FEAS TOSIBILITY WN OF Y Y STUD YOUNTVIL DY & FA LLE RECACILITIE YCLED W ES PLA WATER EX YOUN M 223 ANNING XPANSIO NTVILLE, r. Graham To65 Yount35 Mercury Santa R DRA G REPO ON PROJE CALIFOR June 2 Prepared Wadsworth wn of Youn 50 Yount S ville, CA 9Prepared Way, Suite Rosa, CA 9(707) 523- AFT ORT ECT RNIA 2012 d for: h, PE ntville Street 4599 d by: e 150 5407 1010
Transcript
1. DRA AFTFEAS SIBILITY STUD & FAYDY ACILITIE PLA ESANNING
REPOGORTTOW OF YOUNTVILWN YLLE RECY YCLED W WATER EXXPANSIO
PROJEONECT YOUNNTVILLE, C CALIFOR RNIAJune 2 2012 Prepared for:dMr.
Graham Wadsworth PE h,Tow of Younwnntville 6550 Yount SStreetYountv
ville, CA 944599Prepared by: d 223 Mercury Way, Suite 150 35 eSanta
RRosa, CA 955407 (707) 523-1010
2. DRAFTFEASIBILITY STUDY & FACILITIES PLANNING REPORTTOWN
OF YOUNTVILLE RECYCLED WATER EXPANSION PROJECTYOUNTVILLE,
CALIFORNIAProject No. 12027-11001-37020Prepared for:Mr. Graham
WadsworthTown of Yountville6550 Yount StreetYountville, CA
94599Prepared by:____________________________________Reviewed
by:___________________________________2235 Mercury Way, Suite
150Santa Rosa, CA 95407(707) 523-1010June 2012
3. Contents1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...................................................................................
1 1.1 BENEFITS OF THE RECYCLED WATER
PLAN...............................................................1
1.2 FACILITY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
.......................................................................1
1.3 RECOMMENDED PROJECT
.............................................................................................22.INTRODUCTION
...............................................................................................
3 2.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT
PURPOSE.....................................................................3
2.2 STUDY AREA
.....................................................................................................................4
2.3 PLANNING PROCESS
.......................................................................................................42.3.1
WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
.....................................................................
4 2.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
..........................................................................................53.PROBLEMS
AND NEEDS
.................................................................................
6 3.1 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS
.................................................................................63.1.1
HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS AND AMBIENT WATER QUALITY
...................... 63.1.2 LAND USE TRENDS AND POPULATION
PROJECTIONS ............................................ 7 3.2
WATER SUPPLY
...............................................................................................................73.2.1
RECTOR RESERVOIR
...................................................................................................
73.2.2 STATE WATER PROJECT WATER
SUPPLY.................................................................
83.2.3 GROUNDWATER
............................................................................................................
83.2.4 RECYCLED WATER
.......................................................................................................
93.2.5 WATER DEMAND
TRENDS............................................................................................
93.2.6 SOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL WATER AND PLANS FOR NEW FACILITIES
............... 93.2.7 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCE
..................................................................
9 3.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT & DISPOSAL
..................................................................103.3.1
EXISTING WATER RECYCLING AND EFFLUENT RIGHTS
........................................ 11 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL
WATER.............................................................................................114.WATER
REUSE OPPORTUNITIES (MARKET ASSESSMENT) ..................... 12
4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS
..........................................................12 4.2
DEMAND DEVELOPMENT
..............................................................................................14
4.3 SUMMARY OF MARKET ASSESSMENT RESULTS
......................................................185.PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES
............................................................................
19 5.1 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
................................195.1.1 RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY AND
WATER BALANCE .............................................. 19Town
of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study &
Facilities Planning Report i June 2012
4. 5.1.2TREATMENT SYSTEM CAPACITY
..............................................................................
235.1.3PUMPING AND DELIVERY RATE
................................................................................
245.1.4DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CAPACITY
...........................................................................
