One or more Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board members may attend.
CV-SALTS Executive Committee MeetingOctober 21, 2015 – 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM
Sacramento Regional Sanitation District Offices – Valley Oak Room 10060 Goethe Rd, Sacramento 95827
Teleconference (712) 432-0360 Code: 927571#
Go-To-Meeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/473785997
Posted 10-12-15 – Revised 10-20-15
AGENDA
1) Welcome and Introductions - Chair
a) Committee Roll Call and Membership Roster -5 min.
b) Review/Approve Executive Committee Meeting Notes for September 10, 2015 – 5 min.
2) Preliminary Findings from Nitrate Implementation Measures Study (NIMS) – RichardMeyerhoff and Joe LeClaire, CDM Smith (3 hours)
Presentation and discussion of preliminary findings from NIMS study to support October 22 policy discussions
3) Set next meeting dates
− October 22nd Policy Session− November 6th Admin Meeting 1:00 PM-2:30 PM− November 18th & 19th Policy Sessions
CV-SALTS meetings are held in compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act set forth in Government Code sections 11120-11132(§ 11121(d). The public is entitled to have access to the records of the body which are posted at http://www.cvsalinity.org
PACKAGE Page 1
CV-SALTS Committee Rosters
Voters Category/Stakeholder Group Name 8-Jan 16-Jan 20-Feb 19-Mar 9-Apr 1-May 21-May 17-Jun 18-Jun 10-Jul 15-Jul 16-Jul 7-Aug 13-Aug 10-Sep 21-Oct 22-Oct
1 Central Valley Water Board Pamela Creedon ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Central Valley Water Board Jeanne Chilcott ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 State Water Resources Control Bd. Darrin Polhemus ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔3 Department of Water Resources Jose Faria
Alt Department of Water Resources Ernie Taylor ✔ ✔4 US Bureau of Reclamation Michael Mosley ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Environmental Justice Jennifer Clary ✔6 Environmental Water Quality TBD
CV Salinity Coalition1 So. San Joaquin WQC Dave Orth
Alt So. San Joaquin WQC Casey Creamer ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 City of Stockton Robert Granberg ✔3 California Cotton Growers Chris McGlothlin ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔4 City of Fresno Steve Hogg5 CA Leaque of Food Processors Trudi Hughes ✔
Alt CA Leaque of Food Processors Rob Neenan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Wine Institute Tim Schmelzer
Alt Wine Institute Chris Savage7 City of Tracy Erich Delmas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Alt City of Tracy Dale Klever ✔8 Sacramento Regional CSD Lysa Voight ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Alt Sacramento Regional CSD Carolyn Geisler-Balazs ✔ ✔ ✔9 San Joaquin Tributaries Authority Dennis Westcot ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
10 City of Modesto Gary DeJesus11 California Rice Commission Tim Johnson ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔12 City of Manteca Heather Grove ✔ ✔13 Tulare Lake Drainage/Storage District Mike Nordstrom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔14 Western Plant Health Assoc. Renee Pinel ✔ ✔ ✔15 City of Vacaville Royce Cunningham ✔16 Dairy Cares J.P. Cativiela ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Dairy Cares ALT17 Westlands Water District Jose Guiterrez ✔
Comm. Chairs/Co-chairs 1 Chair Executive Committee Parry Klassen, ESJWQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 Vice Chair Executive Committee Debbie Webster CVCWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Technical Advisory Committee Roger Reynolds, S Engr. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Technical Advisory Committee Nigel Quinn, LBL ✔ ✔
4 Public Education and Outreach Joe DiGiorgio ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Economic and Social Cost Committee David Cory, SJVDA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Lower San Joaquin River Committee Karna Harrigfeld, SEWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings During 2014-2015Executive Committee Membership
3
PACKAGE Page 2
CV-SALTS Committee Rosters
Last First Organization 8-Jan 16-Jan 20-Feb 19-Mar 9-Apr 1-May 21-May 17-Jun 18-Jun 10-Jul 15-Jul 16-Jul 7-Aug 13-Aug 10-Sep 21-Oct 22-Oct
Alexander John City of DavisArchibald Elaine CUWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Ashby Karen LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Barclay Diane SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Bell Nicole KRWCA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Boyle Dylan LSCE ✔Buford Pam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Cady Mark CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔Cehrs David KRCD ✔D'Adamo Dee Dee SWRCB ✔Dickey John Plantierra ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Doduc Tam SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔Dunham Tess Somach Simmons ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Escobar Juan DWR ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Firestone Laurel CWC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gallock Charolotte WWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gonzalez Armando Occidental Oil & Gas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gowdy Mark SWRCB,Water RightsGrovhoug Tom LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Herr Joel SystechHoudesheldt Bruce NCWA/Sac Valley WQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Johnson Jeff ChevronJohnson Michael LSJRC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Kihara Annalisa SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔Kimmelshee Joel LANDIQ ✔Kretsinger Grabert Vicki LSCE ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Laputz Adam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔LeClaire Joe CDM Smith ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Lilien Jonathan Chevron ✔Longley Karl CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔McGahan Joe SJVDA ✔Meeks Glenn CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Meyerhoff Richard CDM Smith ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Moore Tim Risk-Sciences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Nasaei Elnaz SWRCBNordberg Mark DWR ✔ O'Brien Conor CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Pirondini Tony City of Vacaville ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Pritchett Gregory Chevron ✔Pulupa Patrick CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Pitcher Jennifer West. States Petroleum ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Quasebarth Tom CDM Smith Rodgers Clay CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Seaton Phoebe CRLA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Segal Daniel Chevron ✔Stamps Alicia Kennedy/Jenks ✔Tellers Josie City of Davis ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Thomas Bill KRCD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Tillman Stephanie LANDIQ ✔Tristao Dennis J.G. Boswell ✔West Doug CDFA ✔Wichert Casey ✔
ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS:
Participant Names CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings During 2014-2015
PACKAGE Page 3
CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meeting - Summary Action Notes For September 10, 2015 – 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM
Attendees are listed on the Membership Roster AGENDA
1) Welcome and Introductions a) Executive Committee Chair Parry Klassen brought the meeting to order, and roll call was completed. b) Casey Creamer moved, and David Cory seconded, and by general acclamation the August 13th, 2015
Meeting Notes were approved. c) An updated SNMP Development Schedule was provided. The October meetings will now focus on
“Permitting Strategy for Nitrate Discharges to Groundwater.”
2) Clarifying Definitions for Key Regulatory Words and Phrases During the morning session the committee discussed “Defining: Infeasible, Impracticable or
Unreasonable”. Based on committee discussion Tim proposed revising the definitions as follows:
1. Have to address burden of proof question. Who has to make these showings? 2. Explicitly talk about the need, when making these findings, to review and reauthorize them
periodically 3. More detail on level of rigor and detail of the analysis expected. 4. For the list of factors to be considered, include citations back to precedential decisions and
other guidance used to derive those factors 5. These questions may result in different answers based on conditions. What's unreasonable,
impractical or unfeasible may change with site specific conditions. 6. Economics and costs are valid considerations in this analysis. "Ability to pay," "Effectiveness of
removal…" 7. The evaluation, especially with regard to "unreasonable" can be influenced by the alternative
being proposed. 8. Layering in risk-based resource allocation. 9. Layer in idea that feasibility/practicability have a time-based element that can affect the
finding. 10. Be very thoughtful about where already have legitimate legal authority to execute and all need
to do is make these findings, vs. where we need new authority. 11. Incorporate the concept of proportionality. The level of demonstration varies with…. 12. Separating the application of all concepts when applying as a WDR consideration, vs. a
restoration to water quality objectives. Separate for clarity. 13. Take compliance schedule off the list, so there is no mistaking we are trying to change anything
regarding compliance schedules. 14. Put in some interpretative rules, specifically when to use simple vs. complex showings. 15. Add some discussion regarding who these things will apply to, and how. Consider all potential
discharge situations where these questions might be asked. 16. Take Tam Doduc’s suggestion and try less to find precise definitions, and focus more on
describing what process to use.
3) Continue Review and Discussion of Key Definitions During the afternoon session the committee discussed the “Naturally Occurring” or “Natural
Background Concentration,” “not unreasonably affected,” and the “BPTC…” proposed definitions.
PACKAGE Page 4
− Pamela Creedon and Patrick Pulupa will provide further clarification to Tim on the “naturally occurring” and “natural background concentration” definitions.
− After a long discussion regarding how to best allocate assimilative capacity, Tim suggested to the committee that allocation of assimilative capacity may not be viable for large irrigated lands programs which might be better addressed through the exceptions policy.
4) Set next meeting date The next Admin Meeting will be October 9th. October Policy Sessions will be 10/21 (Afternoon Only),
and 10/22.
PACKAGE Page 5
10/19/2015
1
October 21, 2015
Executive Committee Policy Meeting
Nitrate Implementation Measures Study (NIMS): Preliminary Findings
Joe LeClaire, PhD
Don Schroeder, PE
Richard Meyerhoff, PhD
Agenda
1. Introduction and scope
2. Project Committee meetings
3. Groundwater prioritization
4. Scope and scale of nitrate contamination in groundwater
- Chino Basin case study: Vadose zone legacy
5. Treatment options
6. Alta Irrigation District pilot study area
7. Summary of preliminary costs and timeframes
2
PACKAGE Page 6
10/19/2015
2
Introduction and Scope
Task 1. Project Set-up and Management
Task 2. Summarize Existing or Planned Nitrate Mitigation Programs
Task 3. Develop a Proposed Phased Approach and Nitrate Performance Targets
Task 4. Define a Groundwater Prioritization Methodology
Task 5. Nitrate Implementation Measures
Task 6. Select Nitrate Implementation (Pilot Study Areas)
Task 7. Joint Nitrate and Salt Implementation Measures
Task 8. Prepare a Nitrate Implementation Measures Technical Memorandum
3
Project Committee Meetings
4
PACKAGE Page 7
10/19/2015
3
Project Committee Meeting No. 1September 8, 2015
• Potential performance targets for nitrate
– Background. What is background?
