DOCSLIB.ORG

Healdsburg 2010 Urban Water Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Healdsburg 2010 Urban Water Management Plan HEALDSBURG 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN City of Healdsburg Utilities Department July 2015 Prepared by GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Urban Water Management Plan 2010 City of Healdsburg TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - PLAN PREPARATION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2 Background....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.3 Structure of the Plan ........................................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.4 Level of Planning .............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.1.5 Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Coordination .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.1 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................ 1-3 1.2.2 Public Participation ........................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ............................................................................. 1-4 SECTION 2 - System Description ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Service Area Description ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Service Area Population ................................................................................................................ 2-6 SECTION 3 - System Demands ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Baselines and Targets .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Base Daily Per Capita Water Use .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Water Use Targets (2015, 2020) ..................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 Water Demands ............................................................................................................................ 3-6 3.2.1 Past and Current Water Deliveries .................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.2 Projected Water Deliveries............................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.3 Water Sold to Other Agencies........................................................................................ 3-10 3.2.4 Actual and Projected “Other” Water Demands .............................................................. 3-11 3.2.5 Summary of Total Water Use ......................................................................................... 3-12 3.2.6 Lower Income Water Use Projections ............................................................................ 3-12 3.3 Water Demand Projections for Retailers ..................................................................................... 3-13 3.4 Water Use Reduction Plan .......................................................................................................... 3-13 3.5 Current Plan and Economic Impacts .......................................................................................... 3-13 SECTION 4 - System Supplies ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Current and Planned Water Supply Sources ................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 City Water Sources .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Water Rights .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Russian River and Dry Creek Flow .................................................................................. 4-3 4.1.4 Dry Creek Well Field ........................................................................................................ 4-4 4.1.5 Russian River Well Fields ................................................................................................ 4-5 4.1.6 Recycled Water ................................................................................................................ 4-6 4.1.7 Summary of Current and Projected Water Supplies ........................................................ 4-8 4.2 Future Water Sources ................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.2.1 Recycled Water ................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.2.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.3 Groundwater Management Plan(s) .................................................................................. 4-9 4.2.4 Description of Groundwater Basin ................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.5 Sufficiency of Groundwater ............................................................................................ 4-12 4.2.6 Projected Groundwater Pumping ................................................................................... 4-13 84111468 TOC - i July 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 2010 City of Healdsburg 4.3 Transfer Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 4-13 4.4 Desalinated Water Opportunities ................................................................................................ 4-14 4.5 Recycled Water Opportunities .................................................................................................... 4-14 4.5.1 Coordination with other Agencies .................................................................................. 4-14 4.5.2 Existing Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Reuse Systems ................................. 4-14 4.5.3 Quantification of Effluent and Recycled Water .............................................................. 4-15 4.5.4 Comparison of Previously Projected Use and Actual Use ............................................. 4-17 4.5.5 Actions to encourage recycled water use ...................................................................... 4-17 4.6 Wholesale Water Suppliers ......................................................................................................... 4-17 4.7 Future Water Projects ................................................................................................................. 4-17 SECTION 5 - Water Supply Reliability and Water Shortage Contingency Planning ...................................... 5-1 5.1 Hydrologic Reliability ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Legal & Environmental Constraints ............................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.1 Water Rights .................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 Water Quality Constraints ............................................................................................................. 5-4 5.4 Supply and Demand Comparisons ............................................................................................... 