternative that is advanced to preliminary design. 

7 
 

Summary 

6. Budget Object Category Total Cost 

Federal 

Estimated 

Amount 

Non-Federal 

Estimated 

Amount 

a. Personnel $71,655 

b. Fringe Benefits $36,411 

c. Travel $0 

d. Equipment $0 

e. Supplies $0 

f. Contractual $1,813,999 

g. Construction $0 

h. Other Direct Costs $0 

i. Total Direct Costs $1,922,066 

i. Indirect Charges $0 

Total Costs $1,922,066 $961,033 $961,033 

Cost Share Percentage 50% 50% 

Q1 10% $96,103 $96,103

Q2 15% $144,155 $144,155

Q3 25% $240,258 $240,258

Q4 25% $240,258 $240,258

Q1 25% $240,258 $240,258

Q2

Q3

100% $961,033 $961,033

$1,922,066
 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS 

Letter of Support and Commitment from the Mayor of City of Santa Monica 

Letter of Support from Representative Ted Lieu 

Letter of Support from Senator Ben Allen 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mayor Gleam Davis 

February 3, 2023 

Ms. Katie Neupane 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation, Water Resources and Planning 

1849 C Street NW Suite 7654 

Washington, DC 20240 

Subject: Letter of Support for City of Santa Monica’s Sustainable Water Supply Program 

Dear Ms. Neupane, 

I am writing to express my support for the City of Santa Monica’s (City) funding application for the 

Sustainable Water Supply Program (Program). The City is a recognized leader in sustainability initiatives, 

having invested over $200 million in local water supply projects that expand the use of recycled water, 

restore contaminated groundwater basins, and enhance water conservation programs. These investments 

also include several innovations and first of its kind applications that will serve as a model for other water 

utilities across the United States seeking to increase local water supplies, including the first Flow Reversal 

Reverse Osmosis desalination system in the United States, the first membrane bioreactor and cartridge 

filter system permitted for potable reuse in the State of California, and the first stormwater harvesting 

project in California to meet potable reuse standards where it is directly injected into the groundwater 

aquifer. One of the cornerstones of the Program is the City’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project 

(SWIP), an innovative advanced water purification project that leverages municipal wastewater, 

stormwater, and saline impaired groundwater for non-potable reuse as well as groundwater recharge to 

ensure the sustainability of the local Santa Monica Groundwater Basin (SMGB) and reduce the City’s

reliance on imported water supplies from the State Water Project and Colorado River. 

Building on the innovation and investment already made by the City, the Project described in the funding 

application seeks to advance water recycling and desalination projects to help combat climate change and 

address ongoing drought issues in the Western United Sates. The Project includes planning and design of 

two primary components: (1) installing additional groundwater recharge well(s) and associated monitoring 

1685 Main Street, Room 209, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8201 • gleam.davis@santamonica.gov 

santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

network to increase groundwater recharge of the SMGB and (2) advancing the state-of-the-art in water 

reuse (through Direct Potable Reuse, potentially the first in California) and desalination. 

The City is committed to ongoing stakeholder engagement for this project through ongoing outreach on 

the Sustainable Water Supply Program from the public during City Council meetings, board meetings for 

the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, meetings with the City’s Commission on 

Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment, and various neighborhood group and 

stakeholder meetings. The City will continue this engagement with additional public meetings to 

incorporate stakeholder input throughout the development of this project. 

The City is committed to provide the required matching funds, through the Water and Wastewater 

Enterprise Funds, for the grant funds being requested through this solicitation. Thank you for your 

consideration of the City as a funding recipient. I hope to see this important recycled water project come 

to fruition. Please do not hesitate to contact me at gleam.davis@santamonica.gov if I can further assist 

with the review of this grant application. 

Sincerely, 

Gleam Davis 

Mayor 

CC: Sunny Wang, City of Santa Monica Water Resources Manager 

1685 Main Street, Room 209, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8201 • gleam.davis@santamonica.gov 

santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 16, 2023 

The Honorable Camille Calimlim Touton 

Commissioner 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Commissioner Touton, 

I write in support of the application submitted by the City of Santa Monica (City) to the Bureau 

of Reclamation for a WaterSMART Water Recycling and Desalination Planning grant. The City 

is requesting funding to advance the planning and preliminary design efforts to prioritize indirect 

potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR) options to increase local water supplies for 

domestic potable water use and minimize use of imported water supplies. 