– Best reasonable water quality: fraction of the maximum contaminant level (MCL)
– Or some combination of the above
• What area could be used for the pilot study?
5
Project Committee Meeting No. 1Outcome/Direction
• The following nitrate performance targets will be included in the treatment and
economic analysis: 2, 4, 8, and 10 mg/L.
• To the extent that data allow, CDM Smith will estimate nitrate remediation costs for
the Central Valley floor using methodologies and assumptions similar to that used
by UC Davis’s nitrate study. This will provide a concept-level comparison of
treatment costs for the range of nitrate performance targets.
• In addition, a pilot study area will be evaluated in greater detail – a range of nitrate
implementation measures will be reviewed that would be specific to the study area
and more detailed cost estimates will be developed for that area. The area proposed
and later confirmed is the Alta Irrigation District (AID).
6
PACKAGE Page 8
10/19/2015
4
Project Committee Meeting No. 1Outcome/Direction
• To the extent that data allow, CDM Smith will evaluate remediation timeframes
within the context of the range of performance targets and determine their
potential impacts to concept-level costs for the pilot study area.
• At this time, CDM Smith will plan to conduct its analyses based on wells that fall
within the production zone, where the beneficial uses occur. This approach will be
re-evaluated if needed given other ongoing CV-SALTS work to define the production
zone.
7
Project Committee Meeting No. 2October 15, 2015
8
• PC Committee members reviewed NIMS presentation
• Input and suggestions were incorporated into this presentation
PACKAGE Page 9
10/19/2015
5
IAZ Prioritization
9
Nitrate Prioritization Mapby IAZs
10
• Ambient nitrate concentration
• Nitrate loading
• Nitrate concentration trend
• CASGEM ranking
• Population
Ambient concentration data source: CV-SALTS Database.
Nitrate loading and concentration trend: LWA team
CASGEM ranking: DWR
Population: DWR
PACKAGE Page 10
10/19/2015
6
TDS Prioritization Mapby IAZs
11
• Ambient TDS concentration
• TDS loading
• TDS concentration trend
• CASGEM ranking
• Population
Ambient concentration data source: CV-SALTS Database.
TDS loading and concentration trend: LWA team
CASGEM ranking: DWR
Population: DWR
Combined Nitrate & TDS Prioritization Mapby IAZs
12
• Ambient nitrate concentration
• Nitrate loading
• Nitrate concentration trend
• Ambient TDS concentration
• TDS loading
• TDS concentration trend
• CASGEM ranking
• Population
Ambient concentration data source: CV-SALTS Database.
Loading and concentration trend: LWA team
CASGEM ranking: DWR
Population: DWR
PACKAGE Page 11
10/19/2015
7
Scope and Scale of Nitrate Contamination
in Groundwater
13
Characterizing the Scope and Scale of
Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater
• What is the estimated number of wells where average nitrate-nitrogen
concentration exceeds 10 mg/L?
– Total (by IAZ)
– % of all wells in the IAZ
• What is the estimated volume of groundwater that exceeds 10 mg/L
nitrate-nitrogen?
– Total acre-feet (by IAZ)
– % of total groundwater storage in the production zone
14
PACKAGE Page 12
10/19/2015
8
Nitrate in Shallow Wells2003 - 2014
15Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.
Nitrate in Deep Wells2003 - 2014
Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.
Percentage of Deep Wells where Nitrate Exceeds 5 and 10 mg/L
16
• 2951 of 15,252 deep wells
have exceeded 10 mg/L – 19
percent
• 5310 of 15,252 deep wells
have exceeded 5 mg/L – 35
percent
• In the Southern Kings Basin, 30
percent of wells exceeded 10
mg/L and 51 percent exceeded
5 mg/L
Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.
PACKAGE Page 13
10/19/2015
9
1 SQ Mile 2 SQ Mile 4 SQ Mile 6 SQ Mile 8 SQ Mile
9 SQ Mile 10 SQ Mile 12 SQ Mile 14 SQ Mile 16 SQ Mile
181 SQ Mile 16 SQ Mile
PACKAGE Page 14
10/19/2015
10
Percentage of Groundwater in Storage where
Nitrate Exceeds 5 and 10 mg/L in the Deep Zone
19
• 40 MAF out of 401 MAF in
the deep zone have exceeded
10 mg/L – 10 percent
• 97 MAF out of 401 MAF in
the deep zone have exceeded
5 mg/L – 24 percent
• In the Southern Kings Basin,
17 percent of groundwater
storage in the deep zone
exceeded 10 mg/L and 44
percent exceeded 5 mg/L
Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.