24 5.2 COST ASSUMPTIONS
....................................................................................................25
5.3 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
.....................................................................................265.3.1ALTERNATIVE
1 SERVE ALL TIER 2 CUSTOMERS
................................................ 265.3.2ALTERNATIVE
1A SERVE TIER 2 CUSTOMERS WEST OF THE NAPARIVER
............................................................................................................................
275.3.3ALTERNATIVE 2 SERVE ALL TIER 2 CUSTOMERS AND IMPROVEDELIVERY
RATE TO TIER 1
CUSTOMERS.................................................................
295.3.4ALTERNATIVE 2a SERVE TIER 2 CUSTOMERS WEST OF THE NAPARIVER
AND IMPROVE DELIVERY RATE TO TIER 1
CUSTOMERS........................... 305.3.5ALTERNATIVE 3 MAXIMUM
BUILDOUT OF RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMWITH LOOPED SYSTEM
..............................................................................................
325.3.6ALTERNATIVE 3a MAXIMUM BUILDOUT OF RECYCLED WATER
SYSTEMWITHOUT LOOPED SYSTEM
......................................................................................
335.3.7ALTERNATIVE 4 CONSTRUCT A MINIMUM REUSE PROJECT
............................. 345.3.8ALTERNATIVE 5 CONSTRUCT AN
URBAN WATER REUSE SYSTEM .................. 355.3.9ALTERNATIVE 6
CONSTRUCT A LAND DISPOSAL PROJECT .............................. 36
5.4 SUMMARY AND INITIAL SCREENING
...........................................................................376.ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
................................................. 39 6.1
ALTERNATIVES TO RECYCLED WATER
......................................................................396.1.1ADDITIONAL
SWP SUPPLY
.........................................................................................
396.1.2TOLERATE THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DROUGHT
............................................. 39 6.2 COMPARISION OF
ALTERNATIVES
..............................................................................407.RECOMMENDED
PROJECT
..........................................................................
42 7.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
...............................................................................................427.1.1BASIS
FOR SELECTION
..............................................................................................
427.1.2SELECTED CUSTOMERS AND USERS
......................................................................
43 7.2 PROPOSED FACILITIES
.................................................................................................437.2.1FACILITIES
DESCRIPTION
..........................................................................................
43 7.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
........................................................................................437.3.1FEASIBILITY
REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.........................
447.3.2POLICY AND FUNDING ACTIVITIES
...........................................................................
457.3.3CUSTOMER ACTIVITIES
..............................................................................................
467.3.4PROJECT PERMITTING ACTIVITIES
..........................................................................
467.3.5PROJECT DESIGN ACTIVITIES
...................................................................................
47Town of YountvilleGHD 12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study
& Facilities Planning ReportiiJune 2012
5. Table Index Table 1-1: Revenue Requirements and Unit Costs
of Recycled Water ............................... 2 Table 2-1:
Document Outline Requirements and Location of Information
........................... 5 Table 3-1: Water Supply and Demand
Balance in the Study Area .................................... 10
Table 4-1: Tier 1 Users and Area Irrigated
........................................................................
12 Table 4-2: Table 4-2: Tier 2 Users and Area Irrigated
....................................................... 13 Table
4-3: Tier 3 Users and Area Irrigated
........................................................................
13 Table 4-4: Urban Customers
.............................................................................................
14 Table 4-5: Recycled Water Supplied to Tier 1 Users
......................................................... 15 Table
4-6: Average Monthly Percentage of Tier 1 Recycled Water Demand
................... 16 Table 4-7: Tier 2 and Tier 3 Irrigation Area
and Demand by User ..................................... 16 Table
4-8: Urban Customer Irrigation Demand by User
.................................................... 17 Table 4-9:
Market Assessment Summary
..........................................................................
18 Table 5-1: Average Monthly Recycled Water Production Rates (MGD)
............................ 20 Table 5-2: NOAA Rainfall Data Napa,
California
............................................................ 21
Table 5-3: WRCC Evaporation Data Berryessa Station
................................................. 21 Table 5-4:
Pond Volume and Working Storage by Tier
..................................................... 23 Table 5-5:
Distribution System Design Criteria
..................................................................
