Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-1074 - Adams & Brookhurst property report on wells Nos. 13 & 15CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER February 2, 1967 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: JAMES M. MONTGOMERY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON FUTURE SOURCES OF WATER In 1964 the City Council authorized James M. Montgomery - Consult- ing Engineers, Inc. to prepare a supplemental report on future sources of water. This was supplemental to a report originally prepared in February of 1962, entitled "Report on Future Sources of Water." As a result of changes which were taking place in the personnel staff of both the City and the consulting firm, the report got sidetracked. During the past year and one -half no effort has been made to expedite this study because of other considerations, such as impending desalinization programs, etc. Our recent study on the Brookhurst and Adams property has now prompted completion of the report which I am forwarding to you. This report has considerable bearing on the question of the Brookhurst $ Adams analysis and should be read in conjunction with that report. ea_L: Ei MBURT JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 555 EAST WALNUT STREET. PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 111101 law ' e.LEPHON ES 793.7125 AND 9515515 ' JAMES M. MONTGOMERY JOHN R. FEE RUSSELL C. KENMIR R. DEWEY DICKSON WILLIAM W. AULTMAN A. GENE RHEAULT WILLIAM J. CARROLL JR, PAUL V. HENNESSY January 13, 1967 EARL S. WAGNER ' WILLIAM D. MATHIS DU WAYNE R. LIDKE WILLIAM H. BLACKMER CARLOS M. CAMPUZANO BRIAN G. STONE CARL A. RAMBOW RICHARD S. HOLMGREN, JR, MILES E. WOLLAM ALAN U. PALO RICHARD S. LELAND ' City of Newport Beach EDWARD A. LA BAHN JOHN G. EGAN JOHN E. WARD LORNE E. SWANSON WILFRIED F. LANGER NORBERT SCHNEIDER 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard PHILIP GATSOULIS MIKE Y. LEE Newport Beach, California ' Attention: Mr. Joseph T. Devlin Director of Public Works ' Gentlemen: ' Attached is a supplemental report updating our "REPORT ON FUTURE SOURCES OF WATER, FEBRUARY 1962. " This report is submitted under the terms of our letter agreement. Submittal of the report has been withheld ' until now pending studies of the construction of a barrier to sea water incur- sion by the Orange County Water District and the completion of studies on the ! feasibility of utilizing waste water from the Orange County Sanitation Districts ' Plant No. 1 as a source of water to operate this barrier. Final determination has not been made on these two projects. It has been established that it is feasible and possible to use reclaimed water to operate injection wells for a coastal barrier. This decision is a function of water pricing policy and availability of the Metropolitan Water District water, and ' also on the future costs of Northern California water. It is felt that enough information exists to assure Newport Beach of the ' adequacy of the supply available to Orange County at this time, and therefore the report is submitted prior to resolving the above - mentioned problems. ' Very truly yours, Paul V. Hennessy Vice President Russell C. Kenmir President 1 ' R E P 0 R T 5... V A L U A T 1 0 N 5 ... P L A N 5 A N D 5 P E C I F I C A T I O N 8 1 1 1 S U P E R V I S 1 0 N SUMMARY The most significant changes in the future of water supply to Newport Beach since the 1962 report are the apparent forthcoming sea water conversion plant to be constructed by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the planned construction of a sea water barrier by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) in the Santa Ana Gap, In the past, all serious planning for water supply has revolved around a fixed supply of imported water andthe planning has been concerned with establishing an equitable distribution of water from this source. For the first time in Southern California, a new source of supply is to become available, !, In conjunction with nuclear power generation, a 150 -mgd desalting plant will be built by the MWD. This plant will provide a water source totally within and under the control of the MWD. The plant is scheduled to be completed in 1972, ' This is the same year Northern California water will be available in Orange County, Therefore, the presence of this plant will have no effect on the short (10 year) water plans of Newport Beach, The construction of the sea water barrier in the Talbert Gap has the effect of converting the ground water supply from potential storage to actual storage, which provides a highly desirable seasonal storage reservoir to the many cities in the District. In the event of a prolonged drought, a catastrophe, or a setback in Northern California water deliveries, this source of supply will be available to offset the shortage, and the intense competition for water that might be available in the MWD system, In summary, the problem is this; Newport Beachas part of Coastal Municipal Water District is a member of the Metropolitan Watcr District, As the future of water supply to MWD goes, so goes the future of water supply in Newport Beach, At the present time, every water agency in the southwest is striving to secure enough water to meet the anticipated demands of its consumers, The State Water Project, the