5-5 5.5 Summary of Supply and Demand Analysis ................................................................................... 5-6 5.6 Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Planning .................................................................... 5-6 5.6.1 Actions in Response to Water Supply Shortages ............................................................ 5-6 5.6.2 Catastrophic Supply Interruption Plan ............................................................................. 5-7 5.6.3 Hazard Analysis ............................................................................................................... 5-7 5.6.4 Concept of Operations ..................................................................................................... 5-7 5.6.5 Prohibitions, Penalties, and Consumption Reduction ...................................................... 5-8 5.6.6 Effect on Revenues and Expenditures ........................................................................... 5-10 5.6.7 Water Shortage
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project
    APPENDIX D Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Eileen Barrow, M.A. June 6, 2016 An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Prepared by: _________________________________ Eileen Barrow, M.A. Tom Origer & Associates Post Office Box 1531 Rohnert Park, California 94927 (707) 584-8200 Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Santa Rosa, California 95407 June 6, 2016 ABSTRACT Tom Origer & Associates conducted an archival study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project, as requested by the Sonoma County Water Agency. This study was designed to meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per the findings of the National Marine Fisheries Service (2008), the Sonoma County Water Agency is seeking to improve Coho salmon and steelhead habitat in the Russian River and Dry Creek by modifying the minimum instream flow requirements specified by the State Water Resources Control Board's 1986 Decision 1610. The current study includes a ⅛ mile buffer around Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, the Russian River from Coyote Valley Dam to the Pacific Ocean, and Dry Creek from Warm Springs Dam to the Russian River. The study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University (NWIC File No. 15-1481); archival research at the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley; examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates; and contact with the Native American community. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates (File No.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • 4.14 Water Supply
    Cotati Downtown Specific Plan WATER SUPPLY Draft EIR 4.14 Water Supply 4.14.1 Issues Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) will increase the demand for water as compared to the existing demand in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Improvements to water supply and conveyance infrastructure may be required to support buildout of the project and the surrounding area. According to the Downtown Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the City will have sufficient water supply for the project. The WSA considers water supply and demand requirements during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. This section is largely derived from the WSA, which is incorporated by reference and included in this EIR as Appendix 4.14. 4.14.2 Setting Planning Area For the purpose of assessing direct impacts, the planning area is the DSP area. The cumulative analysis includes the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) service area (see Figure 4.14-1). The City of Cotati serves the planning area with a 6- to 14-inch waterline distribution system. Water System Water supply to the planning area is provided by the City of Cotati through three city wells and the SCWA aqueduct. The planning area is also served by a 1.0 million gallon (mg) storage tank located on West Sierra Avenue outside the City limits. Cotati receives most of its water supply from the SCWA, using its city wells for supplemental supply. Water Sources Sonoma County Water Agency. The SCWA receives groundwater from wells and surface water from the Russian River, with rights to divert up to 75,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to its customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Report This Report
    City of Santa Rosa 200 - Water System #490009 Why You Receive Water Quality Report this Report A Message from the while acknowledging the harsh realities The federal Environmental Protection Director of Utilities, of the economic downturn. Santa Rosa Agency (EPA) sets regulations on water Miles Ferris is like many other California utilities that quality and ensures you are informed are facing the need to replace aging about your community’s water quality n behalf of through this required annual report. our Utilities infrastructure and maintain our current assets while keeping utility rates as We are mandated to provide certain staff and basic information but we also use the O reasonable as possible. The economy members of the opportunity to share other important has adversely affected the fees we Santa Rosa Board information about your water. This of Public Utilities, collect on new water and wastewater report is printed on 40% post-consumer I am pleased to present our annual connections and increased the number recycled paper. water quality report. This report covers of uncollectable utility bills due to home all testing completed from January foreclosures. The reduction of water usage through December 2010. Our goal is due to conservation and a cool summer to provide excellent customer service last year has also resulted in a significant Radiation Concerns from reduction to rate revenue. along with exceptionally high quality Fukushima Nuclear Plant water to your home or business. The The Santa Rosa Utilities Department has U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made significant strides to overcome our s a result of the (EPA) requires this printed report be current budget shortfall by participating incident _with delivered to you in accordance with in a City furlough equivalent to a 5% A the Fukushima the Consumer Confidence Report Rule.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 State and Federal Legislative Program
