EAST COUNTY WATER SERVICES MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW
Prepared for:
NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959
Prepared by:
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: 916.361.8384 Fax: 916.361.1574
April 2005
EAST COUNTY WATER SERVICES MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW
Prepared for:
NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959
Prepared by:
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: 916.361.8384 Fax: 916.361.1574
April 2005
Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...... S-1
Summary of Determinations...... S-1
I. Introduction ...... 1-1
A) Purpose...... 1-1 B) Local Agency Formation Commission Responsibilities ...... 1-1 C) Nevada County LAFCo Policies and Procedures for Spheres of Influence ...... 1-2 D) Municipal Service Review Guidelines ...... 1-2
II. Project Description ...... 2-1
A) California Water Service History...... 2-1 B) Methodology...... 2-3 C) Service Area Setting...... 2-3 D) Description of Water Resources ...... 2-3 E) Agencies ...... 2-10 F) Federal and State Regulatory Requirements ...... 2-14
III. Area Growth and Water Demand ...... 3-1
A) Existing and Projected Growth ...... 3-1 B) Water Demand...... 3-4 Determinations – Growth and Resource Availability...... 3-5
IV. Truckee Donner Public Utility District ...... 4-1
A) Existing and Future Demand...... 4-1 B) Service Area...... 4-2 Determinations - Service Area...... 4-3 C) Infrastructure ...... 4-4 Determinations – Infrastructure...... 4-9 D) Finance ...... 4-10 Determinations – Finance ...... 4-17 E) Management/ Governance...... 4-19 Determinations – Management/Governance ...... 4-24
V. Public Review...... 5-1
Bibliography...... B-1
Appendices
Nevada County LAFCo i Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TABLES
Table 1 Nevada County LAFCo Population Projections...... 3-2 Table 2 Nevada County LAFCo Population Projections - Unincorporated Eastern Nevada County ...... 3-3 Table 3 Nevada County LAFCo Housing Unit Projections ...... 3-4 Table 4 Estimated Groundwater Use in Martis Valley ...... 3-5 Table 5 Water Demand Under Buildout Conditions...... 3-5 Table 6 Existing and Future Demand – Truckee Donner Public Utility District...... 4-1 Table 7 TDPUD Water Infrastructure ...... 4-4 Table 8 Comparison of Build out Alternatives...... 4-6 Table 9 Groundwater Well Capacity...... 4-7 Table 10 Debt Payment Schedule ...... 4-10 Table 11 Summary of Proposed Improvement by Funding Source ...... 4-11 Table 12 Connection Fees ...... 4-12 Table 13 Facility Fees ...... 4-13 Table 14 Residential Water Rates...... 4-13 Table 15 Monthly Commercial Water Rates...... 4-14 Table 16 Monthly Commodity Charges ...... 4-14 Table 17 Monthly Commercial Zone Charges...... 4-14 Table 18 Net Assets 2002 – 2003 ...... 4-16 Table 19 2002 –2004 Summary of Water Service Revenues and Expenses ...... 4-16 Table 20 Local Agencies...... 4-24
FIGURES
Figure 1 Hydrological Features ...... 2-8 Figure 2 Martis Valley Groundwater Basin ...... 2-9 Figure 3 Eastern Nevada County Water Service Districts...... 2-12 Figure 4 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Service Area Boundaries ...... 2-13 Figure 5 Projected Demand And Capacity-TDPUD Water Service ...... 4-2 Figure 6 Truckee Donner Public Utility District - Organization Chart ...... 4-23
Nevada County LAFCo ii Eastern Nevada County
Municipal Service Review – Water Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of a Municipal Service Review (MSR) is to assist the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in determining a logical, efficient, and effective sphere of influence for each local governmental agency within its jurisdiction. The sphere of influence represents the probable future boundaries and service areas for that particular local agency. Service reviews are also intended to result in recommendations for future growth and operations which will promote more efficient service patterns, identify areas where service improvement is needed and assess the adequacy of service provision in relation to spheres of influence. Service reviews are not intended to directly change how services are provided; they are a tool to compre- hensively review the major services, the delivery of those services, any issues with the efficient provision of service and potential actions by LAFCo that might address any issues.
This Municipal Service Review evaluates the provision of water service in the eastern portion of Nevada County. Only one water service agency currently exists in eastern Nevada County: the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD), which serves the Town of Truckee and surrounding area, including a small portion of Placer County. All other domestic water in eastern Nevada County is obtained through sources over which LAFCo has no jurisdiction, such as private water companies and individual wells or other sources.
As TDPUD’s main water source is the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB), other water service agencies that use MVGB as a water source, namely Northstar Community Service District (NCSD) and Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), were considered in terms of current and projected water demand. However, the service areas, infrastructure, financial condition and other aspects of PCWA and NCSD were not analyzed in this MSR, as Nevada County LAFCo does not have jurisdiction over these agencies, which are located in Placer County and under the jurisdiction of Placer County LAFCo.
SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS
Growth, Population and Resource Availability Projections for the Affected Area
The Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB) can sustain groundwater extraction of between 24,700 and 34,000 acre-feet annually (AFA) without adversely affecting the long-term storage of the basin.
Current groundwater usage is estimated at approximately 9,151.7 AFA. This means between 15,500 and 25,000 AFA of groundwater are currently available for extraction on a long-term sustainable basis.
Total water demand for the Truckee and Martis Valley area under buildout conditions is estimated to be 22,224 AFA.
Comparing available supply with projected demand shows that the MVGB will have a sustainable supply of groundwater to serve the Truckee/Martis Valley area under buildout conditions.
TDPUD considers groundwater the preferred water source as currently there is an abundant supply. However, the use of surface water to supply future demand is considered a long-term option if it is determined to be a more cost-effective solution than new wells as demand approaches buildout conditions. The District holds the water rights held by the Donner Lake Water Company, but does not have any other rights of record.
Annual water diversion of Truckee River Basin water is estimated between 2,500 to 4,000 AFA. The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act limits the diversion of surface water in the Truckee River Basin to 10,000 AFA resulting in between 6,000 to 7,500 AFA of additional surface water available for domestic water use. However, the likelihood of permitting new rights of record
Nevada County LAFCo S-1 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
for the river basin is doubtful; therefore, only holders of existing rights of record may use the available water must come from the existing rights of record holders. The Donner Lake Water Company, now part of TDPUD, is a holder of a right of record.
The TDPUD Master Plan developed population projections in Truckee based on current growth and established a 2015 population of approximately 20,100. This is consistent with Nevada County LAFCo’s high growth population projections for the Town of Truckee.
The Martis Valley population projections established in the 2003 Martis Valley Community Plan are much higher under buildout conditions than Nevada County LAFCo’s. The Nevada County LAFCo population projections for Martis Valley should be revised to reflect the Martis Valley Community Plan projections.
Future growth within the TDPUD sphere of influence will result from a combination of infill in existing subdivisions and development of vacant lands.
Service Area
The majority of future growth in eastern Nevada County will be located in the Truckee area. TDPUD offers the best source of retail water in the Truckee area. Its boundaries should be extended to incorporate the area between the Truckee service area and the Hirschdale service area.
TDPUD has plans to extend its boundary to incorporate the pending Tahoe Boca Estates subdivision. This is a logical extension of the TDPUD service boundary as the subdivision is adjacent to the existing service boundary east of Glenshire. Additionally, TDPUD currently operates the Lahontan subdivision water system for PCWA. The subdivision is adjacent to TDPUD’s service boundary, which might also be logically extended to encompass it. However, the Lahontan subdivision is located in Placer County and political and logistical impediments may constrain an extension of TDPUD service to this area.
It would be appropriate for the TDPUD Sphere of Influence, as discussed under Governance determinations, to include the Placer County portion of the MVGB and for the District to annex planned subdivisions in that area as they go through the development process.
Water services for large new developments in areas of eastern Nevada County that are outside the Truckee area and not feasibly servable by TDPUD should be provided through the formation of either private water companies or new public water agencies, mainly because the topographical constraints of the region make service from TDPUD infeasible.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
TDPUD will have to commit a large amount of capital for maintenance and upgrading of existing infrastructure. Infrastructure to serve the area under buildout conditions will cost more than $100 million. This cost is anticipated by TDPUD to be funded by developers and various other TDPUD sources (i.e., facility fees, rates, Donner Lake Assessment District, etc).
The 2004 Water Master Plan stated that under current conditions, the maximum daily demand scenario was expected to produce a capacity shortage in the TDPUD water system by 2004. However, the Prosser Village Well was constructed in 2004 and the District did not experience a water supply shortage. TDPUD is currently soliciting bids for the construction of the Old Greenwood Well, which is to be constructed in 2005.
Eastern Nevada County S-2 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
The 2004 Water Master Plan Update has identified 39 needed improvements to the existing infrastructure. The majority of these improvement projects are to install larger piping to increase flow capacity for areas of low pressure and to provide suitable fire flow. Additionally, the 2004 Water Master Plan Update identifies a need for approximately 7.6 million gallons of additional storage in order to have sufficient water for peak hour conditions and proper fire flow at existing conditions. The majority of these improvements are scheduled for completion by 2010. It is recommended that any expansion of TDPUD’s service area be approved with the condition that new large developments within the expansion are required to construct adequate facilities, including infrastructure and storage, to serve the development. Smaller developments should continue to be required by TDPUD to pay fees that will be used to construct additional storage.
The new EPA regulations for arsenic become effective January 1, 2006. Twelve wells will exceed the proposed arsenic limit. The proposed method of mitigation is avoidance, which removes the wells from service temporarily for testing until the section of the aquifer where the contamination exists can be sealed off. One well will be restricted to irrigation use only, one will be removed for temporary testing, and the remaining 10 will be removed from service. (All of these wells belonged to the Glenshire Mutual Water Company and their removal from service was anticipated when TDPUD took over the GMWC). The removal of these wells would reduce capacity by 122 gpm. Two new wells are anticipated to be on-line by 2006.
New EPA regulations for radon are anticipated in the near future. Preliminary announcements from the EPA have indicated that the maximum allowable radon will likely be 300 picocuries (pCi) per liter. The new standards are considered likely to have minimal affect on TDPUD’s existing wells as the proposed methods of mitigation are Multimedia Mitigation and would require minimal, if any, infrastructure additions. At this time, no wells are anticipated to be removed from service due to new radon standards.
Facilities Sharing
TDPUD is a multiple-service agency that provides water as well as power and telecommunication. The district is able to distribute the cost of shared resources and facilities among these utility units.
TDPUD currently allows the use of its Board and conference room facilities by other agencies.
Facilities sharing is limited mainly because of a lack of other agencies providing comparable services in the area.
The sharing of water facilities such as holding tanks, pipeline, and wells among PCWA’s Lahontan subdivision, future Martis Valley developments and TDPUD may be a possibility.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
TDPUD annually submits its basic financial statements to an independent financial auditor. The audit report is prepared in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards.
Water sales to customers were $6.5 million in 2003 and $5.7 million in 2002. Water division assets in 2003 totaled $61.6 million, while total liabilities were $23.9 million. Except for $0.5 million, net assets are either invested in capital assets or restricted for a specific use.
Nevada County LAFCo S-3 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TDPUD total assets were $95.4 million in 2003 and $77.2 million in 2002. The large increase in net assets between 2003 and 2002 is mainly due to an increase of $10.0 million in capital assets and $6.0 million in restricted assets.
Long-term debt includes revenue bonds and notes payable. The long-term debt increased by $36.3 million between 2002 and 2003. This increase is mainly due to the issuance of electric revenue bonds used to pay the District’s purchase power settlement contract and the Mello Roos community facilities district bonds used to finance capital infrastructure for a new development.
Costs for equipment and infrastructure upgrading as a response to new EPA water quality standards for arsenic may be considerable as removal of substandard wells from the potable water supply will be required. New wells or surface water will have to be put into service in order to replace the substandard wells.
Costs for upgrading equipment and infrastructure to contend with new EPA standards for radon are considered minimal; however, no formal cost analysis has been completed by TDPUD at this time.
TDPUD’s Capital Improvement Program addresses improvements to the existing systems as well as improvements necessary to continue to provide quality service through buildout conditions. The cost estimate for the Capital Improvement Program is $101,271,520 through 2025.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
TDPUD has instigated a number of programs/practices to assist in the reduction of costs or to realize cost saving opportunities. These programs/practices range from sharing facilities with other agencies to infrastructure modernization to automated customer billing.
Future cost avoidance opportunities for TDPUD will mainly be based on internal functions of the District such as the upkeep of water system infrastructure, purchasing and budget practices, and use of existing equipment. However, shared training practices and the use of meeting facilities with other agencies does occur and should continue.
Cost avoidance opportunities, such as the sharing of facilities and equipment sharing with NCSD, are very limited due to the geographical and jurisdictional constraints of the region.
There is no overlap of water service boundaries in the area. However, TDPUD is contracted by PCWA to provide services to the Lahontan subdivision in Placer County.
TDPUD does belong to an insurance pool for the electric division of the agency. Insurance pools for the water division should be investigated by TDPUD in order to identify the benefits and constraints of such a pool.
Opportunities for Rate Restructuring
TDPUD changed their residential rates in January 2004. The new rates increased 5.0 percent depending. This increase amounted to a $25.44 to $35.16 yearly increase over the old rate for total annual rates from $533.40 to $738.72. However, these rates do not include an annual adjustment for inflation. The rate ordinance should be amended in order to allow for an annual inflation adjustment.
Rates for duplexes, multifamily units, mobile home parks and other commercial establishments were also increased in 2004. Commercial rates are based on three charges, a meter size charge, a commodity charge, and a zone charge. All these charges were increased in 2004, but no allowance
Eastern Nevada County S-4 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
was made for an annual inflation increase. The rate ordinance should be amended in order to allow for an annual inflation adjustment.
The facility fee for both residential and commercial development has not been increased since 2001. TDPUD should evaluate the facility fee structure in order to determine if the fee is adequate at this time.
All residential customers are charged the same rate, dependent on zone, no matter how much water is used. TDPUD is required to begin charging rates based on the volume of deliveries to metered customers on or before January 1, 2010. If TDPUD has not begun charging metered customers based on actual metered water use by January 1, 2010, it is recommended that no revisions to the boundary or Sphere of Influence of either TDPUD or the Town of Truckee be approved until TDPUD has instituted a rate structure based on volume of water delivery for metered customers.
TDPUD is required to install water meters for municipal and industrial customers without a metered service connection by January 1, 2025. The installation of water meters for residential customers without meters has been considered by TDPUD, but was judged infeasible due to the cost. Since municipal service reviews should be updated every five years, it is recommended that this issue be addressed in a municipal service review performed between 2015 and 2020, as this issue currently does not impact TDPUD’s ability to provide water service.
An increase in residential and commercial rates in the near future may not be supported by the Board of Directors or customers as the rates were increased in 2004.
Evaluation of Management Efficiencies
The TDPUD has determined that one of the main concerns in the upcoming years is the rapid growth in the area and the District’s ability to keep up with this growth.
Because of the growth in TDPUD’s service area, the agency has a need for additional staff.
The TDPUD organizational chart, although complex, is sufficient to allow for efficient service delivery functions. Personnel in various divisions are cross-trained to provide continuous service.
TDPUD’s 2004 Water Master Plan Update identifies future demand and projects to provide service for this demand.
The TDPUD budget recognizes the need to expand water and electric infrastructure to meet the needs of growth and development. The budget utilizes the finance master plan to prepare for the future.
The Board of Directors for TDPUD conducts an annual strategic plan workshop and identifies issues that will be attended to in the coming year.
The water fund has, in the past, relied on the financial strength of the electric fund to assist TDPUD’s ability to provide quality water service. This changed in 2003 and a Surplus Land Trust Fund was established to advance funding needed for water capital improvement projects. TDPUD will need to continue to manage water system capital so it will support future water system needs.
Local Accountability and Governance/Government Structure Options
TDPUD holds regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings.
Nevada County LAFCo S-5 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
All plans, reports, and documents are available to the public.
All rate and fee increases are discussed and approved/disapproved in a public forum.
TDPUD has not been involved in any reorganization studies with any other service providers in the past two years nor does the District consider any restructuring needed.
TDPUD is the only public water agency serving eastern Nevada County. PCWA and NCSD operate in the Martis Valley area, and TDPUD’s reorganization/consolidation with these water service agencies may be possible. However, topographical, political and logistical constraints would have to be surmounted.
Although TDPUD is functioning well and is viable, the possibility to merge or consolidate it with other service providers or public agencies in the area does exist. TDPUD is the only water agency in Truckee and many single purpose providers do exist in the area.
PCWA is the agency responsible for serving the Placer County portion of MVGB. However, TDPUD is contracted by PCWA to provide water services within the Martis Valley areas under PCWA’s jurisdiction. It is recommended that TDPUD annex Lahontan into its service area and that the Commission consider inclusion of the Martis Valley portion of Placer County in the District’s Sphere of Influence. As subdivisions in that area are approved, they should be annexed into TDPUD’s service area. The consolidation of services in this area would provide more cost-efficient services, greater accountability of water resources, and simplify long-term planning for use of water resources within MVGB.
Economic savings would be possible with only one public agency providing water in the Truckee/Martis Valley Groundwater Basin area as this would reduce redundant personnel, services, and infrastructure required by multiple water service providers. A complete economic study should be performed to evaluate this possibility.
Eastern Nevada County S-6 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
I. INTRODUCTION
This document is divided into four sections and includes the following:
I. Introduction; II. Project description; III. Area Growth and Water Demand; and IV. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Water Service
A) PURPOSE
The purpose of a Municipal Service Review (MSR) is to assist the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in the determination of a logical, efficient, and effective sphere of influence (SOI) for each local governmental agency within its jurisdiction. The SOI represents the probable future boundaries and service areas for that particular local agency.
This MSR evaluates the provision of public water service in the eastern portion of Nevada County. Only one public water service agency currently exists in eastern Nevada County: Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD or District), which serves the Town of Truckee and surrounding area, including a small portion of Placer County. All other domestic water in eastern Nevada County is obtained through private water companies, individual wells, or other sources, which LAFCo has no jurisdiction over.
Although a neighboring water-providing agency, Donner Summit Public Utility District, is also located in eastern Nevada County, it is located on the western slope of the Sierra and was included in Nevada LAFCo’s Western County Water Municipal Service Review.
The main water source for TDPUD is the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin. Both Northstar Community Service District (NCSD) and Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) use this water source to provide water services to their service areas. Because of this, NCSD and PCWA will be evaluated in this MSR as to their current and future water demand.
B) LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES
On September 26, 2000, California Governor Grey Davis signed into law AB 2838 (Chapter 761, Statutes of 2000). This legislation, titled the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), revised existing legislation providing for the creation of a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for each of California’s 58 counties. The CKH Act defines the following as major elements of the LAFCo role:
1. To encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well being of the state;
2. To promote orderly development by encouraging the logical formation and determination of boundaries and working to provide housing for families of all incomes;
3. To discourage urban sprawl;
4. To preserve open-space and prime agricultural lands by guiding development in a manner that minimizes resource loss;
5. To exercise its authority to ensure that affected populations receive efficient governmental services;
Nevada County LAFCo 1-1 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
6. To promote logical formation and boundary modifications that direct the burdens and benefits of additional growth to those logical agencies that are best suited to provide necessary services and housing;
7. To make studies and obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies and to shape their development so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities;
8. To establish priorities by assessing and balancing total community services needs with financial resources available to secure and provide community services and to encourage government structures that reflect local circumstances, conditions, and financial resources; and
9. To determine whether new of existing agencies can feasibly provide needed services in a more efficient or accountable manner and, where deemed necessary, consider reorganization with other single purpose agencies that provide related services.