improvement of the Owens River Aqueduct, and the construction of a seawater conversion plant, should sustain Southern California until about 1990. This is so even withthe most severe impairment of Metropo- litan's supply from the Colorado River, With addition of perhaps as much as 1 million acre -feet of ground water storage available to Orange County, it is our opinion that there will be no shortage of water in Southern California until 1990, and consequently no problem with future supply to the City of Newport Beach, To attain ultimate use of imported water and water in storage in the lower Santa Ana River Basin will require regulation and management of all water facilities in Orange County, Newport Beach should embrace any valid program of water conservation, waste water reuse or basin operation, Means -1- 1 i I. 1' I, by which the water presently in storage in underground aquifers of the Santa Ana River Basin can be used inanexchange agreement with adjacent cities or directly by Newport Beach should be explored, -z- ' GENERAL ' This report updates the "Report on Future Sources of Water" for the City of Newport Beach, California, submitted in February 1962 by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., Pasadena, California. The City of Newport Beach continues to grow as the phenomenal population in- crease of Southern California continues. Since April 1960, the City population ' has increased atanaverage rate of 170 new residents per month, and generally this growth has been accompanied by an increase in the per capita per day water consumption. This problem is not unique with Newport Beach. Every ' southern California community is being forced to cope with the problem of an ever increasing demand for water from somewhat fixed sources of supply, i.e., imported Colorado River water and limited ground water supplies. This fact ' in essence places all water purveyors in the coastal plain in a relationship of interdependence, despite political and minor geographic boundaries. There is also, in a sense, competition for the water that is available, and this tends to ' modify the water supply picture as time passes. For these reasons, it is bene- ficial to review the adequacy of existing systems and to reevaluate current long range planning. The intent of this report is to review changes in water ' policy, locally and regionally, and to interpret these changes as they may relate to Newport Beach. ' POPULATION ' Since June 1961 the population of Newport Beach has increased from 28,500 persons to an estimated 37,000 persons in June 1965. The development of the Irvine Ranch properties which logically may be annexed to the City has just begun. It is anticipated that as this area grows the population of Newport Beach will increase to 52,400 persons by 1970, and to 68,900 persons by 1975. The ultimate population expected by the Irvine Ranch planners is estimated to be 40,000 on annexable Ranch lands, Coupling this population with the anticipated growth within the existing City boundaries, through development of high -rise complexes and redevelopment of some of the low- density areas, the ultimate population is expected to be approximately 95,000 by 1985. PROJECTED WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR NEWPORT BEACH ' A review of per capita water use was made analyzing the estimated population, projected standard of living, and historic water consumptionver sus population. ' An analysis of water purchased from MWD indicated that the per capita consumption in Newport Beach during the fiscal year 1961 -1962 was 180 -3- gallons, in 1962 -1963, the use was 185 gallons, and in 1963 -1964 the rate of consumption was 100 gallons per capita per day. These figures include amounts of "unaccounted" water consumed by reservoir evaporation, transmissionand distribution main losses and unmetered municipal uses. To plan conservatively ' for future water requirements, an average annual increase in per capita use per day must be assumed until water pricing policies are revised and the trend to ever - increasing water use is slowed, or reversed. The figures in Table I ' include estimates to allow for heavy influx of tourists during holiday periods. The 1961 report estimates a use of 205 gallons per capita per day for that year; however, subsequent to that report, it has been determined that only ' 6,100 acre -feet were consumed or an average use of 180 gallons per day. Table I shows historic and projected population for Newport Beach, with historic and projected water requirements to 1975. ' TABLE I I Colorado River, as a result of the "Rifkind Decision" and subsequent rejection of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Currentlythe MWD entitlement is a firm 550,000 acre -feet annually, or a reduction of 660,000 acre -feet. The reduction ' prompted MWD to exercise an option with the State of California to increase their contracted deliveries of Northern California water from 1.5 million acre- -4- WATER REQUIREMENTS Year Population Per Capita Water Use Water Requirements ' (gpcpd) (ac- ft /Yr) 1961 -62 30,382 180 6,100 1963 -64 32,213 185 6,700 1963 -64 34,683 200 7,750 1964 -65 37,020 195 8,000 1970 52,400 Z15 12,600 ' 1975 68,900 220 17,000 With the exception of intensification of land development within the existing ' City, the