Characterizing the Scope and Scale of
Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater
• What is the estimated number of wells where average nitrate-nitrogen
concentration exceeds 10 mg/L?
– Total (by IAZ): 2951 of 15,252 deep wells; 1927 of 6579 shallow wells
– Percent of all wells in the IAZ: 19 percent of deep wells; 29 percent of shallow wells
• What is the estimated volume of groundwater that exceeds 10 mg/L nitrate-
nitrogen?
– Total acre-feet (by IAZ): 40 MAF out of 401 MAF in the deep zone; 54 MAF out of 235
MAF in the shallow zone
– Percent of total groundwater storage in the production zone: 10 percent of the deep
zone; 23 percent of the shallow zone
20
PACKAGE Page 15
10/19/2015
11
Concept-Level Nitrate Remediation Costs
• Minimum Central Valley-wide costs for nitrate mitigation – treatment only
• Using methodologies and assumptions similar to that used by UC Davis’s nitrate study
– Doesn’t account for vadose zone nitrate
– Treatment costs only (no pumping/brine disposal, etc.)
21
Scenario > 10 mg/L > 5 mg/L > 10 mg/L > 5 mg/L
Volume Treated 94 MAF 202 MAF 94 MAF 202 MAF
Annualized Cost per Unit 1.18 $/kgal 1.18 $/kgal 2.63 $kgal 2.63 $kgal
Total Annualized Cost $ 36B $ 78B $ 81B $ 173B
Biological
DenitrificationCombined RO/IX
Source of annualized cost: King et al., 2012. Groundwater
Remediation and Management for Nitrate
Chino Desalter Authority: Vadose Zone LegacyChino Basin, CA
22
PACKAGE Page 16
10/19/2015
12
Characterizing the Scope and Scale of
Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater – Vadose Zone Legacy
• Vadose-zone nitrate
– What is the estimated nitrate-nitrogen load moving through the vadose zone (by
IAZ)?
– What is the estimated number of years required to purge vadose zone of excess
nitrate?
23
Case Study
Chino Desalter Authority: Vadose Zone Legacy
• Began operation in 2001
• 306,000 AF extracted
• Average nitrate-N extracted is 18 to 50 mg/L
• Total nitrate-N removed is 15,300 tons
24
• Provides hydraulic control to protect downgradient beneficial uses, which
is a requirement of the 2004 Region 8 basin plan amendment
• Serves water to several local agencies for potable supply
Source: Chino Basin Desalter Authority. Pers. Comm.
PACKAGE Page 17
10/19/2015
13
Case Study: Chino Desalter
Authority
• Chino Basin is about 238 square miles
• Alta Irrigation District pilot study area is about 209 square miles
• Confined animal feeding operations near the downgradient portion of the basin/area
25
Source of AID Shapefile: LWA Team
Source of Chino Basin Shapefile: Chino Basin Watermaster.
Case Study: Chino Desalter Authority
26
(AF) (mg/L) (mg/L) (tons) (AF) (mg/L) (mg/L) (tons) (AF) (tons)
2001 8,723 50 4.5 589 8,723 589
2002 9,948 50 4.5 672 9,948 672
2003 10,522 50 4.5 711 10,522 711
2004 10,230 50 4.5 691 10,230 691
2005 11,821 50 4.5 799 11,821 799
2006 13,673 50 4.5 924 8,987 18.1 5.0 221 22,660 1,145
2007 14,335 50 4.5 969 15,251 18.1 5.0 375 29,586 1,343
2008 15,421 50 4.5 1,042 14,600 18.1 5.0 359 30,021 1,401
2009 14,719 50 4.5 995 12,914 18.1 5.0 317 27,633 1,312
2010 14,492 50 4.5 979 14,828 18.1 5.0 364 29,320 1,344
2011 14,768 50 4.5 998 14,337 18.1 5.0 352 29,105 1,350
2012 14,887 50 4.5 1,006 13,584 18.1 5.0 334 28,471 1,340
2013 13,832 50 4.5 935 13,988 18.1 5.0 344 27,820 1,278
2014 13,759 50 4.5 930 16,173 18.1 5.0 397 29,932 1,327
Totals 181,130 12,239 124,662 3,063 305,792 15,302
Chino Desalters
Groundwater
Extracted
Chino 1 Chino 2
Year Production ProductionNitrate-N
Influent
Nitrate-N
Effluent
Nitrate-N
Extracted
Nitrate-N
Influent
Nitrate-N
Effluent
Nitrate-N
Extracted
Nitrate-N
Extracted
Source: Chino Basin Desalter Authority. Pers. Comm.