A fundamental LAFCo responsibility is to implement the CKH Act and to provide for logical, efficient, and appropriate formation and development of local agencies such as cities and special districts to thereby limit urban sprawl. One of the tools available to LAFCos to carry out their duties is to undertake Municipal Service Reviews (MSR) prior to the adoption and/or update of an agency’s sphere of influence (SOI). All municipal service providers which have a service area defined by LAFCo through a SOI are subject to these reviews.
C) NEVADA COUNTY LAFCO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Nevada County LAFCo has a number of policies concerning SOIs that closely mirror the requirements of the CKH Act. These include the requirement that all LAFCo actions are to be consistent with adopted SOI. LAFCo maintains numerous other policies and procedures related to SOI. These are available on the Commission’s web site at http://nclafco.com
In order to establish an appropriate SOI, Nevada County LAFCo must have adequate information on the service capabilities of the agency. This information is to be provided in the Master Service Element. Each SOI amendment must include a current Master Service Element that demonstrates the agency can provide adequate, reliable and efficient services to the areas included within the agency’s sphere. This MSR is a tool to assist in the determination of an adequate and appropriate SOI.
D) MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW GUIDELINES
In August 2003, the State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) produced guidelines for MSRs. These guidelines recommended a new process for LAFCo to review municipal services on a regular basis and make determinations in the nine areas of review stipulated in CKH:
1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
2. Growth and population projections for the affected area;
3. Financing constraints and opportunities;
4. Cost avoidance opportunities;
5. Opportunities for rate restructuring;
6. Opportunities for shared facilities;
Nevada County LAFCo 1-2 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation of reorganization of services providers;
8. Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
9. Local accountability and governance.
MSRs enable LAFCo and service providers, whether public or private, to more effectively accomplish mutual public service objectives. MSRs are to be used as planning tools designed to give LAFCo a basis for evaluating the SOI of a particular agency. Each of the nine statements of determination address specific issues of concern to LAFCo in relation to its role as a planning agency. One of LAFCo’s primary roles is to determine whether existing agencies can feasibly provide needed services in a more efficient or accountable manner and, where deemed necessary, consider reorganization with other single purpose agencies that provide related services.
Nevada County LAFCo 1-3 Eastern Nevada County
Municipal Service Review – Water Services
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is to evaluate the effectiveness of Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) in providing water service to the Town of Truckee and the surrounding area. Other water service providers located in the Truckee/Martis Valley area, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and Northstar Community Services District (NCSD), are located in Placer County. Although PCWA and NCSD are not in Nevada County, these two districts are included in the population and water use sections of this MSR in order to determine the future demand on water supply in the area. The Project Description section includes a brief discussion of the following:
A) California water service history, B) methodology, C) service area setting, D) description of water resources, E) agencies, and F) federal and state regulatory requirements.
A) CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE HISTORY
To understand water service in the local and regional context, it is important to first have a basic understanding of California’s complex system of water governance. The Hertzberg Commission’s Growth Within Bounds includes this excellent discussion:
“…Initially, water was tamed by private companies for their own purposes. Mining companies … built hundreds of miles of ditches, flumes, and canals to divert rivers to their hydraulic excavation sites. Ironically, the lasting contribution of these enormous engineering works was the cadre of professional engineers they brought to California and who were later freed to apply their new-found expertise to other water projects, such as irrigation canals, levees, and municipal water systems.
In Southern California, early water development was the province of mutual water companies, owned by the shareholder customers that they served. This form of service provider was very popular at the turn of the last century and remains a significant provider of water in many parts of California today. There are 426 mutual water companies still operating in California, with the bulk of them in Southern California (184 are located in five counties).
The water supply activities of mutual water companies are regulated only by the Department of Health Services, which oversees the State’s public drinking water program. Until recently, they were not subject to any form of control by LAFCo. However, under 1997 amendments to the Corporations Code, mutual water companies formed after January 1998 must contact the Public Utilities Commission and the county LAFCo to determine if the proposed area will overlap an existing water service area or if an existing water service area could more appropriately serve the subdivision. Also, the company’s source of water for distribution and fire protection systems must be sufficient to satisfy expected demands for water from the subdivision.
Even many of the early city water systems were privately owned. … Despite misgivings about government ownership of complex systems, it soon became evident that the needs of urban growth would require a stable, publicly owned supply of water and a significant investment in facilities. Early in the 20th Century, therefore, San Francisco obtained rights to Tuolumne River water and constructed a dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park. At about the same time, William Mulholland was acquiring water rights in the Owens Valley and laying plans for a massive system of aqueducts to ship the water to the City of Los Angeles.
Nevada County LAFCo 2-1 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
In smaller communities, development of water systems under public ownership was made possible by the creation of special purpose districts. The earliest districts supervised land reclamation and levee maintenance in the 1860s. As agriculture developed, especially in the Central Valley, irrigation districts were organized under the Wright Act of 1887. The first of these, the Turlock Irrigation District, continues to deliver water and power to Valley residents today.
The State Legislature recognized the growing importance of municipal water supplies through enactment of the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 and the County Water District Law of 1913. The surge in municipal water district growth began in the 1950s and 1960s, spurred by rapid suburban growth and the enactment of new laws, most notably the Community Services District Law of 1951 that liberalized the powers and service options for many water districts. In all, the Legislature has enacted 39 general laws for establishing various categories of water utility districts and 116 special acts authorizing individual districts. The complexity of this legal scheme recognizes the critical importance of water development to California’s communities and the need for many options to deal with it. On the other hand, it can lead to confusion and complicates reorganization procedures, thereby indirectly encouraging proliferation of water functions among various limited purpose districts and making consolidations less likely. It has also created a situation where the public finds it almost impossible to understand water governance.
A better understanding of water governance could be promoted if each LAFCo, as part of its studies of spheres of influence, periodic service reviews, and other governance issues, were to consider potential functional consolidations of districts providing water utility services, such as combining water and sanitary districts where feasible. The purpose should be not only to reduce costs, but, more importantly, to promote a more comprehensive approach to the use of water resources. Nevertheless, consolidations should not be initiated solely for the purpose of reducing the number of districts.
…The most visible component of California’s water governance system to the average citizen, with the possible exception of the federal and state water projects, is the retail water supplier who mails the monthly bill. Most often, these retailers are counties, cities, or special districts. In some locales, however, they are mutual water cooperatives or private companies.
There are many other layers of water governance, however, that are less visible to the public and which handle the water both before and after it is delivered to consumers. These include agencies involved in wholesaling, recycling, and otherwise managing water supplies. …
Special districts have been established to serve numerous water related functions other than the delivery of drinking water. As previously mentioned, irrigation districts were established initially to divert water to farmers for crop use, although many today deliver more water for urban than for agricultural uses. Sanitary and county sanitation districts and some reclamation districts treat wastewater and often recycle it for subsequent beneficial uses. Water storage and water conservation districts operate reservoirs, spreading basins, and similar facilities to preserve and expand water supplies. Two water replenishment districts recharge groundwater supplies by purchasing water and spreading it in holding basins where it seeps back into the ground. The largest of these, serving 43 cities in southern Los Angeles County, was sued by several member agencies which claimed that it had established unreasonably high rates, exceeded its legal authority, initiated unnecessary and duplicative projects, and provided campaign assistance to its board members. The critics implied that the district may no longer be necessary for its established purposes.
Another type of public institution has been established in “adjudicated” groundwater basins that are [sic] not officially counted as a government agency by the State Controller. In 16 groundwater basins, legal disputes have arisen over how much groundwater can rightfully be extracted by each landowner. These disputes have been resolved by the courts directing or approving a settlement and appointing a watermaster to oversee the judgment. The watermaster is answerable directly to the court, not to the
Eastern Nevada County 2-2 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Legislature, and is authorized to assess fees to cover the cost of his or her office. Courts have granted watermasters the authority to determine water allocations to each party and to regulate water quality.”
The Hertzberg Commission recommended that water supply considerations be integrated into LAFCo evaluation of proposals. The Commission’s recommendation subsequently became Section 56668(k), which requires LAFCo to consider, “Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs…”
B) METHODOLOGY
This report evaluates local water service provision in the greater Martis Valley water basin by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, the Northstar Community Services District and the Placer County Water Agency. While both the NCSD and the PCWA are not located in Nevada County and not under the jurisdiction of Nevada County LAFCo, they use the same water resources, mainly the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, and therefore have an influence on the resources available to TDPUD. All three water providers are evaluated as to their water consumption in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the water demand in the area. However, only the growth/usage projections for NCSD and PCWA are evaluated in this document. Budget, infrastructure, and other issues are not evaluated for these agencies, as they are not under the jurisdiction of Nevada County LAFCo.
A questionnaire, formulated specifically for this water services MSR was sent to the three water agencies. The questionnaire included topics on contact information, governance information, staff information, service provided, level of service, service area, future planning, financial information, government structure, cost avoidance and cost savings opportunities. See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire. Both TDPUD and NCSD completed and returned the questionnaire as well as a number of agency-related documents. PCWA did not complete the questionnaire; however, PCWA recently completed a similar questionnaire for Placer LAFCo.
Responses to the questionnaires, existing documents and information obtained through various third party sources was used to gain a complete understanding of future water demand and planning for the Martis Valley area. Documents pertaining to groundwater and surface water were used to determine water availability in the area. The Truckee General Plan, Martis Valley Community Plan, pending development project lists of Nevada and Placer Counties and Town of Truckee, and Nevada County LAFCo population and housing unit projections were used to estimate the future population of the area and possible water agency service expansion. All of these documents, agency and otherwise, were analyzed in order to completely understand the water services picture in the Truckee/Martis Valley region.
C) SERVICE AREA SETTING
Location
This Municipal Service Review evaluates water service providers within the eastern portion of Nevada County and an adjacent portion of northeastern Placer County (planning area), generally encompassed by the Martis Valley Water Basin. This area is characterized as mountainous and with high mountain valleys and peaks ranging from 5,800 to 8,600 feet above sea level. The Town of Truckee is the only incorporated city in eastern Nevada County and the largest population center in the area. The small residential communities of Hirschdale and Floriston in Nevada County and Lahontan, Ponderosa Palisades, Martiswood Estates, Ponderosa Ranchos, Sierra Meadows and Northstar-at-Tahoe, in Placer County are also located in the subject area. See Figure 1 for the location of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District and surrounding area.
D) DESCRIPTION OF WATER RESOURCES
The Martis Valley Water Basin (including both the Truckee River Basin and Martis Valley Groundwater Basin), part of the North Lahontan Hydrologic Region, as identified by the state Water Resources Agency, is
Nevada County LAFCo 2-3 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services the main aquifer for the defined area. The watershed for Martis Valley encompasses approximately 107,000 acres or approximately 167 square miles (Nimbus, 2001). Donner Lake, Prosser Creek Reservoir, Stampede Reservoir, Independence Lake, and Boca Reservoir are the large lakes in eastern Nevada County. The Truckee River Basin (TRB) and the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB) are both sources of water in the area, although the main source is groundwater from the MVGB.
Martis Valley Groundwater Basin
The main source of water in eastern Nevada County and the Martis Valley area is groundwater. The Martis Valley Groundwater Basin is an intermontane, fault-bounded basin east of the Sierra Nevada crest encompassing 57 square miles in surface area. (see Figure 2). The Martis Valley is the principal topographic feature in the Basin, although the Basin extends to the north and west of the valley. Average annual precipitation is estimated to be 23 inches in the lower eastern portions of the basin and nearly 40 inches in the western areas. The total groundwater in storage is estimated to be approximately 484,000 acre-feet (AF) based on the total basin volume of 9,680,000 acre-feet. (Nimbus Engineers, 2001).
A Ground Water Availability report was prepared by Nimbus Engineers (2001) in consultation with TDPUD, NCSD, and PCWA, for the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin, Eastern Nevada & Placer Counties, California. It was the result of assessing an accumulation of geologic and hydrogeologic data that had been collected during other previous studies dating back as far as 1975. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the Basin with a water balance approach to estimating the amount of ground water available for extraction in the Basin without changing the amount of ground water in storage over the long term. The report estimated that approximately 24,700 AF of ground water could be pumped annually from the greater aquifer without long- term loss of ground water storage. Total annual ground water extraction from the Basin, based on 2004 estimates, is approximately 9,151.7 AFA, with the majority of groundwater used by TDPUD (7,385 AFA). PCWA uses an estimated 764 AFA and NCSD uses 293 AFA of groundwater (See Table 4 for a complete breakdown of groundwater usage in Martis Valley). This extraction is from artificial methods originating from numerous municipal production wells, various industries, and many residential wells. Therefore, approximately 15,549 AF of groundwater is currently available for extraction annually from the ground water basin without adversely affecting the long-term storage of the basin.
Because this estimate considered a lengthy period of record that included serious and prolonged drought, and because the volume in storage in the ground water basin is so great, the Nimbus estimate of yearly pumpage can be considered a long-term reliable supply in all year types.
In December 2002, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants appraised the groundwater supply in a document called Independent Appraisal of Martis Valley Ground Water Availability, Nevada and Placer Counties, California. This document concurred with the conclusions of the Nimbus Report regarding sustainable water availability over the long-term for the Martis Valley ground water basin.
In 2003, InterFlow Hydrology, Inc. reevaluated the Martis Valley aquifer to establish the amount of groundwater that could be taken from the aquifer on a sustainable basis. In their report, Measurement of Ground Water Discharge to Streams Tributary to the Truckee River in Martis Valley, Placer and Nevada Counties, California, InterFlow stated that the total amount of groundwater potentially available for use in the Martis Valley area on a long-term sustainable basis was much higher that the previous 24,700 AFA established by Nimbus Engineers. The InterFlow analysis concluded that much of the tributary streams in the Martis Valley groundwater basin were not accounted for in previous studies and the actual sustainable long- term availability of groundwater is 34,000 AFA. This information suggests that there is a large buffer between the projected amount of future water demand, estimated at 22,224 AFA, and the sustainable supply of groundwater. Impacts to the surface water because of low or no groundwater supply in the area can be avoided.
Eastern Nevada County 2-4 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Groundwater Recharge and Discharge
The Nimbus report identified recharge of precipitation, infiltration of surface water, transfer of groundwater, artificial recharge, and groundwater transfer between zones as groundwater inflow sources for the MVGB. Groundwater recharge from precipitation was estimated at 23,744 AFA, based on recharge efficiencies of 15 to 50 percent. Martis and Juniper Creeks were identified as influent creeks, with Juniper Creek contributing 85 AFA. However, Martis Creek has been noted as a potential area of groundwater discharge and was not considered as contributing to the groundwater system. The area of the watershed upgradient of the MVGB (see Figure 2) provides 5,336 AFA. Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency discharges effluent into a subsurface leach field, which recharges the ground water system by 5,433 AFA. Approximately 12,692 AFA of intra- basin transfer occurs between zones (Nimbus, 2001).
The Nimbus report identified groundwater extraction, spring discharge, groundwater transfer out of the basin, intra-basin transfer, and discharge to Truckee River, Prosser Creek Reservoir, and other surface waters as the primary sources of outflow from MVGB, estimating a total outflow of 47,290 AFA (Nimbus, 2001).
Groundwater Quality
The types and amounts of elements and ions in groundwater are closely associated with the geochemistry of the geologic units in which the water resides. Within the Martis Creek watershed, the underlying geology includes andesites. These intermediate rocks and their regolith are all classified as silicates.
GeoTrans (2000) presented their assessment of groundwater quality issues from water samples collected from four wells in the vicinity of the planned Eaglewood subdivision in the Placer County area of Martis Valley. In the report the concentrations for total dissolved solids, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, sulfate, chloride, hydrogen carbonate ions, iron, arsenic, manganese, radon, and nitrates as nitrogen were tabulated and analysis for total coliform bacteria was also provided. Test results showed that these elements or compounds were detected in the ground water samples, but at concentrations below maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established by California Drinking Water Standards. The GeoTrans report pointed out that arsenic and radon concentrations in the local ground water are a water quality concern in Martis Valley.
Fourteen wells in the TDPUD service area have been removed from service, used for irrigation purposes only or temporarily taken out of service in order to resolve water quality issues. The Donner Creek Well was removed from public drinking water service and converted to irrigation service in 2001, due to its shallow depth and issues related to the well being under the influence of surface water, but will continue to be used for irrigation purposes. The wells acquired from the Glenshire Mutual Water Company were removed from service in 2003 in accordance with the California Department of Health Service Standards resulting in a loss of 1,734 gpm. The other three wells (Airport, Glenshire Drive and Northside wells) were to be dealt with through a method called Avoidance, which allows a well to be temporarily removed from service for testing. A well section will be isolated from the aquifer until the contaminated portion can be identified. Once the formations containing high levels are identified, the well casing through the contaminated sections would be sealed to prevent the entrance of water containing high levels of arsenic.
New information provided by TDPUD indicate that the Airport and Glenshire Drive wells have been modified to reduce the level of arsenic in the water produced by these wells. The most recent data for both wells show arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion (ppb), which is equal to the forthcoming MCL effective January 1, 2006.
During the summer of 2005, the TDPUD will be conducting a pilot plant study to determine the feasibility and costs associated with arsenic removal at the Northside Well. If treatment proves cost effective, TDPUD will be able to utilize the well’s full capacity. If the Avoidance method is necessary, the capacity of the Northside Well will be reduced to 500 gallons per minute (gpm).
Nevada County LAFCo 2-5 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
In the area of the planned Eaglewood development, elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater have been identified in the Southside Hydrogeologic Test Hole, the Martis Valley Test Hole, and the Brockway well. Groundwater from the Southside Hydrogeologic Test Hole exceeded the former California Drinking Water Standards for arsenic (0.05 mg/L) and manganese (0.05 mg/L) at concentrations of up to 0.063 mg/L and 0.090 mg/L, respectively. Higher arsenic concentrations are inherent in groundwater produced from volcanic rocks, as evidenced in the Southside Hydrogeologic Test Hole, and could also be attributed to long groundwater residence times within these rocks as suggested by water samples collected from the Brockway well (GeoTrans, Inc., 2000). It should be noted that new federal drinking water standards for arsenic (0.01 mg/L) will be in effect as of January 2006. TDPUD has noted that the Southside Hydrogeologic and Martis Valley test holes are not located within the TDPUD service area and the water quality at these test holes are not representative of conditions within the service area. However, since these test holes are within the MVGB the information is provided in this report to describe water quality within the MVGB.
Data indicates that arsenic is not likely to be a problem for wells developed in the alluvium located within the basin. The three Lahontan wells have arsenic concentrations that range from <0.003 to 0.003 mg/L and meet EPA’s newest MCLs. Radon concentrations in the Lahontan wells range from 0.1 to 3.4 pCi/L and also meet the EPA proposed MCL for radon.
Environmental reports reviewed for development projects in the Martis Valley area have not noted significant and unavoidable effects to groundwater quality or groundwater recharge that would occur in association with increased development at either an individual or cumulative level. New developments are generally required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. These plans include water quality measures that reduce impacts to water quality to a less than significant level.
Infrastructure improvements necessary to deal with water quality issues are discussed under Section IV(C) of this report.
Current use of surface and groundwater water in the Town of Truckee and the Martis Valley area is estimated to be between 11,650 and 13,151 AFA (2,500 to 4,000 AFA for surface water, estimated by the State Water Resources Board (Placer County Water Agency, 2001) and 9,151 for groundwater). Total sustainable water resource availability is estimated between 34,700 and 44,000 AFA (10,000 AFA for surface water and 24,700 to 34,000 AFA for groundwater).