increased demand for water will be directly related to the rate at which the Irvine Company elects to develop its annexable lands. SOURCES OF WATER Newport Beach continues to rely completely upon water from the Colorado ' River delivered through the facilities of the MWD, The MWD, since the 1961 report, has suffered a setback in their entitlement claims to waters of the I Colorado River, as a result of the "Rifkind Decision" and subsequent rejection of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Currentlythe MWD entitlement is a firm 550,000 acre -feet annually, or a reduction of 660,000 acre -feet. The reduction ' prompted MWD to exercise an option with the State of California to increase their contracted deliveries of Northern California water from 1.5 million acre- -4- F ' feet annually to 2.0 million acre -feet. Until the State Water Project is completed in 1972, it is anticipated that MWD will continue to withdraw 1,212,000 acre -feet from the Colorado River. This is based on the estimate that Arizona will be unable to construct facilities before 1972 which could ' divert significant quantities of Colorado River water. At the present time, the City is supplied through the Orange County Feeder which has a design capacity of 12,0 cfs in the Harbor Area; however, MWD recently completed construction of a 42 -inch interconnection line that ties the Orange County Feeder to East Orange County Feeder No. 2, in the vicinity of ' the Corona del Mar reservoir, The 42 -inch line will be operated at East Orange County Feeder No. 2 pressure and consequently will not only increase pressure in the Orange County Feeder,butwillincrease its effective capacity. It is apparent that the facilities to deliver an adequate supply of water to satisfy demands in Newport Beach have been constructed. Therefore, the primary consideration is not one of constructing newtransmission or storage facilities, but rather to insure that there will be a supply of water available to fill these facilities. FUTURE SOURCES OF WATER Inthe agreement between the City of Newport Beach and James M. Montgomery, ' Consulting Engineers, Inc., it was requested that particular attention be directed to the following questions; 1. What is the current status of de- salinization processes? 2. What progress is being made by the Orange County Water Dis- trict and the Orange County Sanitation District in the re -use of sewage treatment effluent? 3. Is a well to produce water for Newport Beach to be located in the upper Newport Bay region feasible? 4. What date and from what location will Northern California water be available to the Southern California area? 5. What will be the critical year and period that will affect the water users in the City of Newport Beach? 6. What is the capacity of the Anaheim Basin, and what is the safe yield of the Basin with and without a barrier to prevent sea water contamina- tion? I' -5- I [1 I. CONCERNING SEA WATER CONVERSION. . . ' Much has been written about the desalinization of sea water during the last decade and great strides in improving techniques for the economic recovery of ' fresh water from the sea have been made. However, low -cost saline water conversion is a problem which has not been satisfactorily solved to date. New ideas, processes, innovations and improvements on existing processes are necessary and will be achieved only through continued research. Dr. Glenn Havens, of Havens Industries, San Diego, California has stimulated much attention during recent months. Dr. Havens is a proponent of the reverse ' osmosis method of demineralization of sea water. The principle is not new. Briefly, the method consists of the deionization of water by forcing it through a semi - permeable membrane in an opposite direction to that which it would take if allowed tomove of its ownaccord (i.e., higher density to lower density). Under pressures up to 800 psi, water is forced to move from a highly concen- trated solution to a more dilute solution as the bulk of the salts are retained by the cellusose acetate membrane. Dr. Havens' improvements on an old process are significant. He has developed a technique of utilizing fiberglass tubes to support the membrane and has developed a more efficient membrane. ' In his process, a two -phase system is utilized in which the first stage reduces the salt concentration from approximately 35,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm. The second stage reduces the concentration from 2,000ppmto 200 ppm. The energy ' requirement to move the water and generate the pressure under the Havens system is approximately 20.5 kwh per 1,000 gallons. At 1/2 cent per kilowatt hour, this amounts to 10 cents per 1,000 gallons ($32.58 per acre - foot). This ' figure does not include capital, annual and operating costs of the plant. Dr. Havens estimates that saline water can be converted using his process, inclu- ding all costs for 50 cents per thousand gallons or $163 per acre -foot. Until i, a large capacity plant is actually built, operated, and definite costs established for operation and replacement, it is difficult to acknowledge or challenge any estimate of costs for conversion. Dr. Haven's figures appear reasonable, but until further knowledge of the membrane durability for a continuous period of use is determined, this