Santa Monica, located in my district, has continuously invested in local water supply projects to 

provide a sustainable water supply for its residents, to reduce pollution in the Santa Monica Bay, 

and to reduce the region’s demand on imported water supplies. One significant project that the 

City has undertaken is the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), a recycled water 

plan that advance treats municipal wastewater, stormwater, and saline impaired groundwater for 

non-potable reuse as well as groundwater recharge into the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin. 

If this proposal is fully funded, the advancement of IPR or DPR efforts will allow the City to 

fully utilize the 1,600 acre-feet per year of advanced treated recycled water produced by the 

SWIP. The development of this project will provide Santa Monica and its residents with a 

diverse, reliable, and sustainable water supply portfolio that is more affordable than depending 

on imported water supplies. In addition, the City is committed to maintaining and incorporating 

stakeholder input throughout the development of this project. 

I ask that you give this application full and fair consideration consistent with all applicable laws, 

rules, and regulations. Should your staff have any questions, please contact Ariana Heydari and 

Janet Mendez in my district office at (323) 651–1040. 

L

Sincerely, 

Ted Lieu 

Member of Congress 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 24, 2023 

Katie Neupane 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

1849 C Street NW, Suite 7654 

Washington, DC 20240 

Dear Ms. Neupane, 

I write to express my support for the City of Santa Monica in their application for WaterSMART grant 

funding of their Sustainable Water Supply Program. My hometown is a recognized leader in 

sustainability initiatives, having invested more than $200 million in local water supply projects that 

expand the use of recycled water, restore contaminated groundwater basins, and enhance water 

conservation programs. One of their key projects is the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project, an 

innovative system that advance-treats municipal wastewater, stormwater, and saline-impaired 

groundwater for non-potable reuse and groundwater recharge into the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin. 

To build on their crucial work, Santa Monica needs funding to plan and design two primary components 

to: (1) install additional groundwater recharge wells and a monitoring network to increase groundwater 

recharge, and (2) advance state-of-the-art efforts through direct potable reuse. I know that the City is 

committed to incorporating stakeholder input throughout the development of this project; they have 

already solicited feedback from the public during city council, commission, and regional water quality 

control board meetings. 

Thank you for your consideration of Santa Monica as a grant recipient for this important recycled water 

project. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at (310) 318-6994 with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

BEN ALLEN 

Senator, 24th District 
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE 

SUBMISSION 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2021 
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 

SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE 

FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 201 

CONTENTS INCLUDED

1) INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT

2) BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

3) REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

4) INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL

PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY UNIFORM

GUIDANCE

5) SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS

6) SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS

7) SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS
	

 

	 

 



  
		

 

�

ˇ 



�

 ̆

�

�

 ��

�

�

°



� ˇ

�

�

� � � � �� ̆� °

ˇ ˆ ̇ ̋ ̇ ̨ ̃ ̆� %!"ˇ

#



��

&

 ̋

 ̆





�

 ̆

'

�$ ̇%� ̇� "� (



�



'

ˇ

�

°

)

�



�



 ̃











1



 ̆

�

 

 +

* ̆





ˇ

 ̆



�









�

ˇ

 







 ̆



�

�



*

ˇ � 





ˇ

 ̆

&

*

 ̋ �, 



 ̆



 ̆ �



ˇ

*

°

ˇ









�





°

 ̆





�



�

°



 ̆

�

�

%

-

�

 ̆�







�

(





0





+

 ̃

 

�)



.



 ̆

�



&





 ̆

+

�





 ̆

�





+



�



�





+

 ̆

ˇ

+



*









2

*



�

 ̋





 



,/

 ̆

 

�

+

 



*



�

 ̆





�

 ̃



 ̆













�



�

ˇ

% ̆

��+ˇ ̆  ̆



�



*



��









3



ˇ











�

ˇ





 ̆



�



 ̆



ˇ

 ̃



�



&

-

+



 

'

 

 

�

0



 ̆�

�

°



�

 

 ̃

+

*

 ̆

�

.





*



�







&





�

*



�







 ̆



 ̆











 ̆+

+





�

�

ˇ



'

)



�

°

 ̆









�



 ̋ˇ

 ̆

�



�





+









�



 

ˇ



 ̆

ˇ













�

&

*

 ̆

,





*

ˇ



�











�





�

°



0



ˇ

°

 



 ̇



 

�







 ̆



�



ˇ

-

�





�

)

 ̆











 ̆

�

&



 ̆

*



�

.