24 Table 5-6: Costs Included within Major CSI Divisions
....................................................... 25 Table
5-7: Average Annual Recycled Water O&M Costs
.................................................. 26 Table 5-8:
Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 1
.................................... 27 Table 5-9: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 1a
.................................. 28 Table 5-10: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 2
.................................. 30 Table 5-11: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 2a
................................ 31 Table 5-12: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 3
.................................. 33 Table 5-13: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 3a
................................ 34 Table 5-14: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 4
.................................. 35 Table 5-15: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 5
.................................. 36 Table 5-16: Summary
Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 6
.................................. 37 Table 5-17: Initial
Alternative Screening
............................................................................
38 Table 6-1: Economic Consequences Drought
...................................................................
40 Table 6-2: Summary Economic Comparison
....................................................................
41Figure Index Figure 2-1: Study Area Figure 3-1: Study Area Figure
4-1 Recycled Water CustomersTown of YountvilleGHD
12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning
Reportiii June 2012
6. Figure 5-1: Alternative 1 Figure 5-1a: Alternative 1a Figure
5-2 Alternative 2 Figure 5-2a: Alternative 2a Figure 5-3:
Alternative 3 Figure 5-3a: Alternative 3a Figure 5-4: Alternative 4
Figure 5-5: Alternative 5 Figure 5-6: Alternative 6Appendices A
Water Balances B Cost Estimates C Environmental Document D Rate
Study E Recycled Water Use Ordinance F Existing User AgreementsTown
of YountvilleGHD 12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study &
Facilities Planning Report iv June 2012
7. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Town of Yountville has, with the
assistance of a State Water Resources Control Board planning
grantand a United States Bureau of Reclamation Feasibility and
Environmental Studies cooperativeagreement, prepared a Feasibility
Study and Facilities Planning Report (Report) for the Town of
YountvilleRecycled Water Expansion Project (Project). The Project
expands upon the existing recycled watersystem to include new users
which will maximize the recycled water supply delivered to
current/futurecustomers, minimize discharges to the Napa River and
establish a flexible system for connecting newcustomers.The Report:
presents background water and wastewater information relating to
the Town provides detailed planning criteria for the required
recycled water facilities provides a market assessment of potential
users evaluates several alternatives for providing recycled water
to customers develops and analyzes the construction and operating
costs for the alternatives, and presents a financing and revenue
plan and preliminary construction schedule for therecommended
project.1.1 BENEFITS OF THE RECYCLED WATER PLANIf implemented, the
Project will create multiple benefits including: reducing the water
that would otherwise be withdrawn from the groundwater or Napa
River forvineyard use by the proposed customers. providing an
effective means of disposing of excess wastewater that is already
treated to a highlevel. promoting the States policies of recycling
water to supplement existing water supplies,maximizing reuse of
wastewater for beneficial uses, and discontinuing the use of
potable waterand well water for irrigations when recycled water is
available.1.2 FACILITY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONSIn addition to the
technical considerations of facility planning (ie flows, pressure,
peaking factors),consideration must also be given to the costs of
the recycled water system and the resulting rates for therecycled
water users. Thus alternative systems with the ability to deliver
different volumes of recycledwater for varying number of potential
customers were considered and analyzed.Below summarizes the
parameters for alternatives reviewed which were retained for this
study. The Townhas selected Alternative 1a as the preferred
alternative.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility
Study & Facilities Planning Report1June 2012
8. Table 1-1: Revenue Requirements and Unit Costs of Recycled
Water Alternative 1aAlternative 2aAlternative 3aCapital Costs
($1,000)$2,722 $4,318 $11,200Annual Operation and Maintenance
$54,100$54,100 $54,100Water Delivered (AF)179 179 335Cost Per AF
Delivered$15,210$23,480 $34,4301.3 RECOMMENDED PROJECTAlternative
1a, the recommended project, results in the lowest unit cost and it
provides a benefit inreducing water withdrawal from groundwater,
consistent with the State Water Resources Control Boardspolicies.