PACKAGE Page 18
10/19/2015
14
Case Study: Chino Desalter Authority
• Reverse Osmosis/Ion exchange
• Capital costs over 15 years for Chino I and II are approximately $160M
• The Phase 3 Expansion Project will add about $145M in capital costs
• Recent O&M budgets have been approximately $21M
27Source: Chino Basin Desalter Authority. Pers. Comm.
Nitrate in
Chino Basin
1998 to 2002
28
Source: Chino Basin Watermaster.
State of the Basin Report
PACKAGE Page 19
10/19/2015
15
Nitrate in
Chino Basin
2009 to 2014
29
Source: Chino Basin Watermaster.
State of the Basin Report
Treatment Options
30
PACKAGE Page 20
10/19/2015
16
Remediation Technologies Matrix
31
Technology Technology Description
Technology Comparison
(Unfavorable (-), Uncertain (+/-), Favorable (+) or Very Favorable (++)) Technology Applicability
Costs Time Permitting Waste GW ImpactsNitrate Concentration
System Size Contaminant Depth TDS
Aquifer
Permeability Reuse
Total Cost Capital Cost O&M Cost
Remediation
Timeframe
Ease of
Permitting
Amount Waste
Generated
Potential for
Secondary
Impacts to
Groundwater
Low (<10
mg-N/L)
High (>10 mg-
N/L)
Very Small and
Small Systems
(< 0.25 MGD)
Medium
Systems (0.25
to 1 MGD)
Large Systems
(>1 MGD)
Shallow
(<30 ft bgs)
Deep
(> 30 ft bgs)
Very Deep
(> 100 ft bgs) High TDS Water
Low Permeability/
Heterogeneous
Aquifers Nutrient Reuse
Non-Potable Water
Reuse
Potable Water
Reuse
Reverse Osmosis with Brine
Disposal to Brine Line
Pump water to surface, through RO
membranes; pipe brine to brine line- - - - + - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + +
Reverse Osmosis with Brine
Concentration and Evaporation
Pump water to surface, through RO
membranes; pipe brine to evaporation
pond
- - - - + - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + +
Disposable Ion ExchangePump water to surface, through IX resin;
Landfill or incinerate resin when exhausted+/- +/- +/- - ++ - + + - + +/- - + + + - NA - + +
Regenerable Ion Exchange with
Brine Discharge to Brine Line
Pump water to surface, through IX resin;
Regenerate resin, pipe waste to brine line+/- - +/- - + - + + + - + + + + + - NA - + +
Regenerable Ion Exchange with
Brine Concentration and
Evaporation
Pump water to surface, through IX resin;
Regenerate resin, pipe waste to
evaporation pond+/- +/- +/- - ++ - + + + - + +/- + + + - NA - + +
Anoxic Fluidized Bed Bioreactor
Pump water to surface and treat using an
anoxic fluidized bed bioreactor that uses
bacteria to reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas.
Treated water can be re-injected to
promote in situ biodegradation.
+ + + + +/- + + - + + + +/- + + + - NA - + +
Anoxic Fixed Bed Bioreactor
Pump water to surface and treat using an
anoxic fixed bed bioreactor that uses
bacteria to reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas.
Treated water can be re-injected to
promote in situ biodegradation.
+ + + + +/- + + - + + + +/- + + + - NA - + +
Extraction without Treatment
Followed Crop Irrigation
Pump water to surface, surface spread onto
crops++ ++ ++ +/- +/- ++ ++ + + + +/- - + + + - NA + + -
Electrodialysis Reversal with Brine
Disposal to Brine Line
Pump water to surface, through EDR
system, pipe concentrate to brine line- - - - + - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + -
Electrodialysis Reversal with Brine
Concentration and Evaporation
Pump water to surface, through EDR
system, send brine to evap ponds- - - - ++ - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + -
Phytoremediation
Install plants or trees (e.g., poplars) for
nitrate uptake from soil and shallow
groundwater+ + ++ +/- ++ ++ ++ + + + - - + +/- - - + + - -
Permeable Reactive Mulch
Biobarrier
Dig a trench transverse to groundwater
flow and fill with sand and mulch. Anoxic
conditions develop resulting in reduction of
nitrate to nitrogen gas.
+ + ++ +/- + ++ - + + + +/- - + - - - + - - -
Permeable Reactive Biobarrier with
Injected Slow-Release Electron
Donor
Inject substrate into aquifer downgradient
of nitrate, allow groundwater to flow across+ + ++ +/- + ++ - + + + +/- - + + - - +/- - - -
Permeable Reactive Biobarrier with
Continuously Injected and
Recirculated Electron Donor
Install groundwater extraction and injection
wells to create capture zone, add substrate
to water prior to injection- - - +/- + ++ - + + + +/- - + + - - +/- - - -
Groundwater Diversion Using
Impermeable Cut-Off Walls
Excavate and install impermeable barriers,
directing groundwater flow around nitrate
plume+/- - + +/- + ++ + + + + +/- - + +/- - + + - - -
Groundwater Diversion Using
French Drains
Excavate and install trenches with french
drains thus directing clean water around
nitrate-impacted groundwater zones+/- - + - + ++ + + + + +/- - + +/- - + + - - -
Source Treatment and Monitored
Natural Attenuation
Remove high concentration sources of
nitrate contamination using in situ
bioremediation and then allow residual
nitrate to be biodegraded naturally.