    P a g e | - 0 - SONOMA COUNTY 2014 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Susan Gorin ....................................................... District 1 David Rabbitt..................................................... District 2 Shirlee Zane ....................................................... District 3 Mike McGuire ................................................... District 4 Efren Carrillo ..................................................... District 5 Veronica A. Ferguson………..……County Administrator - 1 - County Staff Peter Rumble, Deputy County Administrator–Community and Government Affairs County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Suite 104A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-3771 [email protected] Rebecca Wachsberg, CAO Analyst County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Suite 104A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-3782 [email protected] State Advocates Peterson Consulting, Inc. – Shaw / Yoder / Antwih, Inc. 1415 L Street, Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 441-4424 [email protected] Federal Advocates Alcalde & Fay Madison Government Affairs, Inc. th 2111 Wilson Boulevard, 8 Floor 444 North Capitol Street, NW Arlington, VA 22201 Washington, DC 20001 (703) 841-0626 (202) 347-1223 [email protected] [email protected] - 2 - Sonoma County Legislative State Delegations Governor Jerry Brown (D) Email: www.govmail.ca.gov Governor of California Website: www.gov.ca.gov State Capitol Building Washington D.C. Office Sacramento, CA 95814 124 Hall of
    [Show full text]
  • Dry Creek Rancheria, Vegetation
    Proposal for NCRP Demonstration Projects and Processes Drone image of Dry Creek Rancheria after the kincade fire taken by Anthony Falzone EXHIBIT A PROPOSAL COVER PAGE Proposal Type X Concept Proposal for Demonstration Projects and Processes Organization Name (Lead Applicant) __________________________________________________________Dry Creek Rancheria _______________ Organization Type X Federally recognized Indian Tribe California State Indian Tribe Public agency Local or state agency/special district Resource Conservation District Non-profit organization Public utility Other: ________________________________________________________________ 7 2 3 Demonstration Projects and Processes Organization Statement of Qualifications Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Settlement in the Dry Creek area by the Southern Pomo, called the Mihilakawna and Makahmo, was evident by 500 A.D. Descendants of these ancient inhabitants survive and continue to live as a tribe in the Alexander Valley, and are known as the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians. The Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians is a federally-recognized Indian tribe located in Sonoma County, California. The Dry Creek Rancheria was established on June 1, 1915, and consists of 93 acres, located in Alexander Valley north of Healdsburg and southeast of Geyserville. Loss of traditional lands was a direct result from the decades of forcible relocation and today, the original Dry Creek Pomo habitation area is flooded by the water from the Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma. In addition to the Rancheria, the Tribe owns and operates the Alexander Valley RV Park and Campground on the banks of the Russian River and recently purchased 306 acres of vineyard along Rancheria Creek and the Russian River.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California
    Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California By M.C. Blake, Jr., R.W. Graymer, and R.E. Stamski Pamphlet to accompany MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES MAP MF-2402 Version 1.0 2002 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Geologic explanation and acknowledgements 1 Introduction 1 Stratigraphy 1 Mesozoic and Tertiary terrane complexes 1 Description of Terranes 2 Tertiary Stratigraphy 10 Quaternary Surficial Deposits 11 Paleontology 11 Radiometric Ages 11 Structure 12 Structural History 12 Description of Map Units 15 Acknowledgements 23 Digital publication and database description 24 Introduction 24 For those who don’t use digital geologic map databases 24 MF-2402 Digital Contents 24 PostScript plotfile package 25 PDF plotfile package 25 Digital database package 25 TAR files 26 PostScript plotfiles 27 PDF plotfiles 27 Obtaining the Digital Database and Plotfile Packages 28 To obtain TAR files of database or plotfile packages from the USGS web pages 28 To obtain TAR files of database or plotfile packages by ftp 28 Obtaining plots from a commercial vendor 28 Obtaining plots from USGS Map On Demand Services 28 Revisions and version numbers 28 Digital database format 29 Converting ARC export files 29 Digital compilation 29 Base maps 29 Faults and landslides 29 Spatial resolution 29 Database specifics 30 Lines 30 Areas 32 Points 33 References Cited 35 ii Geologic Explanation and Acknowledgements Introduction The map in this report is modified from and supercedes USGS Open-File Report 71-44 (Blake and This report contains a new geologic map at 1:100,000 others, 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits of Alternative Reservoir Operations Watersmart Basin Study Program - Reservoir Operations Pilot Study
    Final Report Economic Benefits of Alternative Reservoir Operations WaterSMART Basin Study Program - Reservoir Operations Pilot Study May 28, 2021 Acknowledgements This work was made possible through funding from the WaterSMART Basin Study Program of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Thanks to Katharine Dahm for initiating this work, and all members of the project team: • Mike Dietl (Project Manager), Vince Barbara, Avra Morgan, Ankur Bhattacharya and Kenneth Richard—Reclamation • Donald Seymour, Devin Chatoian, Chris Delaney, Bradley Elliott, Joan Hultberg, Jay Jasperse, and John Mendoza—Sonoma Water • Dr. Lou Nadeau, Dr. Tess Hubbard, Arleen O’Donnell, Charles Goodhue, Caitline Barber and Zach Finn—ERG • Robert Hartman—Robert K. Hartman Consulting Services Additional thanks to the Prosser Reservoir Test Case Team, especially Laurie Nicholas, and those who participated in the transferability workshop held on November 5, 2020. Members of the Water Management Options Pilot Team are indicated with an asterisk: • Laurie Nicholas, John Hunter, Dan Lahde, and Scott Schoenfeld—Reclamation* • Dan Deeds, Matt Elmer, and Austin Olah—Reclamation • Chad Blanchard, Patrick Fritchel, and Dave Wathen—U.S. Water Master’s Office* • Bill Hauck—Truckee Meadows Water Authority* • Donna Noel and Ali Shahroody—Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe* • Jim Eto and Dan Yamanaka—California Department of Water Resources* • Caleb Erkman—Precision Water Resources Engineering* Finally, we thank the economic roundtable participants whose expertise informed the economic assessment methodologies: • Matthew Bates—California Department of Water Resources • Cameron Speir—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries • Tom Corringham—Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) • Barbara Wyse—Highland Economics • Dagmar Llewellyn and Beau Uriona—Reclamation • Guyton Durnin and Jeremy Cook—HDR, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • DCR CEDS Report – PUBLIC COMMENT