This alternative provides for expansion of the recycled system and
reduces discharges to theNapa River.Alternative 1a was selected as
the recommended project for the following reasons: It achieves
reduction in ground water and Napa River water use by the vineyards
during theirrigation season It utilizes existing storage ponds on
the future recycled water users property It results in compliance
with the Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge flow
limitations It provides for an effective cost per acre foot of
recycled water compared to other alternativesevaluated It provides
a benefit to all water users It minimizes environmental
impacts.Town of YountvilleGHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study
& Facilities Planning Report2 June 2012
9. 2. INTRODUCTIONThis report, prepared in coordination with
the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, presents anengineering
evaluation and an economic and financial analysis of a proposed
expansion of the Town ofYountvilles (Towns) recycled water
system.The report is intended to fulfill the requirements of the U.
S. Department of the Interiors Bureau ofReclamation Public Law
102-575, Title XVI (the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study andFacilities Act of 1992, as amended) and the requirements
of the State Water Resources Control BoardsPlanning Grant Program.
Title XVI provides a mechanism for Federal participation and
cost-sharing inapproved recycled water projects and provides
general authority for appraisal and feasibility studies. TheState
Water Boards planning grant program also funds feasibility level
studies and assists applicants indeveloping the application
materials necessary to qualify for other financial assistance
programsadministered by the State Water Board.2.1BACKGROUND AND
PROJECT PURPOSEThe Town currently delivers tertiary treated
recycled water to a golf course and 770 acres of vineyards.The Town
produces approximately 450 acre-feet (AF) of recycled water
annually and deliversapproximately 275 AF to customers. In an
effort to balance both demands on the local water supplies andto
reduce seasonal discharges to the Napa River, the Town is
developing a recycled water expansionproject that will reuse more
of its high quality effluent.Funded by planning grants from the U.
S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) and the State WaterResources
Control Board (State Board), the Towns work includes developing a
range of projectalternatives which have the potential to contribute
to the resolution of several regionally-based, watershedspecific
management problems.The project area is tributary to the Napa River
which supports a number of endangered species and is onthe State
Boards list of impaired water bodies for sediment, pathogens and
nutrients. Restoration of theNapa River is the subject of the
award-winning Napa River Plan. Both wastewater discharges
andagricultural diversions can negatively impact the habitat of the
Napa River. Pumping irrigation water fromgroundwater aquifers also
reduces the flow of water in the Napa River. An expanded recycled
watersystem will reduce discharge and provide an alternative water
supply. This is consistent with the NapaRiver Plan and the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards Basin Plan.While the Town draws its
primary water supply from local, state-operated Rector Reservoir,
it cansupplement this supply with State Water Project (SWP) water.
The operation of the SWP and its impacton the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta is arguably the largest regional water management
problem facingCalifornia today. An expanded recycled water project
could lessen dependence on imported water.Finally, the groundwater
in the Napa Valley is a very valuable and increasingly taxed
resource. Some ofthe Towns recycled water customers do not have any
irrigation water source besides the recycled water.The 2050 Napa
Valley Water Resources Study (Napa 2050 Study) recognizes that
expanded waterrecycling within the Napa Valley would provide an
alternative water supply and reduce demands on thelocal groundwater
basin. Recycled water is also a more sustainable and reliable
source of water than thelocal surface water, which is affected by
droughts.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study
& Facilities Planning Report 3 June 2012
10. The Town operates a small utility system with a limited
rate base of 800 customers and its efforts toresponsibly contribute
to regionally-based watershed management problems must be developed
in thecontext of being affordable and manageable in the rural
context. Specifically the Town has analyzedalternatives for
expanding the recycled water system in order to: Maximize the
recycled water supply delivered to current/future customers
Minimize discharges to the Napa River Establish a flexible system
for connecting new customers.2.2 STUDY AREAThe project study area,
illustrated in Figure 2-1, was developed to evaluate opportunities
for expandingrecycled water use within the Town and portions of
Napa County which adjoin the Town. The study areaincludes
properties that are reasonably proximate to the Towns existing
infrastructure and includes anumber of properties that have
existing, onsite seasonal water storage ponds, which can be used
tobalance recycled water supplies with potential demands.2.3