Truckee River Basin
Truckee River runs from Lake Tahoe, California, into the saline Pyramid Lake in Nevada. The Truckee River crosses the Martis Valley basin from the south to east in a shallow, incised channel. The principal tributaries to the Truckee River are Donner Creek, Martis Creek, and Prosser Creek. Major lakes include Donner Lake, Martis Creek Lake, Prosser Creek Reservoir and Independence Reservoir. Figure 1 depicts hydrological features in the vicinity project.
In addition to the limits of water availability resulting from the physical characteristics of the Martis Valley Basin, there are legal limitations that may affect the amount of water that can be used within the Plan area. Primary among these legal limitations is the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Settlement Act (P.L. 101-618, or “Settlement Act”), passed by Congress in 1990.
The Settlement Act was aimed at resolving long-standing disputes over the sharing of the water resources of the Tahoe and Truckee River Basins. The disputes involved conflicting claims of entitlement by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, whose reservation is in Nevada; by the State of Nevada and its water users; by Truckee Meadows Water Authority, the water supplier to the growing cities of Reno and Sparks; by the United States, which delivers Truckee River water for irrigation of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District and for fishery purposes; and by the State of California and its water users. These disputes have rendered the
Eastern Nevada County 2-6 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
States of Nevada and California unable to manage and administer their water right laws to permit appropriation of water within the Truckee River watershed for almost 30 years.
In the 1990 Settlement Act, Congress established an allocation of water between the 2 states, but provided that the allocation would not become effective until an operating agreement, the “Truckee River Operating Agreement” or “TROA” was signed by the 5 disputing parties. At this time, the basic principles of the TROA have been negotiated, although it cannot be finalized or executed until an Environmental Impact Statement (federal) and an Environmental Impact Report (California) are completed and certified. Nevertheless, in its Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan, dated October 6, 1998, PCWA has assumed the future execution and implementation of TROA and the applicability of the Settlement Act’s allocation and restrictions. The Martis Valley Community Plan will likewise assume that the Settlement Act and TROA is a limiting factor in future water supply development.
The Settlement Act’s allocation of water for use in California in the Truckee River watershed outside of the Lake Tahoe basin is 32,000 acre feet per year of gross diversion, of which no more than 10,000 acre feet can be taken from surface streams. In the TROA negotiation, the parties have agreed that consumptive uses would consume 55 percent of the allowable gross diversion of 32,000 acre feet; and therefore that a cap should be set on consumptive uses at 17,600 acre feet per year (Draft TROA, Section 6.E.2.).
In addition to the gross allocation of 32,000 acre feet (net depletion of 17,600 acre feet per year) of water to the Truckee River Basin, the Settlement Act imposes conditions on the manner in which water may be taken for use, and establishes a mechanism for resolving further interstate disputes concerning groundwater availability in the Martis Valley, should one arise. New wells are required to be located so as to minimize any short-term reductions in surface flows.
In the TROA negotiations, the parties have agreed that the Settlement Act’s well siting limitation should be implemented by establishing minimum setbacks from surface streams, outside of which wells would be deemed to comply with the Settlement Act’s requirements. Well setbacks from the Truckee River and lakes that are 500 feet from the centerline or high water mark; from perennial streams, lakes thereon and springs, 200 feet; and from intermittent streams and springs, 50 feet, would satisfy the Settlement Act’s restrictions.
A key element of the TROA agreement is a commitment by the cities of Reno and Sparks and the Department of Interior to spend up to $24 million to purchase water rights from the Truckee Canal that are appurtenant to what is colloquially known as the Fernley agricultural area. Purchased water would subsequently be stored in upper Fernley Basin reservoirs for release under low-flow conditions to help Reno and Sparks meet water quality objectives, particularly those related to nutrients and dissolved oxygen. It was further anticipated that a reduction in irrigated agriculture within the Fernley area would result in an associated decrease in high total dissolved solids (TDS) groundwater discharge to the river, helping to mitigate salinity loading to Pyramid Lake.
Finally, while the Settlement Act allows Nevada users to take water in California for use in the State of Nevada so long as it is not needed in California, the Act prohibits Nevada users from taking California groundwater if the extraction would cause the groundwater basin’s safe yield to be exceeded. The United States Geological Survey was named by the Settlement Act to perform as arbiter in the limited circumstance of an interstate dispute over safe yield. Because this provision of the Settlement Act arises only with respect to interstate use of groundwater, it has no application to groundwater availability for use within California.
Nevada County LAFCo 2-7 Eastern Nevada County
Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Eastern Nevada County 2-8 Nevada County LAFCo
Municipal Service Review – Water Services stem. stem. y anies have been into TDPUD’s S anies been consolidated Truckee Water have p Note: Donner Lake and Glenshire Mutual Water Com
Nevada County LAFCo 2-9 Eastern Nevada County
Municipal Service Review – Water Services
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) affirms that there are approximately 100 rights of record in the Truckee River Basin that are for use of water in California. The thirteen largest diverters hold rights to over 95 percent of the total rights accounting for a diversion of 3,090 AFA. The rights of record authorize diversion of well over 10,000 AFA. However, SWRCB staff believes that some of their estimates may not be accurate and that some diversions may no longer exist. Also, there may be diversions of water that are not a matter of record with the SWRCB because the diverters have not filed a Statement of Water Diversion and Use (for riparian or pre-1914 appropriative rights) or have not secured a permit. To account for probable changes in water usage in the area, SWRCB estimated the annual water diversion in the Truckee River Basin is between 2,500 to 4,000 AFA (Placer County Water Agency, 2001). This would indicate that 6,000 to 7,500 AFA of surface water is available for diversion.
E) AGENCIES
In the Truckee/Martis Valley region there are a total of three public water agencies including TDPUD, NCSD and PCWA that provide water services. See Figure 3 for service areas.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
TDPUD is the only publicly owned water service agency in eastern Nevada County. TDPUD is a non-profit utility and provides water and electric service to most of the Town of Truckee and portions of adjacent unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer Counties. Figure 4 shows the water service areas of the TDPUD.
Two recent acquisitions by TDPUD, the Donner Lake Water System from Del Oro Water Company and the Glenshire Mutual Water Company have allowed TDPUD to be the only public water purvey in the Town of Truckee. TDPUD offers public and private water service and electrical service throughout Town of Truckee including the downtown area, Armstrong and Biltz Tracts, Tahoe Donner, Meadow Park, Gateway, Sierra Meadows, Olympic Heights, Prosser Heights, Prosser Lakeview, Donner Lake and the surrounding area including Ponderosa Ranchos, Ponderosa Palisades and Hirschdale.
Northstar Community Services District
NCSD was created in 1990 (operated as County Service Area during 1972 to 1990). Northstar Community Services District provides water services to the Northstar community, golf course and ski resort. NCSD services include a fire department, water, sewer, snow removal, roads, solid waste, recycle, and trail system construction and maintenance.
Placer County Water Agency
The Placer County Water Agency was created in 1957 by a special act of the State Legislature, entitled “Placer County Water Agency Act.” This Act gives PCWA special Countywide authority, with a broad Agency-wide powers associated with water. The boundary of PCWA encompasses over 1,500 square miles and is identical in territory to the County of Placer. PCWA is also designated as a local agency and an independent “special district” encompassing all of Placer County. However, several other water providers provide service within PCWA’s jurisdiction, including TDPUD, and Nevada Irrigation District (Nevada Irrigation District provides water service, through its North Auburn Water Treatment Plant, to a large portion of western Placer County).
PCWA has a service area in Martis Valley, which is called Zone 4, located south of Truckee and east of the Truckee River. Zone 4 currently includes the Lahontan community. Three large development projects have been proposed in the Placer County portion of Martis Valley: Hopkins Ranch, Siller Ranch and Eaglewood. PCWA is planning to serve the lands associated with the proposed Hopkins Ranch, Eaglewood, and Siller Ranch developments in Zone 4. PCWA offers water services to areas of the Martis Valley that are not served by either TDPUD or NCSD.
Eastern Nevada County 2-10 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
PCWA provides the domestic water service to the Lahontan subdivision. Because of the close proximity of TDPUD to the Lahontan subdivision, PCWA currently contracts with the TDPUD for water system operations and maintenance.
Placer LAFCo recently completed a Municipal Service Review of Eastern Placer County and reviewed water service in the Placer portion of Martis Valley as provided by Northstar Community Services District, Placer County Water Agency, and Truckee Donner Public Utility District.
Other Water Users
The Ponderosa Golf Course and Teichert Aggregates are the two largest privately owned water users in the area. These entities pump groundwater for their own use and do not provide water for public use. There are approximately 7 other private or mutual water companies in eastern Nevada County and consist of mobile home parks, seasonal campgrounds, schools and small subdivisions. The private and mutual water companies are licensed by the Nevada County Department of Health, however LAFCo has no jurisdiction over these companies or their service areas other than to determine if the proposed service area will overlap and existing service area or if an exiting water service area could be more appropriately serve the subdivision. As such, private and small mutual water companies are not evaluated in this MSR report other than to indicate the amount of water used by these companies.
Name Address Floriston Floriston, CA United Trails 10068 Hirschdale Road, Hirschdale Boca Rest Campground USFS, Hwy 89N, Truckee Martis Creek Campground Martis Creek Road, Truckee Ponderosa Golf Course 10040 Reynold Way, Truckee Prosser Campground USFS, Highway 89 N., Truckee Tahoe Timber Trails Water 16021 Hobart Mills Road, Truckee Tahoe Truckee Unified School District 11839 Donner Pass Road, Truckee Teichert Aggregates 13879 Joerger Dr, Truckee Source: Nevada County Environmental Health Department
Nevada County LAFCo 2-11 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Eastern Nevada NevadaCounty CountyLAFCo 2-12
e a a C u t A C EasternNevada Nevada County CountyLAFCo 2-13
Municipal Service Review – Water Services
F) FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
This section is a brief overview of the current regulations for water systems and is intended to provide information to those who may be unfamiliar with the complex and detailed regulatory requirements.
Numerous federal, state and local laws and agencies regulate water. Some of the state and regional plans and policies build upon the federal legislation. In other instances, federal acts have established broad goals, which are to be achieved through implementation at state and local levels. Finally, there are some regulations that are unique to California.
There can be considerable and confusing overlap among the agencies, regulations, and associated acronyms. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, has jurisdiction over water agencies and enforce the federal and state regulatory standards. The following section identifies a few of the major federal and state regulatory bodies and requirements for water programs.
Federal Laws and Regulations
The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), enacted in 1974, are the two major federal laws that regulate the nation’s water resources. The following is a brief overview of the CWA and SDWA1:
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act)
The CWA, including its amendments, is the principal law governing the nation’s streams, lakes, and estuaries. It contains regulatory provisions that impose progressively more stringent requirements on industries and cities to reduce pollution and meet the goal of zero discharge of pollutants.
The CWA established as national goals the elimination of pollutant discharges to the navigable waters and the assurances that all navigable waters would be fishable and swimable. It also established the following regulatory standards:
No one has the right to pollute the navigable waters of the United States. Dischargers are required to obtain permits.
Permits shall set limits on the concentration of the pollutants being discharged. A violation of the limits carries a penalty of fines or imprisonments.
The best technology available shall be used to control the discharge of pollutants.
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The SDWA required the EPA to identify potentially harmful contaminant in drinking water and to specify a maximum containment level for each contaminant. Water supply systems must meet these standards by using the best technology that is economical, available and technologically feasible.
The SDWA was amended in 1996 to require states to identify potential contamination threats and determine the security of drinking water sources. The amendment also required that qualified professional operate water systems although California had already established a certification program. Other requirements include the following:
1 The following section was excerpted from the Ventura County Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review.
Eastern Nevada County 2-14 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Consumer Confidence Reports
Since 1999, public water systems must provide their customers with an annual water quality report providing data about the quality of the local drinking water, compliance with EPA’s safety standards, sources of any contaminants, and potential health risks. The annual reports are included with water bills for systems with more than 10,.000 customers. For smaller systems, the information can be posted at a central location or published in local newspapers.
Water Conservation Plans
In 1998, the EPA issued guidelines for water conservation plans for public water systems. Now states may require a water system to submit a water conservation plan consistent with the EPA guidelines as a condition of receiving a loan.
Groundwater Standards
Most Americans rely on groundwater as their source of safe drinking water and tap water. SDWA rules regulate groundwater protection under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.
California Laws and Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970
The California Water Code (CWC) is the principal state regulation governing the use of water resources within the state of California. This law controls water rights, the construction and management of dams and reservoirs, flood control, conservation, development and utilization of state water resources, water quality protection and management, and management of water-oriented agencies. The water quality provisions set forth in the CWC have been written to supplement provisions of the Health and Safety Code, Public Resources Code, Fish and Game Code, Food and Agriculture Code, Government Code, harbors and Navigation Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Endangered Species Act.
Division 7 of the CWC, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1970, California 13000 to 14958, regulates water quality and pollution issues within California by protecting water quality and beneficial uses of all state waters. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) administer the Porter-Cologne Act regionally. While administration occurs at a regional level, regulations are promulgated on a statewide level to provide consistency. Aspects of the Porter- Cologne Act are similar to federal water quality regulations and programs.
Proposition 65
California’s Safe Drinking Water Act, Proposition 65, regulates water facilities with ten or more employees that manufacture, package, or operate in California to sell products in California. The Act prohibits these facilities from deliberately discharging listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.
Cal-Fed Water Program
The Cal-Fed Water program is a multi-agency cooperative water program that was created to address water issues and disputes in California. Program participants include a wide range of special interests.
Nevada County LAFCo 2-15 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
III. AREA GROWTH AND WATER DEMAND
A) EXISTING AND PROJECTED GROWTH
Population and housing projections used by the water service providers in the Truckee/Martis Valley area are based on city and county General Plans and community plans. In order to provide a consistent set of assumptions and methodologies for population and housing growth projections, Nevada County LAFCo in cooperation with Nevada County has developed a set of baseline projection assumptions. The forecasting combines current assumptions about growth rates and projections, with an interpretation of how city and county General Plan growth policies are likely to be applied over time. Certain environmental constraints are applied to potential development area to determine potential growth rates (e.g. steep topography would limit access, therefore a much lower growth rate would be applied to areas with steep slopes). The assumptions created by Nevada County LAFCo have been used to create the Growth Results Report for the study areas within Nevada County and the Martis Valley portion of Placer County and is used in the MSR to identify current and future population and housing growth in the area.
Seasonal variations, distinct user groups and an abundance of second homes substantially affect population characteristics throughout the study area. In order to plan for peak demand periods, part time residents must be factored into population and housing projections. The seasonal day user also creates a significant portion of peak demand on water services.
Population
The largest populated area in the planning area is the Town of Truckee. The Town of Truckee has grown from a 1990 population of 9,420 to a current estimated population of 15,012 (DOF, 2004). Based on these population statistics, the average annual growth rate for the past 14 years has been 4.2 percent, and Truckee is now adding approximately 600 permanent residents per year. Truckee has been growing at a rate at least three times faster than California as a whole.
The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) 2004 Water Master Plan Update based much of the future water use demand on the Town of Truckee 1996 General Plan. However the Master Plan recognizes the fact that the 1996 General Plan population projects underestimated the growth of the Town. As such, the Master Plan developed new population projections based on current growth and established a 2015 population of approximately 20,100. This follows Nevada County LAFCo’s high growth population projections for the Town of Truckee as shown in Table 1.
The majority of the population within the Placer County portion of the Martis Valley Community Plan area is located in three primary development areas, including Northstar-at-Tahoe, Lahontan I, and the Ponderosa Palisades, Sierra Meadows, Ponderosa Ranchos, and Martiswood Estates subdivisions located adjacent to the Town of Truckee. Martis Valley, much like the Town of Truckee, has an unusually high number of vacation or second homes and fluctuating seasonal employment. These conditions make traditional reliance on population projections for planning purposes somewhat uncertain. Based on 2000 Census data, the permanent population for the Martis Valley area, Placer County portion only, was 1,185 in 2000. The 2003 Martis Valley Community Plan states that the plan area has a holding capacity of approximately 8,600 dwelling units and an estimated total build-out population of approximately 21,500, assuming an average household size of 2.5 persons. According to the Plan, only 40 to 60 percent of the total build-out projection will occur by 2020 or between 3,400 and 4,900 dwelling units. This equates to approximately 8,500 to 12,250 persons, using a 2.5 average household size.
Nevada County LAFCo Population Projections
For the Town of Truckee, Nevada County LAFCo population projections use two projection scenarios, an expected growth rate and a high growth rate, spanning a 25-year period from 2002 to 2027. The expected
Nevada County LAFCo 3-1 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services growth scenario for the Town of Truckee uses an average 2.5 percent growth rate per year, while the high growth scenario uses a 3.5 percent annual growth rate (the 2.5 and 3.5 percent annual growth rates are an average taken over a 25 year span from 2002 to 2027 and do not reflect the individual five year spans illustrated in Table 1). According to these projections, Truckee will have a 2007 permanent population of 16,618 using the expected growth scenario and 17,357 using the high growth scenario. By 2027, the permanent population is projected to be 24,004 for the expected growth scenario and 27,697 for the high growth scenario.
Nevada County LAFCo has also completed population projections for Martis Valley. These projections establish an expected permanent and permanent/non-permanent total. However, the projections were developed prior to the 2003 Martis Valley Community Plan (MVCP) and are not necessarily an accurate forecast of future populations in the area. Both NCSD and PCWA use the MVCP to identify future needs for their districts and water use is based on this population growth in the area.
Total population for the Truckee/Martis Valley area is estimated to be between 24,323 and 32,630 in 2017 based on the expected and high growth scenarios. By 2027, the high growth population is expected to be approximately 44, 241.
TABLE 1 NEVADA COUNTY LAFCO POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Town of Truckee Martis Valley Total
Year Expected High Expected Community Expected High Growth Growth Growth Plan Growth* Growth Growth
2002 14,772 14,772 2,767 3,662 17,539 18,434 2007 16,618 17,357 3,182 5,809 19,800 23,166 2012 18,465 19,942 3,597 7,956 22,062 27,898 2017 20,311 22,527 4,012 10,103 24,323 32,630 2022 22,158 25,112 4,427 14,397 26,585 39,509 2027 24,004 27,697 4,842 16,544 28,846 44,241
Source: Nevada County LAFCo Growth and Development Model Reports, http://208.181.89.18:8082/lafco/PolicyEvaluator.html Note:*Community growth is based on the MVCP high growth scenario and is not a Nevada Co. LAFCo projection.
Table 2 shows population projections for unincorporated eastern Nevada County as established by Nevada County LAFCo. The majority of this population is not in the TDPUD service area and either uses a small private water company or individual wells to obtain water. These growth scenarios were developed using four different projection factors; infill growth at an expected growth rate of 1.7 percent per year, infill growth at a high growth rate of 3.6 percent per year, expected growth at 4.0 percent per year based on the Nevada County General Plan, and a high General Plan growth at a rate of 4.2 percent per year.
Population growth in the unincorporated area of eastern Nevada County has been illustrated in this document in order to show the projected future growth in this part of the County. However, the vast majority of this growth will not occur in the TDPUD sphere of influence and the Martis Valley area and will not nor could not be served by TDPUD. As such, this population, although identified, is not considered as a determining factor in water usage in the TDPUD service area and therefore the corresponding demand for water to serve this population has not been included in this document.