    Bellacana Vineyards and Wines DRY CREEK RANCHERIA BAND OF POMO 2018-2022 COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS) Prepared by This Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (“CEDS”) was written by Bluestem Consulting, Inc. for the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians and adopted by the Board of Directors on ___________, 2017. The plan was developed and written in compliance with the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s CEDS requirements as provided for in 13 CFR Part 303. In partnership and with special thanks to Board of Directors CEDS Committee DCR Tribal Departments and all of the Tribal staff, Tribal members, and community stakeholders who provided input to this plan. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 SECTION II: SUMMARY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Demographic and Socioeconomic Profile .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SONOMA WATER Russian River Watershed Place of Water Use
    SONOMA WATER Russian River Watershed Place of Water Use Lake Mendocino Lake Russian Sonoma River Dry Creek 1/2 SONOMA WATER Photographs of Russian River Downstream of River Diversion System at Mirabel Park on April 29, 2021 Mirabel Inflatable Dam Looking Upstream Looking Downstream 2/2 Supplement to the May 2021 Temporary Urgency Change Petitions 5/13/2021 Sonoma County Water Agency Supplement to the May 2021 Temporary Urgency Change Petitions The Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) seeks temporary urgency changes to its four water-right permits used to provide wholesale water to cities and water districts in Sonoma and Marin counties. These changes are necessary to maintain viable operations to support municipal use, protect listed salmon species and prevent Lake Mendocino from declining to a storage level at which the reservoir may no longer be functional in light of the extremely dry hydrology the region has been experiencing since 2020. Sonoma Water has filed two consecutive temporary urgency change petitions (TUCP) over the past year to address low reservoir storage in Lake Mendocino. On July 28, 2020, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) issued an order approving Sonoma Water’s TUCPs requesting temporary reductions to Russian River minimum instream flow requirements to address low storage conditions in Lake Mendocino projected to occur due to reduced transfers of Eel River water through Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) Potter Valley Project (PVP). That order expired on December 27, 2020. Facing persistent dry conditions in the watershed, Sonoma Water filed a TUCP for Permit 12947A on January 7, 2021 to request an alternative hydrologic index for the Upper Russian River.
    [Show full text]
  • County of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Report
    Agenda Item Number: 7 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors and Board of Directors of Sonoma County Water Agency Board Agenda Date: November 13, 2018 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Board Ad Hoc Committee for the Potter Valley Project Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): James Gore (707) 565-3757 All Lynda Hopkins (707) 565-2241 Title: Resolution in Support of a Two-Basin Solution for the Future of the Potter Valley Project Recommended Actions: Adopt a Concurrent Resolution Supporting a Two-Basin Solution for the Future of the Potter Valley Project Executive Summary: Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) Potter Valley Project (PVP or Project) is a hydroelectric facility that diverts Eel River water through a tunnel to a powerhouse in the Russian River watershed. After producing power, water is discharged from the powerhouse to the East Fork of the Russian River and then flows into Lake Mendocino. The current license for the Project issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will expire in 2022, and PG&E must file for a new license by April 14, 2020. On May 10, 2018, PG&E sent a letter to the Eel-Russian River Commission publicly announcing its intention to auction the Project. PG&E has also announced its intention to continue with the relicensing while seeking a new owner for the Project. The Board Ad Hoc Committee for the Potter Valley Project recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) adopt a concurrent resolution supporting a Two-Basin Solution for the future of the Project that protects fisheries and water supplies in both the Eel and Russian River Watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Build a Water Empire
    CHAPTER FIFTEEN How to Build a Water Empire With improved water supply Sonoma County’s development can expect to be similar to that o f Santa Clara County. — Stone and Youngberg, Consultants to the Sonoma County Water Agency, 1954 he Warm Springs Dam is a chilling example of how a publicly owned water agency was able to disenfranchise Sonoma County voters (and Ttried to do the same with Marin voters) in order to construct a dam costing $365 million— the last large dam built in California. The Warm Springs Dam had a forty-three-year gestation: it was con­ ceived about 1940 by the US Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and water supply. Construction was authorized in 1962 by Congress, and the dam was completed in 1983. Today the dam is a fact of life, a gigantic earthen barrier extending for half a mile across the confluence of Warm Springs Creek and Dry Creek and creating Lake Sonoma to a depth of 315 feet. The entire project includes 16,770 acres of over-cut watershed (some of it severely eroding), a modern state-run fish hatchery, splendid recreational benefits, and a well-run federal park with interpretive Pomo displays. Despite the benefits, I fought that dam tooth and nail. In my opinion, This pre-construction water-rich Sonoma didn’t need the dam, and its flood control benefits diagram of Warm couldn’t make up for the land speculation that followed in the wake of its Springs Dam shows the vast area filled to create proposal, or for the sprawling growth that followed the giant water pipelines Lake Sonoma.
    [Show full text]