PLANNING PROCESS2.3.1 WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC OUTREACHOn August 26,
2011 the Town conducted a workshop with existing and potential
recycled water users. Atthe workshop, the Town provided an overview
of: The recycled water program including drivers for the program
and current customers Recycled water quality and allowable uses The
proposed expansion project including the need for storage and
benefits of offsettinggroundwater useCustomers expressed a general
understanding of the benefits of an expanded program and
requestedadditional information on costs.On March 23, 2012 the Town
conducted a second workshop describing alternatives, financing
methodsand potential costs shares. The Town provided and overview
of: The history and purpose of the recycled water system The
recommended project scope and benefits The existing rate structure
The proposed future rate structureThe new customers mentioned they
would only realize the benefit of a reliable water supply from
theproject for water during the period from June 1 through October
31. Based on this feedback, the Townrecognizes the need to
structure future recycled water contracts, for existing and new
customers, toprovide the opportunity for all customers to receive
some water during the summer months while stillmaximizing the use
of existing seasonal storage ponds.The existing and potential
customers seemed agreeable to the project.Town of Yountville GHD
12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning
Report4June 2012
11. Path: J:12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled
Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 2-1 Study
Area.mxd - 3:33:24 PMLegendStudy AreaTown Limits Parcel Boundary
Existing Customers Figure 2-1 Study Area Existing 6-inch
PipelineJTPVintner G.C. YOUNTVILLE Veterans Memorial Park Hi gh
way29Sile ravdo Tra il
12. 2.4DOCUMENT ORGANIZATIONThis document has been organized to
facilitate review under both the Bureau and the State
Boardsplanning grant programs. Table 2-1 outlines those
requirements and illustrates where they can be foundin this
document.Table 2-1: Document Outline Requirements and Location of
InformationReports Table of ContentsFeasibility Report (Bureau)
Facilities Plan/Project Report (State Board)1. Executive Summary
Executive Summary2. IntroductionIntroduction3. Problem and Needs
Problems and NeedsStudy Area Characteristics Research NeedsWater
Supply Characteristics and Facilities Wastewater Characteristics
and Facilities Treatment Requirements for Discharged and Reuse4.
Water Reuse Opportunities Water Reuse Opportunities Recycled Water
Market(Market Assessment)5. Project AlternativesDescription of
Alternatives Project Alternative Analysis6. Economic Analysis
Economic Analysis ofProject Alternative Analysis Alternatives7.
Recommended Project Legal and Institutional Recommended Facilities
Project RequirementsPlan Construction Financing Plan and Revenue
ProgramAppendix A Water BalancesAppendix B Cost EstimatesAppendix C
Environmental Environmental Analysis ofDocument
AlternativesAppendix D Rate StudyFinancial Capability of the Rate
Study Sponsor Construction Financing Plan and Revenue
ProgramAppendix E Recycled WaterRecycled Water Use OrdinanceUse
OrdinanceAppendix F Existing UserExisting User
AgreementsAgreementsTown of YountvilleGHD
12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report
5June 2012
13. 3. PROBLEMS AND NEEDSThe Town has undertaken this study
because it recognizes the need to optimize the use of its
waterresources. The first part of this section provides a general
overview of the study area including the localhydrologic
characteristics and water quality and land use and population
trends. The second part of thissection provides detail on water
supplies and demands and future water supply projects that may
benecessary to meet these demands. The third part provides a
similar detail on the wastewater treatmentand disposal systems. An
expanded recycled water system has the potential to meet water
demands,resolve disposal challenges and support both the economy
and the ecology of the study area.Like many agencies, the Town
describes its water supply and water demands in terms of acre-feet
(AF)and its wastewater flows and wastewater capacity in terms of
million gallons (MG). There areapproximately 3 AF in 1 MG.3.1 STUDY
AREA CHARACTERISTICSThe project study area, shown in Figure 3-1 is
in the central part of the Napa Valley and includes theTowns
incorporated area, the California Veterans Home, and unincorporated
vineyards proximate to theTowns existing recycled water
infrastructure. The study area is located in one of the most
renownedvinticultural regions in the world and the study area
includes significant agricultural land along with urbanuses that
support a tourist industry.The study area is 8 miles north of the
City of Napa, 9.5 miles south of the City of St. Helena and
straddlesboth sides of the Napa River.3.1.1 HYDROLOGIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND AMBIENT WATER QUALITYAs illustrated in Figure
3-1, the study area is located in the watershed of the Napa River,
over the NapaValley groundwater basin and in the North Bay portion
of the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. Thestudy area is
characterized by a Mediterranean climate with warm dry summers and
wet cool winters.Rain generally occurs between October and May.