Eastern Nevada County 3-2 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TABLE 2 NEVADA COUNTY LAFCO POPULATION PROJECTIONS - UNINCORPORATED EASTERN NEVADA COUNTY
Infill General Plan Year Expected Growth High Growth Expected Growth High Growth
2002 1,771 1,771 1,771 1,771 2007 1,771 1,771 1,771 1,771 2012 1,771 1,771 1,771 1,822 2017 1,771 1,904 1,904 2,454 2022 2,505 2,622 3,068 3,574 2027 2,505 3,373 3,542 3,636
Source: Nevada County LAFCo Growth and Development Model Reports, http://208.181.89.18:8082/lafco/PolicyEvaluator.html; MVCP, 2003
Nevada County LAFCo population projections also have estimates combining the permanent and nonpermanent residents and the two growth scenarios. These projections are valuable since all people in the town at any one time are a load on infrastructure and create impacts. This number may be useful to represent peak loads such as on summer or winter weekends (water supply, sewage load, etc). This is particularly an issue for Truckee, which has a very high proportion of second homeowners and visitor/nonpermanent populations many of which may possibly be in town at the same time. According to these projections, the maximum population in Truckee in 2007 is 28,704 in the expected growth scenario and 29,980 in the high growth scenario. This population is projected to reach 41,462 for the expected growth scenario and 47,841 for the high growth scenario by 2027.
Dwelling Units
There are a number of different projections for the number of housing units in the Town of Truckee. The 1996 Town of Truckee General Plan estimated that the number of dwelling units in 2015 would be 17,250. Total build-out for the Town of Truckee is estimated at 17,632 units according to the 1996 General Plan. However, the General Plan assumed an annual growth rate of only 2.0 percent, and for the past few years, Truckee has grown twice as fast as estimated by the General Plan. If Truckee continues to grow at a rate of over 4.0 percent per year, the number of in 2015 will be 25,700. Based on a 4.0 percent growth scenario, the build-out number of housing units of 17,632 will be reached by 2008.
According to the 2003 MVCP, there were 1,935 dwelling units in the area in 2002. This number is expected to increase anywhere from 3,400 to 4,900 units by 2020 with a total build out of approximately 8,600 units.
Nevada County LAFCo Housing Unit Projections
The 2007 Nevada County LAFCo growth projection for Truckee is estimated at 11,621 housing units for the expected growth scenario and 12,138 for a high growth scenario. By 2027, the number of housing units for the expected and high growth scenarios is estimated at 16,786 and 19,369, respectively.
Nevada County LAFCo housing unit projections for the Martis Valley estimates that there will be 2,225 housing units in the area by 2007 and 3,096 housing units by 2022. As stated previously Nevada County LAFCo projections were developed prior to the 2003 MVCP and therefore may not be accurate at this time for the Martis Valley area. Estimates, based on the MVCP high growth scenario, indicate that by 2022 there will be 5,759 housing units in Martis Valley. All water use projections for NCSD and PCWA are based on the MVCP and do not coincide with Nevada County LAFCo housing unit projections. Therefore, housing unit
Nevada County LAFCo 3-3 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services calculations referring to NCSD and PCWA are reflective of the MVCP due to the inaccurate Nevada County LAFCo housing unit information.
TABLE 3 NEVADA COUNTY LAFCO HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS
Town of Truckee Martis Valley
Year Expected High Expected Community Growth Growth Growth Plan Growth
2002 10,330 10,330 1,935 1,465 2007 11,621 12,138 2,225 2,324 2012 12,913 13,946 2,516 3,182 2017 14,204 15,753 2,806 4,041 2022 15,495 17,561 3,096 5,759 2027 16,786 19,369 3,386 6,618 Source: Nevada County LAFCo Growth and Development Model Reports, http://208.181.89.18:8082/lafco/PolicyEvaluator.html; MVCP, 2003
B) WATER DEMAND
Existing Conditions – Truckee/Martis Valley
In 2003, TDPUD served 10,291 residential and 538 commercial connections for a total of 10,829 connections using an estimated 6,842.6 acre-feet per year. Northstar Community Services District water demand consists of domestic uses, a golf course, and snow making machines. In 2004, the NCSD served 1,310 residential and 106 commercial accounts, using an estimated 293 acre-feet of water per year. PCWA operates the Lahontan Service Area for the Lahontan subdivision in Placer County. The service area uses approximately 829.8 acre-feet of water per year.
Teichert Aggregates and Ponderosa Golf Course extract an estimated 469.6 acre-feet of groundwater from the Martis Valley Basin per year. Domestic wells in Martis Valley Basin use an estimated 182.1 acre-feet of groundwater per year. Small water systems water usage is negligible, approximately 9.6 acre-feet per year (Nimbus 2001).
Future Demand – Truckee/Martis Valley
It has been estimated by that the total water demand under buildout conditions for the Martis Valley area, including the Town of Truckee, will be 22,224 AFA. (Antonucci, 2001) The largest user of water will be TDPUD. Comparing the water demand under buildout conditions and the amount of water available in MVGB and TRB, there will be an adequate supply of water under buildout conditions in the Truckee/Martis Valley region. The TDPUD 2004 Master Plan recommends the continued use of groundwater as the water system’s main source for the future. However, the Master Plan also recommends that surface water be considered as a long-term option, which may prove to be more cost-effective that new wells as demand approaches buildout conditions.
Eastern Nevada County 3-4 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TABLE 4 ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER USE IN MARTIS VALLEY
Groundwater Residential Commercial District Usage Connections Connections (acre feet per year)
TDPUD 10,291 538 7,385 AFA3 NCSD 1,310 106 293 AFA PCWA (Lahontan I & II) 539 N/A 764 AFA Other Large Users1 N/A 518 AFA Small Water System2 N/A 9.6 AFA Domestic Wells N/A 182.1 AFA Total 9,151.7AFA
Source: Placer LAFCo Municipal Services Review; TDPUD 2004 Water Master Plan Update; Nimbus Engineers. Note: 1) Other large users consist of Teichert Aggregates and Ponderosa Golf Course. 2) Small water systems consist of small water companies such as Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Systems, Prosser campground and Martis Creek campground. 3) Groundwater usage for TDPUD was updated to reflect most current available information. Existing water use is estimated at 561 gallons per day per connection.
TABLE 5 AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER DEMAND UNDER BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
TDPUD* PWCA NCSD Other Total
Water Demand 14,614 AFA 3,997 AFA 2,503 AFA 1,110 AFA 22,224 AFA
Source: Antonucci, David C.; TDPUD 2004 Water Master Plan Update Note:* Average annual demand for TDPUD was updated to reflect most current available information.
DETERMINATIONS – GROWTH AND RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
Growth and Resource Availability Projections for the Affected Area
Efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for the future need in the area. The future demand, based on accurate growth projections, and availability of resources, based on an adequate examination of the resource, must be included in any future plans for an agency.
The Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB) can sustain groundwater extraction of between 24,700 and 34,000 acre-feet annually (AFA) without adversely affecting the long-term storage of the basin.
Current groundwater usage is estimated at approximately 9,151.7 AFA. This means between 15,500 and 25,000 AFA of groundwater are currently available for extraction on a long-term sustainable basis.
Total water demand for the Truckee and Martis Valley area under buildout conditions is estimated to be 22,224 AFA.
Nevada County LAFCo 3-5 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Comparing available supply with projected demand shows that the MVGB will have a sustainable supply of groundwater to serve the Truckee/Martis Valley area under buildout conditions.
TDPUD considers groundwater the preferred water source as currently there is an abundant supply. However, the use of surface water to supply future demand is considered a long-term option if it is determined to be a more cost-effective solution than new wells as demand approaches buildout conditions. The District holds the water rights held by the Donner Lake Water Company, but does not have any other rights of record.
Annual water diversion of Truckee River Basin water is estimated between 2,500 to 4,000 AFA. The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act limits the diversion of surface water in the Truckee River Basin to 10,000 AFA resulting in between 6,000 to 7,500 AFA of additional surface water available for domestic water use. However, the likelihood of permitting new rights of record for the river basin is doubtful; therefore, only holders of existing rights of record may use the available water must come from the existing rights of record holders. The Donner Lake Water Company, now part of TDPUD, is a holder of a right of record.
The TDPUD Master Plan developed population projections in Truckee based on current growth and established a 2015 population of approximately 20,100. This is consistent with Nevada County LAFCo’s high growth population projections for the Town of Truckee.
The Martis Valley population projections established in the 2003 Martis Valley Community Plan are much higher under buildout conditions than Nevada County LAFCo’s. The Nevada County LAFCo population projections for Martis Valley should be revised to reflect the Martis Valley Community Plan projections.
Future growth within the TDPUD sphere of influence will result from a combination of infill in existing subdivisions and development of vacant lands.
Eastern Nevada County 3-6 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
IV. TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT WATER SERVICE
A) EXISTING AND FUTURE DEMAND
TDPUD evaluates its current and future demand for water service in the 2004 Water Master Plan Update. The Master Plan determines the future demand for water based on current usage, vacant land in the Town of Truckee and County of Nevada within the District’s future sphere of influence, zoning designations of the vacant land, number of units allowed in this zoning district, and usage type (i.e. industrial, commercial, residential, etc.)
Existing Conditions
Current maximum day potable water demand is 12.61 million gallons per day (mgd) (see Table 6) It is anticipated by TDPUD that this demand will increase to 16.34 mgd and 21.82 mgd by the years 2010 and 2020, respectively. The anticipated growth in potable water demand is illustrated in Figure 5. This illustration shows that there will be a shortage of capacity in the TDPUD water system by 2004 under the maximum daily demand scenario at current conditions. However, the overall picture is somewhat deceiving since there is a surplus supply capacity in the Donner Lake and Glenshire areas that cannot be transferred to the remainder of the system under the existing configuration. The existing maximum daily demand in the Donner Lake planning area is 1.31 mgd, with a total supply capacity of 2.02 mgd and a firm supply capacity of 1.51 mgd. The existing maximum daily demand for the Glenshire planning area is 1.85 mgd, with a total supply capacity of 5.52 mgd and a firm supply of 2.63 mgd. None of the excess water at Donner Lake and only about 200 gallons per minute (gpm) of excess water from the Glenshire system can be transferred to the rest of the TDPUD system due to limitations of the existing infrastructure. Therefore, a total capacity of 9.66 mgd is available to serve a demand of 8.69 mgd. The firm capacity currently available to the remainder to the Truckee system is only 6.36 mgd.
TABLE 6 EXISTING AND FUTURE DEMAND – TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Residential Commercial Total Average Annual Scenario Demand Demand Daily Demand Demand Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future
5.58 8.45 1.06 4.60 6.64 13.05 7,720 14,614.7 Average Demand mgd mgd mgd mgd mgd mgd AFA AFA 10.59 16.63 2.02 8.83 12.61 25.46 13,270.8 28,512.7 Maximum Demand mgd mgd mgd mgd mgd mgd AFA AFA Assumed Unit Demands for Future Planning Commercial 1,500 gallons per acre per day Industrial 2,000 gallons per acre per day Residential (SFR and MFR) – Main 505 gallons per dwelling unit per day Residential (SFR and MFR) – Glenshire 547 gallons per dwelling unit per day Residential (SFR and MFR) – Hirschdale 632 gallons per dwelling unit per day Public 2,000 gallons per acre per day Visitor Lodging 4,000 gallons per acre per day Mixed Use 4,000 gallons per acre per day Source: TDPUD 2004 Water Master Plan Update Note: Existing demand was determined using Total Average Daily Demand provided by TDPUD and applying a 84% residential/16% commercial ratio as estimated by TDPUD.
Nevada County LAFCo 4-1 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Future Demand
TDPUD identifies two future demand scenarios: buildout average daily water use and buildout maximum daily water use, as illustrated in Table 6. Under buildout conditions, the TDPUD service area is projected to have an average daily water demand of 13.05 mgd and a maximum daily water demand 25.06 mgd. This is an increase of 6.94 mgd under average daily demand conditions and 13.61 mgd under maximum daily demand conditions. It should be noted that these scenarios include only those areas within the District’s current service area. Additionally, there are a significant number of dwelling units in the area that are considered second or vacation homes. The occupancy of homes differs throughout the service area. For example, approximately 86 percent of the homes in the Glenshire planning area are second homes, while 44 percent of the homes in the Donner Lake planning area are second homes. As a whole, only 44 percent of the existing residences in the service area are occupied ion a full time basis. (TDPUD 2004 Draft Master Plan, 2004) This information must be considered in determining the future water demand in the TDPUD service area.
FIGURE 5
PROJECTED DEMAND AND CAPACITY -TDPUD WATER SERVICE
35
30
25
20
15
10
Million Gallons Per Day 5
0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 Year
Ave. Day Demand, mgd Max. Day Demand, mgd Total Supply Capacity, mgd
Note: The drop in total supply capacity in 2004 was due to the removal of the Donner Lake intake and Glenshire wells from service. However, new wells are anticipated to be on-line by 2005 to remediate the loss of total supply capacity.
B) SERVICE AREA
The boundaries of local service agencies should define territory where the agency can logically provide services. Spheres of influence should identify areas where it can be determined that the agency will be prepared to provide efficient future service. By including territory within a service area, which cannot be logically served by the agency, or excluding territory, which can be logically served, aggravates inefficiencies and may indicate that the boundary is inappropriate. Local agencies should, as a rule, avoid providing services outside their boundaries. Extra-territorial service introduces needless complexity into regional service provision and, if extensive, extra-territorial service arrangements can strain an agency’s infrastructure system to the detriment of those living within the service boundary.
Eastern Nevada County 4-2 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Appropriate Boundaries TDPUD existing service area incorporates all of the Town of Truckee, an area west of Truckee, and a small portion of Placer County. See Figure 4. As previously stated, TDPUD also provides contract services to the Lahontan subdivision in Place County for PCWA. This subdivision is shown on Figure 4 as the PCWA Lahontan Service Area. These boundaries appear to be appropriate for service to existing development as the service area covers most of the populated area in the Truckee area. However, as discussed below, areas adjacent to the Town of Truckee will most likely be developed in the near future and TDPUD’s boundaries will need to be expanded in the near future to serve this new growth.
Extending Services
New development outside of the Districts service area is the Tahoe Boca Estates subdivision, located east of the Glenshire subdivision within the Town of Truckee city limits. TDPUD expressed a desire to extend its service area to include this subdivision in its responses to the water questionnaire. TDPUD has not identified any other areas of eastern Nevada County that it currently would like to extend services.
Residential development is pending Placer County, which is to be connected to the Lahontan subdivision water system. While TDPUD service area does not cover the Lahontan subdivision, the District does operate the system and it would be appropriate for TDPUD would amend their contract with PCWA to operate the water systems for the new developments in Placer County.
TDPUD existing boundary is rectangular in shape and does not appear to consider topography as part of the boundary determination. Because of the cost of providing the proper infrastructure (wells, pumping stations, piping, control valves, etc.) to areas of varying elevations, topography can play an important part in the cost effectiveness to providing water services. In mountainous areas, such as eastern Nevada County, it may be more economically advantageous to establish a new water agency in remote areas than to extend services from an existing water service to that area. Therefore, topography must be considered when contemplating the extending of service boundaries.
DETERMINATIONS - SERVICE AREA
An agency’s service territory should be based on a determination of where the agency can logically provide efficient current and future service. Including territory that cannot be logically served by the agency within a service area, or not including territory that can be logically served from a service area, aggravates inefficiencies and may indicate that the boundary is inappropriate.
The majority of future growth in eastern Nevada County will be located in the Truckee area. TDPUD offers the best source of retail water in the Truckee area. Its boundaries should be extended to incorporate the area between the Truckee service area and the Hirschdale service area.
TDPUD has plans to extend its boundary to incorporate the pending Tahoe Boca Estates subdivision. This is a logical extension of the TDPUD service boundary as the subdivision is adjacent to the existing service boundary east of Glenshire. Additionally, TDPUD currently operates the Lahontan subdivision water system for PCWA. The subdivision is adjacent to TDPUD’s service boundary, which might also be logically extended to encompass it. However, the Lahontan subdivision is located in Placer County and political and logistical impediments may constrain an extension of TDPUD service to this area.
It would be appropriate for the TDPUD Sphere of Influence, as discussed under Governance determinations, to include the Placer County portion of the MVGB and for the District to annex planned subdivisions in that area as they go through the development process.
Nevada County LAFCo 4-3 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Water services for large new developments in areas of eastern Nevada County that are outside the Truckee area and not feasibly servable by TDPUD should be provided through the formation of either private water companies or new public water agencies, mainly because the topographical constraints of the region make service from TDPUD infeasible.
C) INFRASTRUCTURE State Legislature has determined that one of LAFCo’s core missions is encouraging the efficient provision of public services. A public service provider’s ability to provide efficient and cost effective public service is linked to an integrated program of short and long-range planning. Determining future service demand and developing strategic plans to ensure that physical or capital resources will be available as required, is a fundamental activity of public service agencies.
Existing Infrastructure Needs
Table 7 illustrates the infrastructure for TDPUD. TDPUD is divided into two systems, which were originally developed as separate water systems and incorporated in to the TDPUD system. See Figure 4 for an identification of each system area. The Hirschdale system is rather small and serves the small community of Hirschdale. The Donner Lake Water System and Glenshire Water System have been consolidated into the TDPUD system. The Truckee Main System is reasonably complicated. With the addition of the Donner Lake System and the Glenshire System, TDPUD has a total of 186 miles of pipeline, 22 active wells, and 36 storage reservoirs.
A number of improvements are needed to the existing system, as identified in the 2004 Water Master Plan Update, in order to upgrade system operations, address water quality concerns and improve the system’s energy efficiency. These improvements include:
• Install flow meters at wells and pumping stations to track actual system flows,
• Repair and install pipelines to remove dead-end mains,
• Remove pipelines that bleed water across pressure zone boundaries that were installed to address water quality problems, and
• Install standby generators to ensure pumping capabilities under emergency conditions.
TABLE 7 TDPUD WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Hirschdale Truckee Water System
Water System Donner Lake Glenshire Truckee Main Total
Pressure Zones* 1 5 5 33 44 Donner Lake Donner Lake, (main source), wells: springs: springs: 10 + 2 inactive wells: wells: 4 + 2 inactive, Sources 1 + 2 inactive, 1 11 + 1 inactive springs: wells: wells: 3 inactive 22 + 6 inactive 3 inactive 4 (1 out of Storage Reservoirs 1 4 26 36 service) Pipeline 3,100 feet N/A N/A 130 miles 186 miles
Eastern Nevada County 4-4 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Hirschdale Truckee Water System
Water System Donner Lake Glenshire Truckee Main Total
Pressure Reducing Station 0 3 7 19 29
Source: TDPUD 2004 Draft Water Master Plan Note: The Donner Lake Water System and Glenshire Water System have recently been consolidated into the Truckee Water System. Pressure zones – Because the TDPUD service area is located in a mountainous area, it includes a number of pressure zones and a wide range of pressures within each zone. A pressure zone served by a gravity tank can generally accommodate a range in elevation of about 200 feet. This is an important factor in determining whether a potential new service area will be compatible with an existing nearby water system or whether a new pressure zone must be developed.
The Donner Lake Water System acquires water from Donner Lake and Greenpoint Springs. The water drawn from Donner Lake and Greenpoint Springs is disinfected and fed directly into the distribution system. Both of these sources are not filtered, as required by the Surface Water Treatment Rule and have been subject to a succession of the DHS Compliance Orders mandating compliance with the (SWTR) since 1993. It has been determined by TDPUD that upgrading the distribution system to allow for groundwater usage instead of installing a filtering system for Donner Lake and Greenpoint Springs would be more cost effective. As such, TDPUD is in the process of upgrading the distribution system and once completed, the use of surface water from Donner Lake and Greenpoint Springs will be discontinued.