&



�



 ̆

�





ˇ









�





 ̆

*

 ̆



 ̆



*

 ̇



3

�





� ̨





�



 ̆��



*



*













+

 ̆





2

� ̆�





 ̆



+



�









ˇ



�

 ̆



�

�

+

ˇ2ˇ ̆+�� �) ̆ˇ**�*



�



4





ˇ



�

+

°

 ̆



ˇ

�



 ̆



�



 

�

 ̆�

°



 ̋

� (



°



%(� ̆







8



0

*

�

ˇ





�

 ̇

*

�

 ̆

 ̆























�



ˇ



+



 

+

2

ˇ







 ̆

�







 ̆

 ̆





 









7



�

�







 ̆











&

�









�

ˇ



)

 ̆

�

ˇ



 ̆

�





5

 ̆



ˇ



�



+

 ̋

�





ˇ





*ˇ

 

*

 ̆





*











+







�

�

)





°









�

ˇ

�



 ̆

%

*

 ̆ˇ)

�

�

 ̆







 ̆



ˇ





 ̆



�





+

(



+





�ˇ�

°



)

 ̆





 ̆



ˇ





ˇ



 ̆

)�

 ̆



 ̆









�

�

 

ˇ

�







 ̆



 ̆



*

+





*











 

�



0













�

ˇ

*



+

 ̇�

4

�

6



ˇ



 







 ̆





�

 ̆

-





�

 ̋



ˇ







%(�

&



�

*



0

°

� ̆

.





 





�













�

�

�

 ̋



+

 ̆



�



�

*

 

&









 ̆







 

4

�







,



 

+

 ̆

+

�

)

 ̆









 

 ̆



 

�ˇ�ˇ�)�ˇ�&+) ̆� &� ̆� ̆� ̋ 

� ̆� ̨�

�



+



2

�*ˇ

�





 ̆



3



*







+



�



�

+



�

 ̆

ˇ

)









2











�



 ̆



	







ˇ

�







�

 ̆






°

�



*



ˇ




+

*




�



*

ˇ



�



�

 

°

ˇ



 ̆







�

 ̆











ˇ

8



°

+

 ̇

°



�

�



 ̆



(





+ ̆

�

ˇ ̆7+�*� ̆& ̆�



 ̆



 ̆



�

ˇ



�

�

�





*

°� �

+

*



�



)

+









�









 ̆

4

 ̆





+







 

2

 ̆



�



�

 





+2





�



ˇ

�

)

*

�



* ̆



°



*





�







�



+





*



2



�



 ̆�°�

 



 ̆





�





 ̆

*





2



�





 ̆

+

ˇ

 ̆



°�(0 ̃� 

°



�

+



 



�

ˇ

�

 ̋





 ̆

�



*



 









�





 ̆

 ̆



 ̆

4









�

 ̆

�

+

,'

 ̆�







0

 

�

 ̆ ̇+

ˇ

�



�

�



 ̃

 

 ̆





�



 



 

�



°

,

�

°







+





�



+

 ̆

)

ˇ



�

�

 





)

 ̆



 ̆

ˇ



�



�

9









�

�



*

ˇ















+

+





)



+



 ̆

 

)

�

ˇ

 ̆





�



)

+



 ̆

�



�







 ̆







�



 ̨

�

 ̆

 ̆









�

�

ˇ



 ̆





�



�

 ̇��



(



�ˇ



7

ˇ

�



 ̆

�

 ̆+�

�











&�&





2

 ̆

� ̆

ˇ



 ̇

ˇ

� ̋�

*



*



 

+



� ̆









�

�

°

ˇ



 ̆







°

�°�



+



�

2

°

�





�



 





�



1

ˇ+ ̆� 

 ̆

�

ˇ

�°°+� ̆�+*+&� ˇ ̆ˇ�*ˇˇ� 

 ̆













 ̆

 ̆



 ̆

�





)



 





 ̆

 ̆



�



/

&

��













�

+





*

��

*







 







 







+

*















�

�



 ̆









)



+

&

ˇ

�

�

�

�

=

 ̋�

�

: ̆�,+3���+ˇ ̆ ̆�°� ̆�-.�;< " ̇� +�> ,�°�&ˇ