January and February are usually the wettest months.The Towns
primary water supply is drawn from Rector Reservoir on Rector
Creek, a tributary to the NapaRiver. The Napa River is tributary to
the San Pablo Bay estuary, whose remaining tidal wetlands serve ina
vital ecological role as nurseries for fisheries and wintering
areas for migratory waterbirds. The BasinPlan for the San Francisco
Bay Region lists the beneficial uses of the Napa River as:
Agricultural & municipal water supply Habitat for cold and warm
water species Habitat for rare species Spawning habitat Wildlife
use Recreation use Navigation useThe Napa River is listed on the
State Water Boards 2006 303(d) impaired water bodies list as
impairedfor nutrients, pathogens and sedimentation and siltation.
The Napa County Flood Control and WaterTown of Yountville GHD
12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning
Report6June 2012
14. CO O K RD D RR YEDW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of
Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion
Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 3-1 Study Area.mxdYOUNTM
ILLRD RD SS O R CLEIL N RD TVN U YO YO FI NNSODA CANELLTRD O
ESAYNRWNA MON DELN ER JE PA LA STFN OORE FE KR R VIS FORDSO TANa p
a RNSD HO R T YOLLY UN STST iv e rStagsTSR RY BET LCIRLeapMU KOA
STN STIO SS AT MI DRWA EE LNHIN SVeteransGHGD HIN PAN WMemorialM
LAAY GTARIDGEPark CHCT29 ONST DR I ARN Clos Du Val/FOA LI
RegusciSCADA CUpgradesRWPSPRESIDENTS CIR RIDUpgrades GE CAJTPPDR
PSUpgrades DRDRIE W DVAREY Chimney VINMondaviRock SISO LN LVLANE
MARANO FFDOHO AV TRE LDRZ LN YGAT CRRAEEKRD Town LimitsTier 1
Service AreaExisting 6-inch Pipe0 900 1,800 ftFigure 3-1
www.ghd.com Study Area Parcel BoundaryTier 2 Service Area1 inch =
1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11Recycled Water PondsTier 3 Service
AreaSources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; NapaCounty GIS: Parcels, City
Limits,ProjectCartographyDateProject #Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS:
Study Streams and Rivers Area, RW Pipes, Tiers.AF
5/31/20121202711001Town of Yountville
15. Conservation District has partnered with the Army Corps of
Engineers on an ambitious multi-yearrestoration program that
intended to enhance beneficial uses, improve water quality and
reduce flooding.The Towns recycled water program generally supports
beneficial uses of the river and restoration ofecological function
through the reduction of discharges to the River.3.1.2 LAND USE
TRENDS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONSAs illustrated in Figure 3-1 the
study area includes significant agricultural development
surrounding thecompact urban development within the Town and the
Veterans Home. There is very little undevelopedproperty within the
study area.Existing agricultural uses are protected as Agricultural
Resource lands in the Napa County Land UsePlan. The Town, which was
incorporated in 1965, is generally described as built out. The Town
has apopulation of 2,900, of which 1,000 reside in the Veterans
Home of California. Because of its reputationas a high quality
visitors destination, the Town has experienced pressure for
expansion but has adoptedpolicies to restrict development to modest
expansion of local-serving businesses.3.2 WATER SUPPLYThe Town has
defined a study area that includes its municipal boundaries, the
California Department ofVeterans Affairs Yountville Veterans Home
and approximately 4,000 acres of vineyards within a five mileradius
of its existing recycled water pipelines. The study area has four
principal sources of water, besidesrecycled water. These include:
Rector Reservoir which provides primary water supply to the Town
and the Veterans Home andwhich is owned and operated by the State
of California Groundwater which provides backup municipal water
supply, irrigation water supply and frostprotection of planted
vines Napa River which provides irrigation water supply and frost
protection of planted vines The North Bay Aqueduct, which is owned
and operated by the California Department of WaterResources, and
can deliver State Water Project (SWP) supplies through an agreement
with NapaCounty Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(District) to the Town under certain typesof emergency