Future Infrastructure Planning
Both the Donner Lake intake pump station and most of the Glenshire wells have been removed from service. The remaining wells in the TDPUD system will have a total capacity of 11.7 mgd and a firm capacity of 8.4 mgd. Therefore, an additional 17.1 mgd is needed to meet the projected buildout needs to provide adequate firm capacity to the system. TDPUD has established three scenarios of additional water supply to meet the future water demand. These scenarios are: construct additional wells not requiring filtration, construct additional wells requiring filtration, and construct a surface water treatment facility. The 2004 Water Master Plan Update recommends that groundwater continue to be the main source of water for TDPUD. The short- term solution to inadequate water capacity has been suggested by TDPUD to construct two wells not requiring filtration. These wells are planned for development during 2004 and 2005. An additional six wells are recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan Update to accommodate future water demand.
Future growth in the TDPUD service area will be a combination of infill in existing subdivisions and development of vacant lands. Four alterative concepts were developed by TDPUD, as a part of the 2004 Water Master Plan Update, to plan for the future buildout distribution system and adequately serve future water demand. The major variations to between the alternatives involve the supply of water to the Tahoe Donner residential subdivision and configuration of the water system serving areas south of the Truckee River. A brief description of the four alternatives is as follows:
Alternative A: This is essentially a “do nothing “ alternative. There would be no major changes to the existing pressure zones. The only major construction would be parallel pipelines installed to serve the Tahoe Donner subdivision.
Alternative B: A modification of the 2001 Master Plan Buildout Water System to include the Donner Lake and Glenshire systems. A second pipeline into the Tahoe Donner subdivision would be constructed. The Gateway and Town pressure zones would be consolidated. The pressure zone south of the Truckee River would not be modified.
Alternative C: The Sierra Meadows pressure zone would be consolidated with the 6170 pressure zone. A pipeline connecting these two pressure zones would be constructed. The second pipeline to the Tahoe Donner subdivision would be constructed. The Gateway and Town pressure zones would be consolidated. Reconfiguring 6040 Zone allowing water supplied from the 6170 Zone would be completed.
Nevada County LAFCo 4-5 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Alternative D: The existing Sierra Meadows zone would remain as is. The airport area and PC-3, along with the Airport Well would be transferred from the Town pressure zone to the Sierra Meadows pressure zone.
A cost comparison for the four alternatives is shown in Table 8. Alternative C was considered by TDPUD to be the best alternative based on cost, system redundancy and community disruption.
New EPA Water Quality Standards and Infrastructure Impacts
The Hirschdale Water System and Truckee Main Water System obtain drinking water through groundwater from 21 active wells (28 wells in total, 6 are inactive, 1 is only for irrigation purposes and is non-potable). Water taken from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin is considered excellent drinking water and all regulated compounds are well below the current allowable contamination limits determined by EPA.
TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF BUILD OUT ALTERNATIVES
Capital Annual Annual System Community Alternative Construction Cost Electrical Cost* O&M Cost Redundancy Disruption
A $48,057,900 $82,846 $978,275 LF LF B $45,363,300 $0 $948,475 N N C $46,026,600 $63,371 $923,175 MF N D $46,029,800 $23,931 $924,925 N N
Source: TDPUD 2004 Draft Water Master Plan Note: * The estimates for annual electrical costs are relative, measured in relation to the least expensive alternative (Alternative B).
New EPA regulations regarding arsenic levels in drinking water will become effective in 2006. As a result, 14 wells have been permanently removed from service, used for irrigation purposes only or temporarily taken out of service in order to resolve water quality issues. The Donner Creek Well was removed from public drinking water service in 2001 due to its shallow depth and issues related to the well being under the influence of surface water, but will continue to be used for irrigation purposes. The wells acquired from the Glenshire Mutual Water Company were removed from service in 2003 in accordance with the California Department of Health Service Standards, resulting in a loss of 2,034 gpm. The other three wells (Airport, Glenshire Drive and Northside wells) will be dealt with through a method called Avoidance. This method allows a well to be temporarily removed from service for testing. The testing involves isolating a section of the well from the aquifer until the contaminated portion can be identified. Once the formations containing high levels are identified, the well casing through the contaminated sections would be sealed to prevent the entrance of water containing high levels of arsenic.
New information provided by TDPUD indicate that the Airport and Glenshire Drive wells have been modified to reduce the level of arsenic in the water produced by these wells. The most recent data for both wells show arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion (ppb), which is equal to the forthcoming MCL effective January 1, 2006.
During the summer of 2005, the TDPUD will be conducting a pilot plant study to determine the feasibility and costs associated with arsenic removal at the Northside Well. If treatment proves cost effective, TDPUD will be able to utilize the well’s full capacity. If the Avoidance method is necessary, the capacity of the Northside Well will be reduced to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). Table 9 illustrates the effects of the new arsenic standards on TDPUD’s well capacity.
Eastern Nevada County 4-6 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
In addition, maximum radon levels are currently under review and preliminary announcements indicate that the maximum level will be 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). If this level becomes the standard, all of TDPUD’s wells will exceed the limit. There are two methods that have been identified to address the reduction of radon in drinking water.
One method involves the removal of radon through aeration. This method would require a significant capital investment, along with incurring higher operations and maintenance costs. Capital costs have been estimated to range from $100,000 to $150,000 per well, while operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $0.05 per thousand gallons.
The second method is the Multimedia Mitigation approach proposed by the EPA. This method addresses both water and air quality at the point of use. This program has limited involvement by the water provider and is focused mainly on air quality. The program has not been developed at this time by the State of California, however EPA has issued general guidelines for the Multimedia Mitigation Program. These guidelines rely on a variety of mitigation measures including public education, testing, training, technical assistance, remediation grant and loan or incentive programs, or other regulatory or nonregulatory measures. No cost estimates are available at this time, but it anticipated that this method would cost much less than the cost of treatment by aeration. At this time, no wells are anticipated to be removed from service due to new radon standards.
TABLE 9 GROUNDWATER WELL CAPACITY CONSIDERING WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS
Arsenic Year 2001 Year 2002 Year 2004 Year 2004 Name Radon Level Level Total Capacity Total Capacity Total Capacity Firm Capacity A Well ND 540 pCi/L 200 gpm 200 gpm 200 gpm 200 gpm Airport 10 mg/L 1,600 pCi/L 2,300 gpm 2,300 gpm 2,300 gpm 0 gpm Donner Creek DNA DNA 0 0 0 0 Glenshire Drive 20 mg/L 765 pCi/L 400 gpm 400 gpm 2,200 gpm 2,200 gpm Martis Valley 9.8 mg/L DNA 1,750 gpm 1,750 gpm 1,750 gpm 1,750 gpm Well #1 Northside 41 mg/L 990 pCi/L 850 gpm 850 gpm 500 gpm 500 gpm Prosser Annex ND 740 pCi/L 530 gpm 530 gpm 530 gpm 530 gpm Prosser Heights ND ND 350 gpm 350 gpm 350 gpm 350 gpm Sanders 17 mg/L 1,050 pCi/L 300 gpm 300 gpm 0 0 Southside #2 ND 850 pCi/L 230 gpm 230 gpm 230 gpm 230 gpm Well #1A ND DNA 0 60 gpm 0 0 Well #9 25 mg/L DNA 0 79 gpm 0 0 Well #10 120 mg/L DNA 0 240 gpm 0 0 Well #11 41 mg/L DNA 0 262 gpm 0 0 Well #12 76 mg/L DNA 0 163 gpm 0 0 Well #14 32 mg/L DNA 0 25 gpm 0 0 Well #15 38 mg/L DNA 0 67 gpm 0 0 Well #17 38 mg/L DNA 0 88 gpm 0 0 Well #18 51 mg/L DNA 0 190 gpm 0 0 Well #19 47 mg/L DNA 0 98 gpm 0 0 Well #20 ND DNA 0 560 gpm 560 gpm 560 gpm Total 6,910 gpm 8,742 gpm 8,620 gpm 6,320 gpm Total 10.0 mgd 12.6 mgd 12.4 mgd 9.1 mgd Source: TDPUD 2004 Draft Water Master Plan Note: ND: not detectable, DNA: data not available.
Use of Excess Capacity Under-utilized facilities or excess capacity can be an indication of a flawed planning process that over- estimates service needs. Under-utilized components of a water system may be desirable where facilities are
Nevada County LAFCo 4-7 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services needed for long-range demand, however this must be balanced with the current needs of the public in other areas, as overstated needs can consume public funds making those funds unavailable for genuine concerns. Excess capacity can also indicate overlooked opportunities to gain efficiency through cooperative use of facilities.
Currently, TDPUD has no excess water capacity that is not needed in other locations in its water system. The TDPUD water system has various zones that serve certain areas of the TDPUD service area. Excess capacity of one zone may be needed in another zone under certain demand scenarios. For instance, about half of the overall water demand is located in the Gateway and Tahoe Donner areas, but only two percent of the water supply is located in that area (through a 200 gallons per minute (gpm) well). Almost all of the water service in the area must be pumped in from excess water sources located in other parts of the system. The 2004 Water Master Plan Update identifies a total of 36 storage tanks with a total storage volume of about 7.9 million gallons in the water system. The Master Plan also identifies a need of approximately 7.9 million gallons of additional storage in order to have sufficient water for peak hour conditions and proper fire flow at existing conditions.
Equitable Service Provision
Equitable service provision refers to the reasonable provision of the service to all territories within the boundary of the service agency. If services are provided disparately to areas served by the agency or some areas are deprived of services because of the lack of or inadequate infrastructure or possible topographical circumstances, there may be justification to examine a boundary adjustment that would transfer the un-served or underserved territory to an agency with a greater ability to serve the area.
All areas within the TDPUD boundary have the ability to obtain water service from the District. However, this may require the construction of new infrastructure or the extending of piping to serve certain areas of the service area.
Emergency Planning
Public water agencies are required to maintain systems that can endure a prolonged disruption of normal service. The Department of Health Services require a water system to have adequate source water to provide the maximum day demand for the distribution system with the largest source of water out of service. Demands in excess of the average on the maximum day should be supplied from either storage tanks or groundwater storage via additional groundwater well pumping capacity. The District’s policy requires that source water capacity meet the maximum day demand with the largest groundwater well out of service.
Emergency storage is based on the historical record of emergencies experienced and on the amount of time expected to lapse before an anticipated emergency can be corrected. TDPUD calculates this storage requirement as the emergency storage volume is equal to the average day’s demand.
TDPUD also considers fire protection as part of the emergency planning process. All pressure zones in the District are evaluated as to their fire flow requirements and time durations and confirmed by the Truckee Fire Protection District. The 2004 Water Master Plan Update identifies 27 recommended improvement projects to provide adequate fire flow pressure. Many of these improvements are also to provide adequate water service pressure.
TDPUD maintains a mutual aid agreement with North Lake Tahoe Public Utilities District, Incline Village, Tahoe City Public Utilities District, Squaw Valley Water District, Alpine Meadows Water District, Alpine County Water District, and NCSD.
Eastern Nevada County 4-8 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
DETERMINATIONS - INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Infrastructure can be evaluated in terms of capacity condition, availability, and quality. The infrastructure condition must be considered in the production of the operational, capital improvement and financial plans for the agency.
TDPUD will have to commit a large amount of capital for maintenance and upgrading of existing infrastructure. Infrastructure to serve the area under buildout conditions will cost more than $100 million. This cost is anticipated by TDPUD to be funded by developers and various other TDPUD sources (i.e., facility fees, rates, Donner Lake Assessment District, etc).
The 2004 Water Master Plan stated that under current conditions, the maximum daily demand scenario was expected to produce a capacity shortage in the TDPUD water system by 2004. However, the Prosser Village Well was constructed in 2004 and the District did not experience a water supply shortage. TDPUD is currently soliciting bids for the construction of the Old Greenwood Well, which is to be constructed in 2005.
The 2004 Water Master Plan Update has identified 39 needed improvements to the existing infrastructure. The majority of these improvement projects are to install larger piping to increase flow capacity for areas of low pressure and to provide suitable fire flow. Additionally, the 2004 Water Master Plan Update identifies a need for approximately 7.6 million gallons of additional storage in order to have sufficient water for peak hour conditions and proper fire flow at existing conditions. The majority of these improvements are scheduled for completion by 2010. It is recommended that any expansion of TDPUD’s service area be approved with the condition that new large developments within the expansion are required to construct adequate facilities, including infrastructure and storage, to serve the development. Smaller developments should continue to be required by TDPUD to pay fees that will be used to construct additional storage.
The new EPA regulations for arsenic become effective January 1, 2006. Twelve wells will exceed the proposed arsenic limit. The proposed method of mitigation is avoidance, which removes the wells from service temporarily for testing until the section of the aquifer where the contamination exists can be sealed off. One well will be restricted to irrigation use only, one will be removed for temporary testing, and the remaining ten will be removed from service. (All of these wells belonged to the Glenshire Mutual Water Company and their removal from service was anticipated when TDPUD took over the GMWC). The removal of these wells reduced capacity by 122 gpm. Two new wells are anticipated to be on-line by 2006.
New EPA regulations for radon are anticipated in the near future. Preliminary announcements from the EPA have indicated that the maximum allowable radon will likely be 300 picocuries (pCi) per liter. The new standards are considered likely to have minimal affect on TDPUD’s existing wells as the proposed methods of mitigation are Multimedia Mitigation and would require minimal, if any, infrastructure additions. At this time, no wells are anticipated to be removed from service due to new radon standards.
Facilities Sharing
Facilities sharing can assist in reducing the cost to providing services. Many facilities may go unused for periods of time, which could be used by another public agency and therefore reduce the cost of constructing or renting facilities elsewhere.
TDPUD is a multiple-service agency that provides water as well as power and telecommunication. The district is able to distribute the cost of shared resources and facilities among these utility units.
Nevada County LAFCo 4-9 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TDPUD currently allows the use of its Board and conference room facilities by other agencies.
Facilities sharing is limited mainly because of a lack of other agencies providing comparable services in the area.
The sharing of water facilities such as holding tanks, pipeline, and wells among PCWA’s Lahontan subdivision, future Martis Valley developments and TDPUD may be a possibility.
D) FINANCE
All units of government – counties, cities and special districts – are financially independent, within the limits of state law and each local government has the ability to craft a unique variety of policies and practices. Each agency is equally empowered to make independent fiscal decisions, however they are not equally empowered to generate revenues to support their decisions.
TDPUD is a limited purpose agency. As an independent special district, TDPUD may impose only the types of taxes, assessments, and fees that have been authorized through legislation. Special districts that are enterprise in nature, such as TDPUD, are financed and operated through sales revenue, user fees, or service charges to recover the cost of providing services. TDPUD does not receive any revenue through the collection of taxes.
Revenue Sources and Expenses
TDPUD revenue sources, including water and electric services, include sales to customers, connection and standby fees, and other revenue. Property taxes are not used to fund operations. Sales to customers were $20.8 million in 2003 and $18.6 million in 2002. The overall increase of $2.2 million was primarily due to an electric rate increase.
In 2003, TDPUD total assets reached $95.4 million, an increase of $18.3 million over 2002. Total liabilities increased $10.0 million in 2003 and reached $74.9 million. Total operating expenses were 16.7 million in 2003 and $20.3 million in 2002. The decrease in operating expenses between 2002 and 2003 is TABLE 10 mainly due to a decrease in power costs. Non- DEBT PAYMENT SCHEDULE operating revenues totaled $3.9 million in 2003, an increase of $4.2 million from 2002. Capital Year Principal Interest Total contributions decreased from $10.7 million in 2002 to an outflow of $1.0 million in 2003, 2004 $2,509,978 $2,475,993 $4,985,971 primarily due to contributions received in 2002 2005 $3,142,768 $2,594,220 $5,736,988 related to construction at the Donner Lake and 2006 $3,203,496 $2,472,318 5,675,814 Glenshire Assessment Districts and the 2003 2007 $3,312,324 $2,334,901 $5,647,225 capital contributions out from the Old Greenwood District. Net assets recorded an $8.2 million gain 2008 $3,444,450 $2,180,719 $5,625,169 at the end of 2003 for a total of $20.5 million. 2009-2013 $20,103,549 $8,035,426 $28,138,975 2014-2018 $6,554,184 $4,774,967 $11,329,151 Long-term debt and investments include TDPUD 2019-2023 $4,961,448 $3,242,386 $8,203,834 water and electric activities. Audited financial statements show a total debt of $87,060,517 2024-2028 $3,355,000 $2,212,175 $5,567,175 including principal and interest in 2004. The debt 2029-2033 $5,155,000 $995,215 $6,150,215 consists of: electric activities debt of over $25 Total $55,742,197 $31,318,320 $87,060,517 million, water activities debt of over $16,000,000, and bond anticipated notes of approximately $10 Source: TDPUD Basic Financial Statements December 31, 2003 and 2002 million. Table 10 shows the debt payment schedule.
Eastern Nevada County 4-10 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Paying for Infrastructure Water service agencies require intensive infrastructure compared to many other type of public services. Fire protection, education, and various social services, for example, depend mainly on human capital, not physical infrastructure, to proved services to the public. Wells, pipeline systems, and storage facilities consume a significant portion of agency budgets to construct and maintain these facilities. In general, water service agencies spend 30 to 40 percent of their revenues on capital facilities in contrast to the five to ten percent spent by general-purpose agencies (Coleman).
Local public agencies do not commonly pay for expensive infrastructure with cash. It is usually not feasible to budget upgrade entire water systems as single-year expenses. Local agencies that need to underwrite costly projects must either defer implementation until sufficient funds can be accumulated or borrow money in order to spread the expense over time. In situations where it is legally or politically infeasible to raise taxes or impose assessments to increase revenues, long-term debt may be the only practical alternative to pay for infrastructure.
TDPUD’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addresses improvements to the existing systems as well as improvements necessary to continue to provide quality service through buildout conditions. The cost estimate for the CIP is $101,271,520 through 2025. This cost has been anticipated by TDPUD to be funded through developers and various TDPUD sources (i.e. facility fees, rates, Donner Lake Assessment District, etc). The following table illustrates the breakdown of the Capital Improvement Plan by funding source.
Bonds issued by TDPUD have been rated AAA and A by Standard & Poors, which respectively represent an extremely strong and strong capacity of the obligor (TDPUD) to meet the financial commitment. Standard & Poors identified a ratings outlook of ‘Stable’ for TDPUD, which indicates that ratings are not likely to be changed (Standard & Poors, 2004). As shown in Table 11 below, TDPUD’s CIP has identified adequate funds to cover costs associated with improvements needed to provide services at buildout conditions. Future bond issues would be evaluated by the issuer for financial feasibility and TDPUD could insure the bonds to improve the rating if the bonds were anticipated to have a weak rating.
TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT BY FUNDING SOURCE
Funding Source Construction Costs Total Cost
Developer $24,341,200 $34,077,680 Donner Lake Assessment District $5,685,500 $7,959,700 Glenshire Surcharge $499,200 $698,880 Joint – Developer share $3,302,350 $4,623,290 Joint – Facility Fee share $3,302,350 $4,623,290 TDPUD – Facility Fees $30,683,400 $42,956,760 TDPUD - Rates $4,522,800 $6,331,920 Total $72,336,800 $101,271,520
Source: TDPUD 2004 Water Master Plan Update
Rates and Fees
TDPUD water revenues are generated from three main sources: connection fees, facility fees and water rates. The 2004 Water Master Plan Update examined the rate and fee structure at that time based on the cost of the Capital Improvement Program and made recommendations for rate and fee increases. This recommended increase of rates and fees fully covered the cost of the Capital Improvement Program and appear to be
Nevada County LAFCo 4-11 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services accurate. However, a detailed rate study was not a part of the 2004 Master Plan Update but was a recommendation of the Master Plan Update.