+ - ++ +/- + ++ - + +/- + +/- - + + + - +/- - - -
Groundwater Diversion and
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Install impermeable barriers such as sheet
pile or soldier piles thus directing clean
groundwater flow around nitrate-
contaminated groundwater. Allow nitrate
within contained area to biodegrade
naturally
+ - + +/- + ++ +/- +/- +/- + +/- - + +/- - - + - - -
Source Bioremediation Using Slow-
Release Electron Donor Injection
Periodically inject slowly biodegradable
organic compound (such as emulsified
vegetable oil) into aquifer at or up-gradient
of contamination to stimulate
denitrification of nitrate to nitrogen gas
+ +/- ++ ++ + ++ - + + + +/- - + + + - - - - -
Source Bioremediation Using Fast-
Release Electron Donor Injection
and Recirculation
Continuously inject quickly biodegradable
organic compound (such as molasses) into
aquifer at or up-gradient of contamination
to stimulate denitrification of nitrate to
nitrogen gas
+ +/- + ++ + ++ - + + + +/- - + + + - - - - -
LJP1
Technology Summary
• Ion Exchange (IX)
– Pro: Good for drinking water
– Con: Expensive at high nitrate
concentrations, creates waste
• Reverse Osmosis (RO)
– Pro: Good for drinking water
– Con: High energy costs, creates waste
• Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR)
– Pro: Good for high nitrate water
– Con: High energy and capital costs,
creates waste
• Biological Vessels
– Pro: Good for high nitrate water
– Con: Less accepted for drinking water
treatment
• Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs)
– Pro: Low cost, good for high nitrate
concentrations
– Con: Cannot be used for deep
contamination, slow
32
PACKAGE Page 21
Slide 31
LJP1 LeClaire, Joseph P., 10/15/2015
PACKAGE Page 22
10/19/2015
17
Alta Irrigation District Pilot Study Area
33
Alta Irrigation District Pilot Study Area
• Current Conditions
• Remediation
– Scenario 1. Pump, Treat, and Reinject on MZ-Scale
– Scenario 2. Pump, Treat, and Serve to Meet Potable Demands
• Subscenarios 2a, 2b, and 2c
– Scenario 3. Point Source-Scale (POTW): Pump, Treat, and Reinject
– Scenario 4. Pump and Fertilize
• Timeframe, Costs, and Protection of Public Health
34
PACKAGE Page 23
10/19/2015
18
Alta Irrigation District Pilot Study Area
Current Conditions
35
Alta Irrigation District Pilot Study Area
36
• AID is about 209 square miles – about the size of Chino Basin the Santa Ana Watershed (238 square miles).
• Located in Tulare, Fresno and a portion of Kings Counties.
• AID serves surface water from the Kings River via releases from Pine Flat Dam.
• The AID lies entirely within the Southern Kings IAZ.
PACKAGE Page 24
10/19/2015
19
Groundwater
Elevation Map
37
Source: Kings River Conservation District. 2014. Kings River
Service Area. Annual Groundwater Report.
• Groundwater flow direction is to the southeast.
• Mountain front recharge occurs along the Sierra foothills.
• Recharge from deep percolation of applied irrigation water and from streambed recharge.
Depth to Water Map
38
Source: Kings River Conservation District. 2014. Kings River
Service Area. Annual Groundwater Report.
Source of groundwater data: CV-SALTS database.
• Depth to water ranges from 20 to 120 feet bgs
• Deeper depth to first-encountered groundwater to the southeastern portion of the basin, following alluvial fill.
• East Orosi may be a candidate for PRBs, because the depth to water is relatively shallow (40 to 60 feet bgs) and the groundwater concentrations are relatively high (in some cases, greater than 40 mg/L).
PACKAGE Page 25
10/19/2015
20
39
Land use data source: LWA Team
AID: Irrigated and
Non-Irrigated Lands
Irrigated Vs. Non-
Irrigated
Total Area
(Acre)% Area
Irrigated 4,313,994 82.2%
Non-Irrigated 937,616 17.8%
Total 5,251,611
Agriculture – 66.6%
Deciduous Fruits & Nuts – 25.1%
Grain and Hay – 11%
Field Crops – 9.1%
Vineyards – 8.6%
Native – 23.3%
Urban – 6.6%
Semi Agricultural – 3.5%
40
Land use data source: LWA Team
AID: Land Use
PACKAGE Page 26
10/19/2015
21
Wells by Type/Use
41
• Well type/use information from the CV-
SALTS database.
• “CDPH” wells are community water
system wells.