conditions3.2.1 RECTOR RESERVOIRThe Towns principal water supply is
Rector Reservoir on Rector Creek, This facility, which is owned
andoperated by the State of California, delivers local surface
water to the California Veterans Home and theTown for municipal
supply and to the Department of Fish & Game (DFG) for
environmental uses and afish hatchery.There have been several
studies of Rector Reservoirs capacity and safe yield. The most
recent technicalstudy by the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) in 2000 calculated the reservoir capacityto be
4,535 acre-feet. The safe yield was estimated to be 1,670 acre feet
annually (AFA) based on actualdeliveries during the 1992 drought
including 1,190 AFA in flow releases needed to meet DFGs
in-streamflow requirements. The Towns contractual capacity
allowance in Rector Reservoir is 500 AF per year.Town of
YountvilleGHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities
Planning Report7 June 2012
16. Based on safe yield reliability analyses developed by the
California Department of Water Resources(DWR), this supply is
estimated to be reduced to 125 AF per year in dry years.3.2.2STATE
WATER PROJECT WATER SUPPLYThe Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservations District (District) administers the SWP contractfor
municipalities in Napa County. Surface water is delivered by the
SWP through the North Bay Aqueduct(NBA), treated at the City of
Napas Jameson Canyon water treatment plant and delivered to
Yountvillethrough the Conn transmission main.The Town had
historically held an entitlement for a total SWP contractual amount
of 1,100 AF per year.Upon completion of its municipal well, the
Town entered into an agreement with the District to sell
thisentitlement but retain an emergency supply of 25 AF per year
(intended to provide fire or short-termsupply) and the right to be
included in the Districts dry-year water bank negotiations for an
amount up to200 AF. The Town is not guaranteed that it will receive
the 200 AF and is obligated to pay market price forthe water at the
time it is secured.3.2.3GROUNDWATERThe Town overlies the Napa
Valley groundwater subbasin, which provides municipal and
agriculturalwater supply in the area. The groundwater level data
illustrates generally stable long term trends in theSt. Helena,
Yountville, and Napa areas. Groundwater quality is generally good,
with some selected areasof elevated constituents, along the Napa
valley floor of elevated nitrates. The Town has developed
agroundwater supply system which is anticipated to yield 300 AF
annually and which is generally used as abackup to the Rector
Reservoir supply.In 2005 the District, as part of its water supply
functions, developed the 2050 Napa Valley WaterResources Study
(Napa 2050 Study) which reviewed the water supply and demand
balances formunicipal and agricultural uses in Napa County. The
Napa 2050 Study projected that the safe yield ofNapa Valley
groundwater sub-basin is 28,000 AF. The Napa 2050 Study indicates
that basin demandscould exceed supply during dry years by 6,000 AF
in 2020 and 10,000 AF in 2050.For preliminary planning purposes,
the Town estimated that the study area, which covers
approximately10-percent of the groundwater basin area, could
experience shortages of 600 to 1,000 AF (10-percent ofthe total
basin shortages). Complicating this simple estimate of potential
shortage is the fact that thegroundwater supply is subject to
geographic variability. Generally, groundwater is available west of
theNapa River but much scarcer east of the Napa River.Importantly
for the Town and agricultural water users around the Town, the Napa
2050 Study highlightsthat the groundwater resource may be unable to
meet the full range of demands placed upon it, duringdry periods in
the relatively near future.3.2.3.1 Groundwater ManagementThere are
three basic methods available for managing groundwater resources in
California:management by local agencies under authority granted in
the California Water Code or other applicable State statutes,local
government groundwater ordinances or joint powers agreements,
andcourt adjudications.Town of YountvilleGHD
12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning
Report8 June 2012