On December 17, 2003, the Board of Directors of TDPUD adopted new residential and commercial water rates and connection fees, which became effective on January 16, 2004. Facility fees were not changed at this time, facilities fees established in March 7, 2001 remain in effect.
Connection Fees Connection fees are charged to new development to offset the costs incurred by TDPUD in labor and materials to provide connections for new customers/development. This is a one-time charge at the time the project is constructed. In developed subdivisions such as Tahoe Donner, these costs cover the installation of meters and administrative time involved in to set up the new customer account. In undeveloped areas, surcharges to cover tapping of mains and running of laterals across a roadway may apply. Table 12 illustrates the previous and current connection fee schedule.
TABLE 12 CONNECTION FEES
Meter Size (inches) Previous Connection Fee Current Connection Fee
5/8 x 3/4 $990 $1,040 3/4 $1,020 $1,071 1 - 6 Actual Cost Actual Cost
Source: http://www.tdpud.org; TDPUD Water Master Plan 2001
Facility Fees
Facility fees are charged to new development to pay for water system facilities that have not yet been constructed but are necessary to serve the proposed development or that have been constructed but the new development has not paid its fair share of the cost associated with the construction. This is a one-time fee charged at the time that the development is obtains building permits. Residential and commercial developments use a different fee structure. Residential facility fees are charged by the square footage of the living space. This fee has been established at $1.56 time the square footage of living space as determined by the building permit. The current commercial facility fees are shown in Table 13. The commercial facility fee applies to duplexes, and larger multifamily dwellings, mobile home parks and to all non-residential development.
Water Rates
Rates are charged to customers in order to cover the day-to-day operating expenses of TDPUD. TDPUD’s electricity bills, employee salaries, maintenance and repair of pipelines and pumps, debt service, and liability insurance are paid for by revenue gained from water rates. Bills are sent to customers on a monthly basis.
TDPUD is required by Section 527(a)(2)(A) of the Water Code to charge each customer with a metered service connection based on the actual volume of deliveries beginning on or before January 1, 2010. TDPUD has a rate study under to evaluate rate levels that would be appropriate for metered delivery. Consistent with State law, TDPUD has required the installation of meters since 1992 for all new residential connections. TDPUD is also required to install water meters on all municipal and industrial service connections located within its service area on or before January 1, 2025. TDPUD currently has no plans to install meters for existing service connections that are unmetered.
Eastern Nevada County 4-12 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TABLE 13 FACILITY FEES
Commercial Facility Fee Meter Size (inches) Equivalent Dwelling Units Facility Fee
5/8 x 3/4 1 $3,086 3/4 1.5 $4,629 1 2.5 $7,715 1 ½ 5 $15,430 2 8 $24,688 3 15 $46,290 4 25 $77,150 6 50 $154,300
Source: http://tdpud.org; TDPUD Water Master Plan 2001
The existing rate structure has separate schedules for residential and commercial costumers. Residential customers are charged a flat rate for service and the monthly bill is not dependent on the actual water usage. The rate for residential customers has two components. The first component is a common flat rate charge for service and established at $41.93. The second component is a “zone charge” and is dependent on the pressure zone the customer lives in. The zone charge is higher for customers in higher pressure zones to reflect the increased electricity used in pumping water from the lower pressure zones where the wells are located to higher elevations. Table 14 shows the past and current rate schedule for residential customers. In addition to the existing residential rate, a new small residential unit rate was established as a part of the new rate update. The small residential unit rate was introduced for single family homes, condominium units and townhouses that are under 300 square feet with no provisions for washer/dryers, dishwashers, outside hose bibs and no irrigated landscaping.
TABLE 14 RESIDENTIAL WATER RATES
Residential Small Residential Unit Zone Previous Rate Current Rate Previous Rate Current Rate (1/18/2003) (6/19/2004) (1/18/2003) (6/19/2004) Zone 1 $42.33 $44.45 $30.35 $31.87 Zone 2 $44.45 $46.67 $32.47 $34.09 Zone 3 $45.43 $47.70 $33.45 $35.12 Zone 4 $46.49 $48.81 $34.51 $36.24 Zone 5 $47.11 $49.47 $35.13 $36.87 Zone 6 $47.51 $49.89 $35.53 $37.31 Zone 7 $49.95 $52.45 $37.97 $39.87 Zone 8 $51.50 $54.08 $38.52 $40.45 Zone 9 $52.10 $54.71 $40.12 $42.13 Zone 10 $55.44 $58.21 $43.46 $45.63 Zone 11 $58.63 $61.56 $48.65 $51.08 Source: TDPUD, 2005.
Nevada County LAFCo 4-13 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Metered customers are charged for service based on monthly meter readings. For the purposes of billing, all duplexes and other multifamily dwellings, mobile home parks and commercial establishments are grouped together as “commercial” customers. The bill paid by a given commercial customer is dependent on the actual water usage. The rate for commercial customers has three components. The first component is a charge for service based on the size of the meter serving the customer (see Table 15). The second component is a commodity charge. All meters have a base water consumption allowance that varies with meter size. Water used in excess of this allowance is charged at rates shown in Table 16. Component three is the zone charge. As with residential customers, commercial customers are charged dependent on the pressure zone they are in and this component is based on a cost per 1,000 gallons consumed, see Table 17.
TABLE 15 MONTHLY COMMERCIAL WATER RATES
Monthly Water Meter Size Previous Water Rate Current Water Rate Consumption Allowance (inches) (gallons) (1/18/2003) (6/19/2004)
¾ 6,000 $34.19 $36.66 1 11,000 $41.55 $43.63 1 ¼ 17,000 $49.78 $52.27 1 ½ 24,000 $58.36 $61.28 2 43,000 $80.35 $84.37 3 96,000 $134.73 $141.47 4 171,000 $193.24 $202.90
Source: TDPUD, 2005.
TABLE 16 MONTHLY COMMODITY CHARGES
Previous Charge Current Charge Gallons in Excess of Monthly Allowance (1/17/04) (6/19/2004)
0 to 16,000 gallons $1.70/1,000 gallons $1.70/1,000 gallons 16,000 to 56, 000 gallons $1.70/1,000 gallons $1.34/1,000 gallons 56,000 to 96,000 gallons $01.70/1,000 gallons $1.07/1,000 gallons 96,000 gallons and above $1.70/1,000 gallons $0.87/1,000 gallons
Source: TDPUD, 2005.
TABLE 17 MONTHLY COMMERCIAL ZONE CHARGES
Previous Zone Charge Current Zone Charge Zone (1/18/2003) (6/19/2004)
Zone 1 $0.283/1,000 gallons $0.297/1,000 gallons Zone 2 $0.519/1,000 gallons $0.546/1,000 gallons Zone 3 $0.649/1,000 gallons $0.681/1,000 gallons
Eastern Nevada County 4-14 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Zone 4 $0.779/1,000 gallons $0.818/1,000 gallons Zone 5 $0.842/1,000 gallons $0.884/1,000 gallons Zone 6 $0.909/1,000 gallons $0.954/1,000 gallons Zone 7 $1.199/1,000 gallons $1.259/1,000 gallons Zone 8 $1.365/1,000 gallons $1.433/1,000 gallons Zone 9 $1.432/1,000 gallons $1.504/1,000 gallons Zone 10 $1.824/1,000 gallons $1.915/1,000 gallons Zone 11 $2.207/1,000 gallons $2.317/1,000 gallons
Source: TDPUD, 2005.
Policies for Reserves
The term “reserves” is generally refers to retained earnings. Reserves, as used in this MSR discussion, refer to the unrestricted net assets of the agency.
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) sets “generally accepted accounting principals” for state and local governments. GASB adopted a revised financial reporting model for local government, referred to as GASB 34. GASB 34 defines net assets as the difference between revenue and expenditures. In an enterprise agency, net assets are segregated into capital assets, restricted net assets, and unrestricted net assets.
Cash and investments are recorded as either restricted or unrestricted as required by the District’s certificates of participation indentures or other third-party legal restrictions. Restricted assets represent funds that are restricted by certificates of participation or third party contractual agreements. Assets that are allocated by resolution by the Board of Directors are considered to be unrestricted assets and their use may be redirected at any time by approval of the Board. The Board has designated restricted and unrestricted assets for the following purpose:
Restricted Assets Unrestricted Assets
Certificates of Participation – Electric Build Fund Certificates of Participation – Water Storm Damage Fund Facilities Fess Electric Rate Reserve Revenue Fund – Water Reserve of Future Meters DWR Prop 55 Reserve Fund Prepaid Connection Fees Glenshire Escrow Accounts Land Sale Trust Fund Bridge Street Tank Escrow Account Broadband Fund Donner Lake Special Assessment District Improvement Fund Old Greenwood Construction Fund Other (Area Improvement Funds)
Table 18 identifies the net assets for TDPUD at the end of 2003. TDPUD had an increase of assets of over $8.2 million between 2002 and December 31, 2003. The majority of this increase was a result of the reduction of unrestricted debt.
Nevada County LAFCo 4-15 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TABLE 18 NET ASSETS 2002 - 2003
Net Assets 2002 2003 Change Percent Change
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $25,242,006 $26,304,401 $1,062,395 4.2% Restricted for debt service $13,751,948 $13,731,924 -$20,024 -0.1% Restricted for other $716,759 $2,317,447 $1,600,688 223.3% Unrestricted -$27,493,604 -$21,858,161 $5,635,443 20.5% Total $12,217,109 $20,495,611 $8,278,502 67.8%
Source: TDPUD Basic Financial Statements, December 31, 2003 and 2002
Budget Analysis
Table 19 illustrates the annual revenue and expense budget for water services for 2002 through 2004. Debt service constitutes a large portion of the annual budget consisting of 31.5 percent of the 2004 budget. Debt service includes monies barrowed to update and upgrade the water system infrastructure. Water Operations makes up the largest portion of the budget. Water Operations include the day-to-day operations of the water system including maintenance and operation. Water revenues are an estimated projection. Analysis of past budget performance indicates that the actual revenue from water sales during 2002 and 2003 was less than budgeted. However, expenses were also less so there was a surplus of revenue at the end of the year, which was then put into capital improvement projects.
TABLE 19 2002 –2004 SUMMARY OF WATER SERVICE REVENUES AND EXPENSES
2002 2003 2004
Expense Percent Percent Percent Amount Amount Amount of Total of Total of Total
Board of Directors $46,300 0.7% $51,796 0.7% $56,450 0.7% General Manager $243,744 3.9% $350,036 4.6% $223,345 2.8% Admin Services $601,006 9.6% $701,830 9.2% $784,805 10.0% Planning Services $36,401 0.6% $48,143 0.6% $39,596 0.5% Support Services $64,111 1.0% $72,421 0.9% $87,863 1.1% Water Operations $2,862,195 45.5% $3,413,722 44.7% $3,779,469 48.0% Power Supply $16,254 0.3% $94,619 1.2% $122,282 1.6% Interdepartmental Rent $310,181 4.9% $321,973 4.2% $270,925 3.4% Debt Service $2,107,151 33.5% $2,586,253 33.8% $2,479,060 31.5% Prop 55 Reserve Fund $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $28,000 0.4% Total $6,287,343 100.0% $7,641,939 100.0% $7,871,795 100.0%
Water Revenues $7,357,751 $8,306,830 $8,386,820
Net Available $1,070,408 $665,437 $515,025
Source: TDPUD 2002, 2003 and 2004 Annual Budget
Eastern Nevada County 4-16 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
DETERMINATIONS – FINANCE
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
As a part of the MSR process, financing constraints and opportunities, which may have an impact on service delivery, are identified to enable LAFCo, local agencies, and the public to assess whether the agency is capitalizing on financing opportunities. LAFCo must weigh a community’s public services needs against the resources available to fund the service. TDPUD annually submits its basic financial statements to an independent financial auditor. The audit report is prepared in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards. Water sales to customers were $6.5 million in 2003 and $5.7 million in 2002. Water division assets in 2003 totaled $61.6 million, while total liabilities were $23.9 million. Except for $0.5 million, net assets are either invested in capital assets or restricted for a specific use. TDPUD has a current debt of over $87 million. Of this, $16 million is held by the water division. The anticipated pay off is 2033.
TDPUD total assets were $95.4 million in 2003 and $77.2 million in 2002. The large increase in net assets between 2003 and 2002 is mainly due to an increase of $10.0 million in capital assets and $6.0 million in restricted assets. Long-term debt includes revenue bonds and notes payable. The long-term debt increased by $36.3 million between 2002 and 2003. This increase is mainly due to the issuance of electric revenue bonds used to pay the District’s purchase power settlement contract and the Mello Roos community facilities district bonds used to finance capital infrastructure for a new development.
Costs for equipment and infrastructure upgrading as a response to new EPA water quality standards for arsenic may be considerable as removal of substandard wells from the potable water supply will be required. New wells or surface water will have to be put into service in order to replace the substandard wells.
Costs for upgrading equipment and infrastructure to contend with new EPA standards for radon are considered minimal; however, no formal cost analysis has been completed by TDPUD at this time. TDPUD’s Capital Improvement Program addresses improvements to the existing systems as well as improvements necessary to continue to provide quality service through buildout conditions. The cost estimate for the Capital Improvement Program is $101,271,520 through 2025. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The MSR explored cost avoidance opportunities including: 1) eliminating duplicative services; 2) reducing high administration to operation costs; 3) replacing outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment: 4) reducing inventories of under-utilized equipment, buildings, or facilities; 5) redrawing overlapping or inefficient service boundaries: 6) replacing inefficient purchasing or budgeting practices; 7) implementing economies of scale; and 8) increasing profitable outsourcing.
TDPUD has instigated a number of programs/practices to assist in the reduction of costs or to realize cost saving opportunities. These programs/practices range from sharing facilities with other agencies to infrastructure modernization to automated customer billing.
Future cost avoidance opportunities for TDPUD will mainly be based on internal functions of the District such as the upkeep of water system infrastructure, purchasing and budget practices, and use
Nevada County LAFCo 4-17 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
of existing equipment. However, shared training practices and the use of meeting facilities with other agencies does occur and should continue.
Cost avoidance opportunities, such as the sharing of facilities and equipment sharing with NCSD, are very limited due to the geographical and jurisdictional constraints of the region.
There is no overlap of water service boundaries in the area. However, TDPUD is contracted by PCWA to provide services to the Lahontan subdivision in Placer County.
TDPUD does belong to an insurance pool for the electric division of the agency. Insurance pools for the water division should be investigated by TDPUD in order to identify the benefits and constraints of such a pool.
Opportunities for Rate Restructuring
The MSR examined rates and fees to determine the possible affects of rate restructuring. The agency rates were scrutinized for: 1) rate setting methodologies; 2) conditions that could impact future rates; and 3) variances and inequalities among rates, and fees.
TDPUD changed their residential rates in January 2004. The new rates increased by 5.0 percent. This increase amounted to a $25.44 to $35.16 yearly increase over the old rate for total annual rate from $533.40 to $738.72. However, these rates do not include an annual adjustment for inflation. The rate ordinance should be amended in order to allow for an annual inflation adjustment.
Rates for duplexes, multifamily units, mobile home parks and other commercial establishments were also increased in 2004. Commercial rates are based on three charges, a meter size charge, a commodity charge, and a zone charge. All these charges were increased in 2004, but no allowance was made for an annual inflation increase. The rate ordinance should be amended in order to allow for an annual inflation adjustment.
The facility fee for both residential and commercial development has not been increased since 2001. TDPUD should evaluate the facility fee structure in order to determine if the fee is adequate at this time.
All residential customers are charged the same rate, dependent on zone, no matter how much water is used. TDPUD is required to begin charging rates based on the volume of deliveries to metered customers on or before January 1, 2010. If TDPUD has not begun charging metered customers based on actual metered water use by January 1, 2010, it is recommended that no revisions to the boundary or Sphere of Influence of either TDPUD or the Town of Truckee be approved until TDPUD has instituted a rate structure based on volume of water delivery for metered customers.
TDPUD is required to install water meters for municipal and industrial customers without a metered service connection by January 1, 2025. The installation of water meters for residential customers without meters has been considered by TDPUD, but was judged infeasible due to the cost. Since municipal service reviews should be updated every five years, it is recommended that this issue be addressed in a municipal service review performed between 2015 and 2020, as this issue currently does not impact TDPUD’s ability to provide water service.
An increase in residential and commercial rates in the near future may not be supported by the Board of Directors or customers as the rates were increased in 2004.
Eastern Nevada County 4-18 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
E) MANAGEMENT/ GOVERNANCE
The public relies on local agencies to function in a manner that will produce efficient public services. The ability of local agencies top meet the public’s expectations depends, in part, on the capacity of agencies’ administrative, management and operational systems to meet the demands of the public. The internal organization of a local agency must be structured to produce optimum efficiency.
Authority of Governance and Scope of Local Agency Powers
Authorization for local government was established by the State of California. The California system of local government has created counties, cities, and special districts. The California Constitution contains provisions for counties and cities. Special districts are created and authorized through principal acts. More than two- dozen principal acts are charters for classes of special districts, each with a combination of functions and powers. These acts create the framework in which special districts operate by defining services that may be provided, outlining the territory that may be served, stipulating characteristics of the governing board, specifying the basis of voter representation, and identifying the range and limits of authority for each district. A special district may only engage in those activities outlined in its principal act.
Principal Act of Authorization
TDPUD is an independent special district, formed in 1927 under the State of California’s Public Utility District Act to provide electric service to the Truckee community. TDPUD later began water service in the 1930s with the acquisition of a local privately owned water company. A public utility district may provide water, power, transportation, communication services, disposition of garbage and sewage, fire protection, street lighting, parks, drainage, and street maintenance.
Regulatory Standards, Permitting and Reporting
The Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Health Services issue regulatory standards for the operation of water purveyors and water quality standards. The DHS issues general water operation permits and staff certifications, while the Town of Truckee issues encroachment/road permits, Nevada County issues hazardous chemical use permits, and Placer County issues road permits to TDPUD. DHS permits are renewed annually and the Nevada County hazardous chemical use permits must be renewed every two years.
Principles of Governance
TDPUD, as with all public agencies, is part of a democratic system that values the body of voters as the most influential component of any public organization. The voting public guides the agency to provide the services and mission it was intended to do. Empowerment of the public in this requires that the public agency accommodate the public’s need for access, information and participation. Without public interaction with local agencies, the pool of potential officials is diminished, policy decisions will not be driven by public input, and the legitimacy of public authority is suspect.
Organizational Structure
TDPUD’s mission statement is:
“…to be valued by our customers as a local agency with a long term service record, committed to the well being of the Truckee community, bringing innovative, competence and trustworthiness in the delivery of water and electric services. The water business unit mission is to provide moderately priced, high quality potable water, and delivered at the pressure and quantity sufficient to meet the needs of residences and businesses in the Truckee Donner PUD service territory.”
Nevada County LAFCo 4-19 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
The District operates under the leadership of an elected five-member Board of Directors that oversees the General Manager. The Board is elected for four-year terms and establishes policy and goals for the proper governing of the District. The Board reviews performance of staff by receiving reports and comparing performance to goals.
The District’s 60 full-time employees work in three departments: Water Supply and Distribution, Electrical Power and Distribution, and Administration (See Figure 6). The District utilizes contractors on demand for certain projects. TDPUD’s Water Department has 20 employees
Financial Structure
TDPUD separately maintains and operates its electric and water service operations (TDPUD, 2004). TDPUD annual report includes a divisional combining balance sheet and divisional combining statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in fund equity which provide separate details for the financial operations of the electric and water operations.