• “Water Supply” and “Agricultural” wells
are likely irrigation wells.
• Need to better identify private domestic
wells – public health concern.
Nitrate in Shallow Wells2003 - 2014
42
Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.
• Few wells designated shallow in the CV-SALTS
database.
• Groundwater nitrate concentrations are high
along the southern portion of the AID where
there are a number of CAFOs.
• Highest wells have concentrations greater than
80 mg/L.
PACKAGE Page 27
10/19/2015
22
Nitrate in Deep Wells2003 - 2014
43
Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.Source: Kings River Conservation District. 2014. Kings River
Service Area. Annual Groundwater Report.
• Similar to the shallow zone, wells in the deeper
zone exhibit greater concentrations of nitrate
near in the southern portion of the study area
where there are higher concentrations of CAFOs.
• Larger communities, e.g., Reedley and Dinuba
have been able to manage water supply nitrate
by drilling deeper wells.
Remediation Scenarios
44
• Scenario 1. Pump, Treat, and Reinject on MZ-Scale
• Scenario 2. Pump, Treat, and Serve to Meet Potable Demands
• Subscenarios 2a, 2b, 2c
• Scenario 3. Point Source-Scale (POTW) Pump, Treat, and Reinject
• Scenario 4. Pump and Fertilize (under development)
PACKAGE Page 28
10/19/2015
23
Remediation Scenario 1.
Pump, Treat, and Reinject on MZ-Scale
45
• Description• Groundwater at ambient concentrations
• Remediation pumping at twice the current production rate to meet potable
demands.
• Water treated to 1 mg/L and reinjected.
• Assumptions• No subsurface inflows or outflows.
• No contribution from vadose zone.
1 SQ Mile 2 SQ Mile 4 SQ Mile 6 SQ Mile 8 SQ Mile
9 SQ Mile 10 SQ Mile 12 SQ Mile 14 SQ Mile 16 SQ Mile
PACKAGE Page 29
10/19/2015
24
Alta Irrigation District Pilot Study Area
Volume -Weighted Average Nitrate Concentration
47
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Av
era
ge
NO
3-N
(m
g/L
)
Grid Size
Alta Irrigation District
Average Nitrate
Scenario 1: Pump, Treat, and Reinject at MZ-Scale
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 50 100 150 200
Nit
rate
as
N (
mg
/L)
Years
Pump, Treat, and Re-Inject - MZ Scale
48
• Outcome• Below 10 mg/L – 38 years
• Below 8 mg/L – 83 years
• Below 5 mg/L – 195 years
• Below 4 mg/L > 200 years
PACKAGE Page 30
10/19/2015
25
Remediation Scenario 2.
Pump, Treat, and Serve Water to Meet Potable Demands
49
• Description• Groundwater at ambient concentrations
• Pump and treat and serve to communities within the Alta Irrigation District
• Pump in areas of high nitrate concentrations
• Subscenario 3a. Three regional systems.
• Subscenario 3b. One central system, one regional system
• Subscenario 3c. Two regional systems. Wellhead treatment for small
communities.
• Permeable reactive barriers near East Orosi and deep well injection/in situ
remediation south of Dinuba also analyzed.
Communities within AID
50
Area Elevation DensityWater
Demand
(square
miles)feet MSL
Persons/
Square MileAF
Reedley Fresno 5.156 348 24,194 Large 4,692 4,839
Dinuba Tulare 6.47 335 21,453 Large 3,316 4,291
Orosi Tulare 2.446 374 8,770 Medium 3,585 1,754
Cutler Tulare 0.807 361 5,000 Medium 6,196 1,000
London Tulare 0.629 299 1,869 Small 2,971 374
Sultana Tulare 0.444 364 775 Small 1,745 155
Traver Tulare 0.843 289 713 Small 846 143
East Orosi Tulare 0.248 394 495 V. Small 1,996 99
Seville Tulare 0.636 354 480 V. Small 755 96
Delft Colony Tulare 0.066 312 454 V. Small 6,879 91
Yettem Tulare 0.153 348 211 V. Small 1,379 42
Monson Tulare 0.492 325 188 V. Small 382 38
Totals/Avg 18.39 64,602 3,513 12,920
Community County PopulationEPA System
Classification
PACKAGE Page 31
10/19/2015
26
Nitrate in Deep Wells2003 - 2014
51
Water Quality Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.