In the past, the water fund had relied on the financial strength of the electric fund to assist TDPUD’s ability to provide quality water service. This changed in 2003 and a Surplus Land Trust Fund was established to advance funding needed for water capital improvement projects. TDPUD will need to continue to manage water system capital so it will support future water system needs.
Public Input
The District hold regularly scheduled meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. All meetings are held in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings. The local media typically covers meetings. Public comments are allowed at scheduled meetings and also can be provided as letters to the District. Operating procedures and practices, including budgets, personnel policies, fees and rates, capital improvements plans, and other documents are available for public review at the District office. The operating hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
The District and its activities go through public review procedures, including financial review by independent auditors. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions and operating procedures of the District are open and accessible to the public. The District maintains a website at http://www.tdpud.org where interested parties can obtain District information such as pending projects, water rates, minutes from Board meetings, and District news.
Residents within the District’s service territory, including the portion of Placer County served by the District, have the ability to serve on the District’s Board of Directors and vote for candidates for the Board.
Employees/Future Staff Need
The water division of TDPUD has 20 personnel at various positions. Each position has specific requirements regarding education, licenses and certificates. The District requires and provides mandatory training for its employees such as safety, driver training, traffic control and water treatment and distribution review classes. TDPUD offers an employee benefit plan which includes medical, dental, vision, and life insurance, pension plan, and 401a plan. The employee benefit plan is open to all employees with one-year or more of service.
Future staff needs are analyzed in the Annual Budget. Recommendations for future staff position increases/decreases are established in the Annual Budget for the Board of Directors approval. Growth in the Truckee area has led to increases in the District’s need for additional staff. The addition of an Associate Water Engineer has been recommended in the 2004 Annual Budget to help meet the additional demands for water service in the area.
Eastern Nevada County 4-20 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Government Structure and Reorganization Possibilities
Establishing logical service boundaries for special districts and cities is an important responsibility of LAFCo. These boundaries should be based on the capability of the district or city to provide services to the affected properties. The CKH Act states that a single multipurpose governmental agency is accountable for community service needs and financial resources, and therefore may be the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities, especially in rural communities. Additionally, the CHK Act states that whether governmental services are proposed to be provided by a single-purpose agency, several agencies, or a multipurpose agency, responsibility should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services.
Consolidating Services TDPUD provides electric service as well as water service to the Truckee area. Other water service providers in the Truckee/Martis Valley include Northstar Community Services District and Placer County Water Agency. NCSD is located in an area that may be geographically infeasible for connection to TDPUD. On the other hand, the Lahontan subdivision under PCWA control is adjacent to TDPUD’s service area, however logistical and political constraints would have to be considered in order to consolidate these two water service providers. Since the Lahontan system is located in Placer County there are different assessments and different voter requirements. Obviously, TDPUD has been considered the better resource to operate the Lahontan water system by PCWA, as PCWA contracts with TDPUD to runs this water service. It may be beneficial for TDPUD to take over the Lahontan I & II subdivision system, and any pending developments in the immediate area, as it is located in close proximity with Lahontan I & II, while PCWA main offices are in Auburn.
There are a number of local municipal service providers in eastern Nevada County including: the Town of Truckee, Truckee Sanitary District, TDPUD, Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, Truckee Fire Protection District, Truckee Tahoe Airport District and Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency. Many of these agencies are one-service agencies and options for a change in government structure do exist in the Truckee area. Many of the agencies are subject to LAFCo jurisdiction, and many are empowered to provide services that could be provided by other services agencies. Table 19 lists the agencies and the services they offer.
Reorganization of the single service providers either as subsidiary districts of the Town of Truckee, or through an existing multi-service agency such as the TDPUD or a new multi-service agency such as a Community Services District would be possible. However, the historical basis of service provision in the area has favored retention of single-service agencies. Prior to the incorporation of the Town of Truckee in 1993, there were two incorporation measures that did not pass. Each of these unsuccessful incorporation measures included providing services, such as water, fire, wastewater, parks and recreation, through the Town rather than through the existing special-purpose agencies. During the successful incorporation effort, proponents assumed that the voters would prefer to retain the districts and specifically requested LAFCo not consider assigning any of the services already provided by special districts to the new Town.
It would be appropriate for TDPUD to annex the portion of the MVGB served by PCWA. TDPUD currently contracts for services to this area, and annexing the existing development into is service area and areas planned for development into its Sphere of Influence would allow for more orderly and direct provision of water service. A benefit of special districts is that districts such as TDPUD can include territory in more than one county. Providing water service solely through TDPUD would result in cost savings as PCWA’s overhead would be eliminated and would simplify long-term planning for development and allocation of water resources. The potential need to eventually form an agency to service the MVGB area of Placer County would be eliminated. Greater accountability would be achieved by decreasing the number of agencies potentially pumping groundwater from MVGP. Expansion of TDPUD’s service area into Placer County would be required in order to provide this service.
Nevada County LAFCo 4-21 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Economic savings would be possible with only one agency providing water in the Truckee/Martis Valley area as this will reduce redundant personnel, services, and infrastructure required by multiple water service providers. A complete economic study should be preformed to evaluate this possibility. It is not anticipated that it would be appropriate for a Placer County water agency or special district to be formed to serve this area as TDPUD already provides services to the area and operates the local water supply infrastructure.
Advantages of only one water service provider in the Truckee/Martis Valley area would include reduced costs because of reduction in personnel and decreased infrastructure redundancy, monitoring and control of a limited water resource, provide a more efficient water system, provide better coordination with future area planning including local governments, stronger negotiation power for water rights, and a more unified rate schedule.
Disadvantages of only one water service provider in the Truckee/MVGB area would include costs to connect the main water system to remote or geographically constrained areas as it may be more structurally and economically feasible to construct new water system in outlying areas, and lack of competition.
Eastern Nevada County 4-22 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
FIGURE 6 TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ORGANIZATION CHART
TDPUD Customers
Board of Directors
General Manager
Executive Secretary Planning Director Assistant GM
Support Services Water Utility Manager Electric Utility Admin Services Telecom Manager Manager Manager Manager
Superintendent Engineer Superintendent Engineer
e a aC u t A C EasternNevada Nevada County County LAFCo 4-23 Municipal Service Review – Water Services
TABLE 20 LOCAL AGENCIES
Agency Legislative Authority Service Offered
Law enforcement, planning services, building Town of Truckee California Government Code inspection, road maintenance, snow removal, economic development, and transit service. Truckee Sanitary District Sanitary District Act Wastewater collection services Tahoe Forest Hospital District Local Hospital District Act Health care services Tahoe Truckee Unified School California Education Code Educational services District Truckee Donner Recreation and Public Resources Code Park and recreational services Park District Fire suppression and pre-suppression services, Truckee Fire Protection District Health and Safety Code rescue and emergency services Truckee Tahoe Airport District Airport District Act Airport services Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation District. Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency Act Wastewater treatment services
Source: Quad Knopf, Final Eastern Nevada County Wastewater Municipal Service Review
DETERMINATIONS – MANAGEMENT/GOVERNANCE
The statement of determination relevant to local accountability and governance refers to the public agency decision making and operational and management processes that include:
An accessible staff, Public participation, Publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans, Public participation in rate setting and infrastructure plans, and Measured outcomes of plans and programs disclosed to the public.
Evaluation of Management Efficiencies
Management efficiency refers to the effectiveness on an agency’s internal organization to provide efficient, quality public services. Efficiently managed agencies consistently implement plans to improve service delivery, reduce waste, eliminate duplications of effort, contain costs, maintain qualified employees, build and maintain adequate contingency reserves, and encourage and maintain open dialogues with the public and other agencies. The MSR reviewed and evaluated management efficiency by analyzing agency functions, operations, and practices, as well as the agency’s ability to meet current and future demands.
The TDPUD has determined that one of the main concerns in the upcoming years is the rapid growth in the area and the District’s ability to keep up with this growth.
Because of the growth in TDPUD’s service area, the agency has a need for additional staff.
The TDPUD organizational chart, although complex, is sufficient to allow for efficient service delivery functions. Personnel in various divisions are cross-trained to provide continuous service.
TDPUD’s 2004 Water Master Plan Update identifies future demand and projects to provide service for this demand.
Eastern Nevada County 4-24 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
The TDPUD budget recognizes the need to expand water and electric infrastructure to meet the needs of growth and development. The budget utilizes the finance master plan to prepare for the future.
The Board of Directors for TDPUD conducts an annual strategic plan workshop and identifies issues that will be attended to in the coming year.
The water fund has, in the past, relied on the financial strength of the electric fund to assist TDPUD’s ability to provide quality water service. This changed in 2003 and a Surplus Land Trust Fund was established to advance funding needed for water capital improvement projects. TDPUD will need to continue to manage water system capital so it will support future water system needs.
Local Accountability and Governance
Local accountability and governance refers to public agency decision making and operational and management processes that: 1) include and accessible and accountable elected or appointed decision making body and agency staff; 2) encourage and value public participation; 3) disclose budgets, programs, and plans; 4) solicit public input when considering rate changes and works and infrastructure plans; and 5) evaluate outcomes of plans, programs, and operations and disclose the results to the public.
TDPUD holds regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings.
All plans reports and documents are available to the public.
All rate and fee increases are discussed and approved/disapproved in a public forum.
Government Structure Options
The Municipal Service Review has been instigated for use as a tool to comprehensively study existing and future public service conditions and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl and ensuring that critical services are efficiently and affordably provided. The MSR should be used as a tool by LAFCo to determine if a more efficient service could be provided through: 1) functional reorganizations within existing agencies: 2) amending of updating spheres-of-influence; 3) annexation of detachments from cities or special districts; 4) formation of new special districts; 5) special district dissolutions; 6) mergers of special districts with cities; 7) establishment of subsidiary districts; 8) any additional reorganization options found in Govt. Code § 56000 et. Seq.
TDPUD has not been involved in any reorganization studies with any other service providers in the past two years nor does the District consider any restructuring needed.
TDPUD is the only public water agency serving eastern Nevada County. PCWA and NCSD operate in the Martis Valley area, and TDPUD’s reorganization/consolidation with these water service agencies may be possible. However, topographical, political and logistical constraints would have to be surmounted.
Although TDPUD is functioning well and is viable, the possibility to merge or consolidate it with other service providers or public agencies in the area does exist. TDPUD is the only water agency in Truckee and many single purpose providers do exist in the area.
PCWA is the agency responsible for serving the Placer County portion of MVGB. However, TDPUD is contracted by PCWA to provide water services within the Martis Valley areas under PCWA’s jurisdiction. It is recommended that TDPUD annex Lahontan into its service area and that the
Nevada County LAFCo 4-25 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
Commission consider inclusion of the Martis Valley portion of Placer County in the District’s Sphere of Influence. As subdivisions in that area are approved, they should be annexed into TDPUD’s service area. The consolidation of services in this area would provide more cost-efficient services, greater accountability of water resources, and simplify long-term planning for use of water resources within MVGB.
Economic savings would be possible with only one public agency providing water in the Truckee/Martis Valley Groundwater Basin area as this would reduce redundant personnel, services, and infrastructure required by multiple water service providers. A complete economic study should be performed to evaluate this possibility.
Eastern Nevada County 4-26 Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Service Review – Water Services
V. PUBLIC REVIEW
The Public Review Draft of the Easter Nevada County Water Services Municipal Services Review was circulated February 22, 2005 through April 6. 2005. One comment letter from Truckee Donner Public Utility District was received during the comment period (see Appendix D). TDPUD’s comments were incorporated into the document where appropriate, with the exception of the comment regarding Independence Lake. The reference to Independence Lake is included as part of the description of the Truckee River Basin, not the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, so the reference was left in the document.
Nevada County LAFCo 5-1 Eastern Nevada County
Municipal Service Review – Water Services
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonucci, David C. May 2001. Water Demand and Net Depletion for Martis Valley Groundwater Basin. Homewood, CA.
Coleman, Michael, Financing Cities, League of California Cities, pg. 16.
GeoTrans, Inc. November 2000. Report on Groundwater Resource Potential Eaglewood Subdivision, Martis Valley, California. Reno, NV.
InterFlow Hydrology, Inc. Cordilleran Hydrology, Inc. April 2003. Measurement of Ground Water Discharge to Streams Tributary to the Truckee River Martis Valley, Placer and Nevada Counties, California. Truckee, CA.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. December 2002. Independent Appraisal of Martis Valley Ground Water Availability, Nevada and Placer Counties, California. Prepared for Martis Valley Property Owners Trust. Reno, NV.
Nevada County LAFCo. November 2003. Final Eastern Nevada County Wastewater Municipal Services Review Nevada County LAFCo. Nevada City, CA.
Nevada County LAFCo. December 2003. Municipal Service Review, Western Nevada County Water Service Providers. Nevada City, CA.
Nimbus Engineers. March 2001. Ground Water Availability in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin, Nevada and Placer Counties, California. Report prepared for Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Placer County Water Agency, and Northstar Community Services District. Reno, NV.
Placer County, December 2003. Martis Valley Community Plan. Auburn, CA.
Placer County Water Agency. April 2001. Water System Facilities Plan for Martis Valley. Auburn, CA.
Placer County Water Agency. 2001. Technical Memorandum Regarding Future Buildout Water Demand in Martis Valley. Auburn, CA.
Placer County Water Agency. 2001. Technical Memorandum Regarding Surface Water Availability in Martis Valley. Auburn, CA.
Placer LAFCo. 2003. Municipal Service Review Area 3 Services. Auburn, CA.
Quad Knopf. November 2003. Final Eastern Nevada County Wastewater Municipal Service Review. Report prepared for Nevada County LAFCo. Roseville, CA.
Reeb, Bob. 2002. Water: A key Factor in LAFCO Service Reviews. Association of California Water Agencies. 2002 CALAFCo Annual Conference. Santa Barbara, CA.
San Diego LAFCo. February 2004. Southern San Diego County Water and Sewer Service Municipal Service Review. San Diego, CA.
Sauers Engineering, Inc. March 1997. Water System Master Plan 1995-2015. Prepared for Truckee Donner Public Utility District. Nevada City, NV.
Nevada County LAFCo B-1 Eastern Nevada County Municipal Service Review – Water Services
State of California. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal service Review Guidelines. Sacramento, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. 2002. Annual Budget 2002. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. 2003. Annual Budget 2003. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. 2004. Annual Budget 2004. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. February 9, 2005. Letter from Peter Holzmeister on the Draft East County Water Services Municipal Services Review. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. April 8, 2005 Letter from Neil Kaufman. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. December 2002. Financial Statements, December 31, 2002. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. December 2001. Financial Statements, As of December 31, 2001 and 2000. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. December 2003. Financial Statements, December 31, 2003 and 2002. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. 2004. Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update. Truckee, CA.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District. 2001. Truckee Water System Water Master Plan Update. Truckee, CA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA National Primary Drinking Water Standards. National Secondary Drinking Water Standards. www.epa.gov/safewater. EPA 816-F-03-16.
Ventura LAFCo. January 2004. Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Report. Ventura County, CA.
Eastern Nevada County B-2 Nevada County LAFCo
endix A pp A
NEVADA LAFCO WATER SERVICE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MASTER SERVICE ELEMENT AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
1 Contact Information a Name of City/District b Contact Person/Title 1. Mailing address 2. Primary office address (if different) 3. Telephone – ext. 4. Fax 5. E-mail 6. Website c Legal Counsel 1. Title 2. Firm name (if not employee) 3. Mailing address (if different from manager) 4. Telephone – ext. 5. Fax 6. E-mail 2 Governance Information a Agency Type (check one) City Date of Incorporation Independent Special District Date of Formation Dependent special District Date of Formation b Principal Act (i.e., the statute under which the agency was formed and operates. The answer should identify specific laws or statutory code sections.) c Governing Body:(ex. City Council, Board of Supervisors [acting as Board], Board of Directors) 1. Number of Members 2. Terms of office in years (ex. 2, 4, 6, etc.) 3. Method of Selecting Your Governing Body (elections or appointments at large or by division). d Current Member Data (attach sheets if needed)
1
Member Name Title Expiration Date of Term Member Name Title Expiration Date of Term
Member Name Title Expiration Date of Term
Member Name Title Expiration Date of Term
Member Name Title Expiration Date of Term
Member Name Title Expiration Date of Term
Member Name Title Expiration Date of Term
e Meeting Information 1. Meeting Information Date (ex. 1st Tuesday each Month) Meeting Time 2. Address 3. City 4. Zip 5. Method of noticing meeting, list all (ex. posting, email, mass mailing, website, etc.). 6. Compensation/Benefits to Board Members, list all (ex. stipend, per diem, mileage, medical insurance, etc.). 3 Staff Information a Total Number of Staff Full Time Part Time Seasonal Contract b Organizational Chart Does your agency have an organizational chart? Yes (if yes, please attach) No c Certification and Training 1. What are your agency’s requirements for entry-level career staff?
2
2. What are your agency’s requirements for entry-level paid staff? 3. What staff licenses and certifications are required? 4. How many agency employees hold the required licenses and certifications? 5. What training has been provided for agency employees during the last two years? d Safety and Prevention 1. Does your agency have employee safety plans? Yes (if yes, provide copy) No 2. Does your agency have an Illness Prevention Plan? Yes (if yes, provide copy) No 3. What is your agency’s safety record for the past five years? 4 Service Provided a Current Services 1. Services Provided by Your Agency Water conservation Wholesale water supply Retail water delivery 2. Does your agency provide contract services to other agencies? Yes (Identify the client agencies, type of service and areas served in this manner). No 3. Does your agency maintain mutual aid or automatic aid agreements? Yes (Identify the client agencies, type of service and areas served in this manner). No 4. Provide a brief narrative description of the service area(s) for water service. 5. List all joint powers authorities (JPAs) or joint decision-making efforts to which your agency belongs. What is the purpose of each of the JPAs? b New Service Does your agency have policies that give preference to adding new customer connections in locations where the required infrastructure already exists or 3
will become available? Yes (if so, what is the connection policy). No c Public Outreach Describe your agency’s efforts to broadcast governing body meetings, disseminate minutes, encourage voter participation and keep constituents/customers apprised of your activities. 5 Level of Service a Regulatory, Permitting and Accrediting Agencies 1. List agencies from which you receive permits, licenses or accreditations and for what purposes. Provide a copy of the latest permits, licenses or accreditation and the accompanying evaluation report. 2. When was your permit, license or accreditation last renewed and how frequently is it reviewed? 3. Do you prepare annual reports or inspection reports from these agencies? (Please explain and provide a copy of the latest reports). b Regulatory and Industry Standards 1. Are there regulatory standards that apply to the services your agency provides? If so, who defines them, where are they published, and what are they? 2. Are there industry standards that apply to the services your agency provides? If so, who defines them, are they published and please describe them? c Productivity and Performance Monitoring 1. Does your agency have level of service standards? Are these standards used by similar agencies? Who sets the level of service standards, (e.g., professional organizations and permitting agencies)? Please describe or explain. 2. How does your agency track its workload? 3. How are the efficiency and quality of agency operations evaluated? Who conducts the evaluations? Are the evaluation procedures internal, external, or both? 4
How do you solicit customer feedback and comments? 4. If a customer is dissatisfied with your services, how would that customer register a complaint? . (Provide contact information for ombudsman or other person responsible for handling complaints). Describe the number and type of complaints files within the most recent calendar or fiscal year. 6 Service Area a Service Area Size Please attach an agency boundary map and sphere of influence map. 1. Approximate size of agency in acres or square miles. Do not include areas served by mutual or automatic aid. Does your agency serve areas outside your agency boundaries? If so, specify type of service and describe location of areas. b Customer Service Areas 2. How does your agency track its customers (i.e. population, dwelling units, households, connections, etc.) How many customers are currently receiving water service? 3. Does your agency serve customers outside its current boundary? Yes (if so please describe number and area). No 4. Does your agency have interagency agreements to serve these customers? c Geographical Expansion 1. Do you feel that your agency’s boundary is correct at this time? Yes No 2. Are there areas that your agency desires or plans to serve that are not now within its boundaries or its sphere of influence? Yes (if so, identify areas). No 3. Are there areas your agency currently serves that might be served more efficiently by another agency? Yes (if so, identify areas). No 5
4. Describe proposed or pending development that might require agency services. 5. Identify any anticipated jurisdictional boundary and sphere-of-influence changes. 7 Future Planning a Agency Plans Of the following documents, which are adopted by your agency. Enclose a current copy of each. 1. Master Plan – Public Facilities 2. Master Services Plan 3. Urban Water Management Plan 4. Watershed Management Plan 5. Groundwater Management Plan 6. Strategic Plan 7. Capital Improvement Plan 8. Other b Service Demand 1. Approximate population currently served by agency. 2. Does your agency prepare service demand projections for the next 5 years (If yes, what are they) 10 years (If yes, what are they) 20 years (If yes, what are they) If yes, how are the service projections prepared? Explain how these projections are correlated to the population forecasts. c Infrastructure/Equipment Replacement Need 1. Does your agency have any projections for infrastructure/ equipment improvements in the next 5 years (If yes, what are they) 10 years (If yes, what are they) 20 years (If yes, what are they) 8 Financial Information a Please attach last three Fiscal Year budgets. b Please attach your current rate schedule. c Attach your three most recent comprehensive annual financial reports. d Does your agency follow the GASB 34 accounting standards? e Describe funding sources, rate structure, cost per unit of service, emergency funding strategy, depreciation policies, reserve policies for lawsuits, other potential liabilities, and so forth.
6
f Please describe any programmatic changes, such as new regulatory requirements, that have impacted your budget. g Does your agency have any outstanding debt? Yes (If “yes” describe the purpose of the debt, the type of debt and issuing organization, and how the debt is being retired. Enclose the most recent official statement). No h Has your agency ever defaulted on repayment of any bonds or other debt? Yes (Please explain the date and circumstances). No 9 Government Structure A reorganization is defined as either an informal or formal study that examines the merger, dissolution, consolidation or other combination of your agency or the provisions of its services with another agency or service provider. a Has your agency been involved in a reorganization study with other service providers in the previous two years, or is your agency currently considering a reorganization study? (If yes, please explain.) b Has your agency been involved in any service related litigation in the previous two years? (If yes please explain.) c Identify any possible government structure options involving other service providers that your board has discussed. d List other possible government structure options. e With which other service providers might your agency consider a functional consolidation? f Are there any reasons such reorganization might not be successful? g What time frame do you expect the actions under item “d” might occur? 5 years 10 years 20 years Other. Please specify h What factors or changes would determine the timing? 10 Shared Arrangements/Cost Avoidance a Describe any existing agreements or arrangements for sharing facilities, infrastructure, or services with other agencies. (yes or no and agency name) Mutual/Automatic Aid Facility Sharing Infrastructure Sharing Service Provision Joint Training Please explain yes answers 7
b List current shared activities with other service providers and provide a brief description including effective dates. 1. Joint powers authorities (JPAs) 2. Contact information for each JPA 3. Memorandums of Understanding MOUs) 4. Training and/or dispatch 5. Purchasing Agreements 6. Equipment sharing 7. Vehicle Maintenance 8. Insurance Pools 9. Joint Funding 10 Other c Agency Shared functions Opportunities 1. List Agency Functions that are provided by: Private Contractors Other Agencies 2. Describe agency facilities and internal services (i.e, vehicle maintenance, training, etc.), that could be shared with other agencies. 3. Can your agency provide training to other agencies under a service contract, JPA, or other arrangement? 4. What are the impediments to providing such services to other agencies? 11 Cost Saving Opportunities a What actions has your agency taken in the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs? Examples might include competitive bidding; interagency purchasing or other agreements, sharing operational staff and so forth. b What cost saving plans do you have for the future? 12 Other a Indicate any relevant information that LAFCO should obtain from other agencies.
Agent:
Signature, Title Date
8
Appendix B
National Primary Drinking Water Standards
MCL or TT1 Potential health effects from Common sources of Public Contaminant (mg/L)2 exposure above the MCL contaminant in drinking water Health Goal Acrylamide TT8 Nervous system or blood problems; Added to water during zero OC sewage/wastewater increased risk of cancer treatment Alachlor 0.002 Eye, liver, kidney or spleen problems; Runoff from herbicide used on zero OC anemia; increased risk of cancer row crops Alpha particles 15 picocuries Increased risk of cancer Erosion of natural deposits of zero per Liter certain minerals that are R (pCi/L) radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation Antimony 0.006 Increase in blood cholesterol; decrease in Discharge from petroleum 0.006 IOC blood sugar refineries; fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder Arsenic 0.010 as of Skin damage or problems with circulatory Erosion of natural deposits; runoff 0 IOC 1/23/06 systems, and may have increased risk of from orchards, runoff from glass & getting cancer electronics production wastes Asbestos (fibers >10 7 million Increased risk of developing benign intestinal Decay of asbestos cement in 7 MFL IOC micrometers) fibers per polyps water mains; erosion of natural Liter (MFL) deposits Atrazine 0.003 Cardiovascular system or reproductive Runoff from herbicide used on 0.003 OC problems row crops Barium 2 Increase in blood pressure Discharge of drilling wastes; 2 IOC discharge from metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits Benzene 0.005 Anemia; decrease in blood platelets; Discharge from factories; zero OC increased risk of cancer leaching from gas storage tanks and landfills Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) 0.0002 Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of Leaching from linings of water zero OC cancer storage tanks and distribution lines Beryllium 0.004 Intestinal lesions Discharge from metal refineries 0.004 and coal-burning factories; IOC discharge from electrical, aerospace, and defense industries Beta particles and photon 4 millirems Increased risk of cancer Decay of natural and man-made zero emitters per year deposits of certain minerals that R are radioactive and may emit forms of radiation known as photons and beta radiation Bromate 0.010 Increased risk of cancer Byproduct of drinking water zero DBP disinfection Cadmium 0.005 Kidney damage Corrosion of galvanized pipes; 0.005 erosion of natural deposits; IOC discharge from metal refineries; runoff from waste batteries and paints Carbofuran 0.04 Problems with blood, nervous system, or Leaching of soil fumigant used on 0.04 OC reproductive system rice and alfalfa Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from chemical plants zero OC and other industrial activities Chloramines (as Cl ) 1 Eye/nose irritation; stomach discomfort, Water additive used to control 1 D 2 MRDL=4.0 MRDLG=4 anemia microbes
LEGEND
D Dinsinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical 1 DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
MCL or TT1 Potential health effects from Common sources of Public Contaminant (mg/L)2 exposure above the MCL contaminant in drinking water Health Goal Chlordane 0.002 Liver or nervous system problems; increased Residue of banned termiticide zero OC risk of cancer Chlorine (as Cl ) 1 Eye/nose irritation; stomach discomfort Water additive used to control 1 D 2 MRDL=4.0 MRDLG=4 microbes Chlorine dioxide (as ClO ) 1 Anemia; infants & young children: nervous Water additive used to control 1 D 2 MRDL=0.8 MRDLG=0.8 system effects microbes Chlorite 1.0 Anemia; infants & young children: nervous Byproduct of drinking water 0.8 DBP system effects disinfection Chlorobenzene 0.1 Liver or kidney problems Discharge from chemical and 0.1 OC agricultural chemical factories Chromium (total) 0.1 Allergic dermatitis Discharge from steel and pulp 0.1 IOC mills; erosion of natural deposits Copper TT7; Short term exposure: Gastrointestinal Corrosion of household plumbing 1.3 Action distress. Long term exposure: Liver or kidney systems; erosion of natural damage. People with Wilson’s Disease deposits IOC Level = 1.3 should consult their personal doctor if the amount of copper in their water exceeds the action level Cryptosporidium 3 Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, Human and animal fecal waste zero M TT vomiting, cramps) Cyanide (as free cyanide) 0.2 Nerve damage or thyroid problems Discharge from steel/metal 0.2 IOC factories; discharge from plastic and fertilizer factories 2,4-D 0.07 Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland problems Runoff from herbicide used on 0.07 OC row crops Dalapon 0.2 Minor kidney changes Runoff from herbicide used on 0.2 OC rights of way 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropa 0.0002 Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of Runoff/leaching from soil zero OC ne (DBCP) cancer fumigant used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 Liver, kidney, or circulatory system problems Discharge from industrial 0.6 OC chemical factories p-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 Anemia; liver, kidney or spleen damage; Discharge from industrial 0.075 OC changes in blood chemical factories 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 Increased risk of cancer Discharge from industrial zero OC chemical factories 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 Liver problems Discharge from industrial 0.007 OC chemical factories cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 Liver problems Discharge from industrial 0.07 OC chemical factories trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 Liver problems Discharge from industrial 0.1 OC chemical factories Dichloromethane 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from drug and zero OC chemical factories 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 Increased risk of cancer Discharge from industrial zero OC chemical factories Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.4 Weight loss, live problems, or possible Discharge from chemical 0.4 OC reproductive difficulties factories Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006 Reproductive difficulties; liver problems; Discharge from rubber and zero OC increased risk of cancer chemical factories Dinoseb 0.007 Reproductive difficulties Runoff from herbicide used on 0.007 OC soybeans and vegetables Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.00000003 Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of Emissions from waste zero cancer incineration and other OC combustion; discharge from chemical factories OC Diquat 0.02 Cataracts Runoff from herbicide use 0.02 OC Endothall 0.1 Stomach and intestinal problems Runoff from herbicide use 0.1
LEGEND
D Dinsinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical 2 DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
MCL or TT1 Potential health effects from Common sources of Public Contaminant (mg/L)2 exposure above the MCL contaminant in drinking water Health Goal OC Endrin 0.002 Liver problems Residue of banned insecticide 0.002 Epichlorohydrin TT8 Increased cancer risk, and over a long period Discharge from industrial zero OC of time, stomach problems chemical factories; an impurity of some water treatment chemicals Ethylbenzene 0.7 Liver or kidneys problems Discharge from petroleum 0.7 OC refineries Ethylene dibromide 0.00005 Problems with liver, stomach, reproductive Discharge from petroleum zero OC system, or kidneys; increased risk of cancer refineries Fluoride 4.0 Bone disease (pain and tenderness of the Water additive which promotes 4.0 bones); Children may get mottled teeth strong teeth; erosion of natural IOC deposits; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories Giardia lamblia 3 Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, Human and animal fecal waste zero M TT vomiting, cramps) OC Glyphosate 0.7 Kidney problems; reproductive difficulties Runoff from herbicide use 0.7 Haloacetic acids (HAA5) 0.060 Increased risk of cancer Byproduct of drinking water 6 DBP n/a disinfection OC Heptachlor 0.0004 Liver damage; increased risk of cancer Residue of banned termiticide zero OC Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 Liver damage; increased risk of cancer Breakdown of heptachlor zero Heterotrophic plate count TT3 HPC has no health effects; it is an analytic HPC measures a range of n/a (HPC) method used to measure the variety of bacteria that are naturally present bacteria that are common in water. The lower in the environment M the concentration of bacteria in drinking water, the better maintained the water system is. Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 Liver or kidney problems; reproductive Discharge from metal refineries zero OC difficulties; increased risk of cancer and agricultural chemical factories Hexachlorocyclopentadien 0.05 Kidney or stomach problems Discharge from chemical 0.05 OC e factories Lead TT7; Infants and children: Delays in physical or Corrosion of household plumbing zero Action mental development; children could show systems; erosion of natural IOC Level = slight deficits in attention span and learning deposits 0.015 abilities; Adults: Kidney problems; high blood pressure Legionella 3 Legionnaire’s Disease, a type of pneumonia Found naturally in water; zero M TT multiplies in heating systems Lindane 0.0002 Liver or kidney problems Runoff/leaching from insecticide 0.0002 OC used on cattle, lumber, gardens Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 Kidney damage Erosion of natural deposits; 0.002 discharge from refineries and IOC factories; runoff from landfills and croplands Methoxychlor 0.04 Reproductive difficulties Runoff/leaching from insecticide 0.04 OC used on fruits, vegetables, alfalfa, livestock Nitrate (measured as 10 Infants below the age of six months who drink Runoff from fertilizer use; 10 Nitrogen) water containing nitrate in excess of the MCL leaching from septic tanks, IOC could become seriously ill and, if untreated, sewage; erosion of natural may die. Symptoms include shortness of deposits breath and blue-baby syndrome. Nitrite (measured as 1 Infants below the age of six months who drink Runoff from fertilizer use; 1 Nitrogen) water containing nitrite in excess of the MCL leaching from septic tanks, IOC could become seriously ill and, if untreated, sewage; erosion of natural may die. Symptoms include shortness of deposits breath and blue-baby syndrome.
LEGEND
D Dinsinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical 3 DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
MCL or TT1 Potential health effects from Common sources of Public Contaminant (mg/L)2 exposure above the MCL contaminant in drinking water Health Goal Oxamyl (Vydate) 0.2 Slight nervous system effects Runoff/leaching from insecticide 0.2 OC used on apples, potatoes, and tomatoes Pentachlorophenol 0.001 Liver or kidney problems; increased cancer Discharge from wood preserving zero OC risk factories OC Picloram 0.5 Liver problems Herbicide runoff 0.5 Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.0005 Skin changes; thymus gland problems; Runoff from landfills; discharge of zero (PCBs) immune deficiencies; reproductive or waste chemicals OC nervous system difficulties; increased risk of cancer Radium 226 and Radium 5 pCi/L Increased risk of cancer Erosion of natural deposits zero R 228 (combined) Selenium 0.05 Hair or fingernail loss; numbness in fingers or Discharge from petroleum 0.05 IOC toes; circulatory problems refineries; erosion of natural deposits; discharge from mines OC Simazine 0.004 Problems with blood Herbicide runoff 0.004 Styrene 0.1 Liver, kidney, or circulatory system problems Discharge from rubber and plastic 0.1 OC factories; leaching from landfills Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from factories and dry zero OC cleaners Thallium 0.002 Hair loss; changes in blood; kidney, intestine, Leaching from ore-processing 0.0005 IOC or liver problems sites; discharge from electronics, glass, and drug factories Toluene 1 Nervous system, kidney, or liver problems Discharge from petroleum 1 OC factories Total Coliforms (including 5.0%4 Not a health threat in itself; it is used to Coliforms are naturally present in zero fecal coliform and E. coli) indicate whether other potentially harmful the environment as well as feces; M bacteria may be present5 fecal coliforms and E. coli only come from human and animal fecal waste. Total Trihalomethanes 0.10 Liver, kidney or central nervous system Byproduct of drinking water n/a6 (TTHMs) 0.080 problems; increased risk of cancer disinfection DBP after 12/31/03 Toxaphene 0.003 Kidney, liver, or thyroid problems; increased Runoff/leaching from insecticide zero OC risk of cancer used on cotton and cattle OC 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 Liver problems Residue of banned herbicide 0.05 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 Changes in adrenal glands Discharge from textile finishing 0.07 OC factories 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 Liver, nervous system, or circulatory Discharge from metal degreasing 0.20 OC problems sites and other factories 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 Liver, kidney, or immune system problems Discharge from industrial 0.003 OC chemical factories Trichloroethylene 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from metal degreasing zero OC sites and other factories Turbidity TT3 Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of Soil runoff n/a water. It is used to indicate water quality and filtration effectiveness (e.g., whether disease-causing organisms are present). Higher turbidity levels are often associated M with higher levels of disease-causing micro-organisms such as viruses, parasites and some bacteria. These organisms can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches. Uranium 30 ug/L Increased risk of cancer, kidney toxicity Erosion of natural deposits zero R as of 12/08/03
LEGEND
D Dinsinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical 4 DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
MCL or TT1 Potential health effects from Common sources of Public Contaminant (mg/L)2 exposure above the MCL contaminant in drinking water Health Goal Vinyl chloride 0.002 Increased risk of cancer Leaching from PVC pipes; zero OC discharge from plastic factories Viruses (enteric) 3 Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, Human and animal fecal waste zero M TT vomiting, cramps) Xylenes (total) 10 Nervous system damage Discharge from petroleum 10 OC factories; discharge from chemical factories
NOTES 1 Definitions • Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)—The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals. • Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)—The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards. • Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG)—The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. • Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL)—The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. • Treatment Technique (TT)—A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. 2 Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless otherwise noted. Milligrams per liter are equivalent to parts per million (ppm). 3 EPA’s surface water treatment rules require systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water to (1) disinfect their water, and (2) filter their water or meet criteria for avoiding filtration so that the following contaminants are controlled at the following levels: • Cryptosporidium (as of 1/1/02 for systems serving >10,000 and 1/14/05 for systems serving <10,000) 99% removal. • Giardia lamblia: 99.9% removal/inactivation • Viruses: 99.99% removal/inactivation • Legionella: No limit, but EPA believes that if Giardia and viruses are removed/inactivated, Legionella will also be controlled. • Turbidity: At no time can turbidity (cloudiness of water) go above 5 nephelolometric turbidity units (NTU); systems that filter must ensure that the turbidity go no higher than 1 NTU (0.5 NTU for conventional or direct filtration) in at least 95% of the daily samples in any month. As of January 1, 2002, for systems servicing >10,000, and January 14, 2005, for systems servicing <10,000, turbidity may never exceed 1 NTU, and must not exceed 0.3 NTU in 95% of daily samples in any month. • HPC: No more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter • Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (Effective Date: January 14, 2005); Surface water systems or (GWUDI) systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must comply with the applicable Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule provisions (e.g. turbidity standards, individual filter monitoring, Cryptosporidium removal requirements, updated watershed control requirements for unfiltered systems). • Filter Backwash Recycling: The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule requires systems that recycle to return specific recycle flows through all processes of the system’s existing conventional or direct filtration system or at an alternate location approved by the state. 4 No more than 5.0% samples total coliform-positive in a month. (For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli if two consecutive TC-positive samples, and one is also positive for E. coli fecal coliforms, system has an acute MCL violation. 5 Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems. 6 Although there is no collective MCLG for this contaminant group, there are individual MCLGs for some of the individual contaminants: • Haloacetic acids: dichloroacetic acid (zero); trichloroacetic acid (0.3 mg/L) • Trihalomethanes: bromodichloromethane (zero); bromoform (zero); dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L) 7 Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness of their water. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for lead is 0.015 mg/L. 8 Each water system must certify, in writing, to the state (using third-party or manufacturers certification) that when it uses acrylamide and/or epichlorohydrin to treat water, the combination (or product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the levels specified, as follows: Acrylamide = 0.05% dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent); Epichlorohydrin = 0.01% dosed at 20 mg/L (or equivalent).
LEGEND
D Dinsinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical 5 DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards.
Contaminant Secondary Standard Aluminum 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L Chloride 250 mg/L Color 15 (color units) Copper 1.0 mg/L Corrosivity noncorrosive Fluoride 2.0 mg/L Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/L Iron 0.3 mg/L Manganese 0.05 mg/L Odor 3 threshold odor number pH 6.5-8.5 Silver 0.10 mg/L Sulfate 250 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L Zinc 5 mg/L
Office of Water (4606M) EPA 816-F-03-016 www.epa.gov/safewater June 2003
6
Appendix C
endix D pp A