Land Use Data Source: LWA Team
Scenario 2a: Pump, Treat,
and Serve for Potable Supply
52
• Three regional systems
– Traver, London, Delft Colony: 800 AFY
– Monson, Yettum, Seville: 250 AFY
• Add Dinuba: 4500 AFY
– East Orosi, Orosi, Sultana, Cutler: 4000
AFY
PACKAGE Page 32
10/19/2015
27
53
• One central system
– Traver, London, Delft Colony, Monson,
Yettum, Seville, Dinuba: 5550 AFY
• One regional system
– East Orosi, Orosi, Sultana, Cutler: 4000
AFY
Scenario 2b: Pump, Treat,
and Serve for Potable Supply
54
• Two regional systems:
– East Orosi, Orosi, Sultana, Cutler: 4000
AFY)
– Dinuba: 4500 AFY
• Well head treatment/small IX units
– Traver, London, Delft Colony, Monson,
Yettum, Seville
Scenario 2c: Pump, Treat,
and Serve for Potable Supply
PACKAGE Page 33
10/19/2015
28
Remediation Scenario 3.Point Source-Scale (POTW) Pump, Treat, and Reinject
55
• Description• Pump and treat high nitrate water from a plume.
• Assume historical discharges – 2 mgd at 25 mg/L nitrate
• Analyze reducing nitrate in discharge to 10 mg/L
• Analyze pumping an irrigated off-site
• Analyze pumping and reinjecting
Scenario 3: Pump, Treat, Reinject
at POTW Scale
56
• Current discharge about 2 mgd
• 88 acres of discharge ponds
• In the past, nitrate in effluent as
high as 50 mg/L.
PACKAGE Page 34
10/19/2015
29
Nitrate Time-Series
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2014
NO
3-N
(m
g/L
)
Year
City of Dinuba Wells
Nitrate Concenration Time Series
57
0
5
10
15
20
25
-100 -50 0 50 100
Nit
rate
as
N (
mg
/L)
Years
0
5
10
15
20
25
-100 -50 0 50 100
Nit
rate
as
N (
mg
/L)
Years
0
5
10
15
20
25
-100 -50 0 50 100
Nit
rate
as
N (
mg
/L)
Years
Nitrate-N POTW: Source Control
58
A B
C D
A – Two mgd of POTW discharge at 25 mg/L. No inflow, outflow = 25 mgd.
B – Same as A, with inflow at 2 mg/L, then 6 mg/L
C – Same as A, but nitrate in discharge reduced from 25 to 10 mg/L
D- Same as C, with inflow
Inflow – subsurface inflow of groundwater
Outflow – subsurface outflow of groundwater
0
5
10
15
20
25
-100 -50 0 50 100
Nit
rate
as
N (
mg
/L)
Years
PACKAGE Page 35
10/19/2015
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
-100 -50 0 50 100
Nit
rate
as
N (
mg
/L)
Years
POTW - Reduce N Discharge
Extraction + Additional Groundwater Inflow
Extraction + Injection
Nitrate-N POTW: Source Control and
Active Aquifer Restoration
59
DE
F
D – Same as D on the previous
slide
E – Same as D, with
groundwater extraction at
1500 gpm, beginning in year
0. Water use off-site
(irrigation)
F – Same as E, but re-injecting
the treated water with a
nitrate concentration of 1
mg/L.
Remediation Scenario 4.Point Source-Scale (POTW) Pump, Treat, and Reinject
60
• Description• Pump and fertilize – targeting groundwater with high nitrate concentrations.
• Pump and fertilize is more a source control measure than a remediation
option.
• Reduces nitrate flux to groundwater, but does not ultimately remove (net)
mass of nitrate from groundwater.
• This scenario is still in development and analysis.
PACKAGE Page 36
10/19/2015
31
Timeframe, Costs, and Protection of Public Health
• In development
61
Next Steps
• Complete technical work/analyses
– Consider other scenarios
• Stormwater recharge
• Fallowing
• Translate findings into implementation measures for the SNMP
• Integration with SSALTS implementation measures
• The goal is to discuss salt and nitrate implementation measures at the
November policy meeting
• Prepare draft technical memorandum (mid-December to project
committee)
62
PACKAGE Page 37
10/19/2015
32
63
Questions?
64
PACKAGE Page 38
CV-SALTS Meeting Calendar
1 2 3 Light Red conflicts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 1 2 3 2nd or 3rd Thursdays
2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dark Green Exec Comm Policy
3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Fridays at 1:00 pm
5 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 9 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Lt. Green Hatch Exec Comm Admin
14 29 30 31
Yellow Salty 5
4 5 6 Lower SJ River Committee
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat TAC Meeting
14 1 2 3 4 18 1 2 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 1-May
15 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Regional Board Presents 4-16/17
17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State Board Presentation 1/20/15
18 26 27 28 29 30 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30
23 31 Wednesday Meetings are DRAFT
May be held by Webinar or
7 8 9 in person in Sacramento
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat June 17th Held at Farm Bureau
27 1 2 3 4 31 1 36 1 2 3 4 5
28 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 37 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
29 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 33 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 38 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
30 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 39 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
31 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 40 27 28 29 30
36 30 31
10 11 12
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
40 1 2 3 49 1 2 3 4 5
41 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
42 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 46 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 51 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
43 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 47 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 52 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
44 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 48 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53 27 28 29 30 31
49 29 30
Notes
January February March
April May June
September
October November December
2015
July August
PACKAGE Page 39