method must still be considered as basic research. Aero.jet- General Corporation is also working on reverse - osmosis desaliniza- tion of water. The units produced byAerojet at this time are 10,000 gallons per day maximum capacity (approximately 7 gallons per minute) and are not intended for large -scale urban water supply. Future demineralization of brackish water or sewage effluent with reverse osmosis appears promising, but not as a direct source of supplyfor Newport Beach. Newport's position as a customer of water importing agencies will probably continue and direct production of water by desalination by the City does not appear feasible or necessary. I' -6- J 1 Z. CONCERNING THE RE -USE OF TREATED SEWAGE EFFLUENT... At the present time, 80 mgd of sewage effluent is wasting to the sea from Orange County. Faced with ever - growing populations and a relatively fixed supply of imported water, it would appear to be only a matter of time before ' the re -use of waste water becomes recognized practice. As the costs of importing water from greater and greater distances increase, it will become more apparent that the practice of one -use water is a luxury that can be ill afforded. The Orange County Sanitation District has constructed a 15 -mgd secondary treatment facility at Plant 1 in Fountain Valley, which will produce water containing approximately 1,000 ppm dissolved solids. A study to determine the feasibility of utilizing the salvaged water for a fresh water barrier to control sea water intrusion in the Santa Ana Gap is being conducted by the Orange County Water District, Briefly stated, it is hoped that a line of injection wells operating at approximately 1 cfs each acrosstheGap from Plant No. 1 across Ellis Avenue for approximately 5 or 6 miles will establish a pressure ridge of fresh water that will enable upstream pumpers to draw down the ground water levels without the danger of sea water intrusion. It is estimated that it will be necessary to inject, for barrier purposes, approximately 15 mgd of reclaimed sewage water. A pilot study has been conducted for the last two years. The physical facilities for the studies are located on the grounds of the Orange ' County Sanitation District Plant No. 1 and include a pilot treatment plant, with a capacity of approximately 1 cfs, and an injection well. The facilities have ' been used to evaluate different processes in the tertiary treatment of sewage and the subsequent operation of the injection well.. Processes investigated include coagulation, sedimentation, filtration by several media, dialysis, ' reverse osmosis, and activated carbon. Initial operation of the full -scale barrier program is programmed for summer, 1968. t In addition to the barrier program, consideration is also being given to reclaiming an additional quantity of sewage, perhaps as much as 30 mgd (33,700 ac /ft /yr) for direct recharge, either through injection wells near the proposed barrier or by pumping to the existing spreading basins in the Santa Ana forebay area. ' The general public attaches psychological stigmas to the use of reclaimed waste water; however, uses as suggested above, will be acceptable, and any program endorsing this kind of water economy should be supported by the City of Newport Beach. i, -7- I, 3. CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF GROUND WATER TO NEWPORT ' BEACH.,. Within the boundaries of Newport Beach, there is no area where an adequate source of ground water could be developed. The recent annexation of the industrial triangle adjacent to the Orange County airport gave rise to speculation that a well could be constructed in this vicinity to provide an emergency supply. There has been some exploration in the past for a well supply in this area bythe Irvine Ranch, but the efforts have all been abandoned because of the limited amount of water encountered. While it is possible that a well with limited productive capacity could be developed here, the water, though low in mineral content, would be organically stained, and possibly would have an odor problem. To treat the water and remove the undesirable characteristics would involve an expenditure of suchmagnitude as to make the use of such a limited groundwater supply economically unfeasible. Of far greater significance than the annual capital and operating expense of a well ' and treatment facilities would be the use of water from this area, in any other area of the community. This would constitute exporting water from the Orange County Water District, and would carry with it the implications of joining the District, and subsequently paying the necessary taxes. Ground water sources within the Orange County Water District and adjacent to former City well sites will be available to Newport if the Barrier Project is constructed, and the legal questions of utilizing this water should be resolved now, 4. CONCERNING NORTHER CALIFORNIA WATER . , . ' The Department of Water Resources of the State of California will deliver surplus Northern California water to the Castaic Reservoir in 1971 and to the ' Perris Reservoir in 1972. It was announced in July 1964, that the Metropoli- tan Water District has exercised its optionunder its contract with the State to increase its allotment of Northern California water from 1,500,000 acre -feet ' to 2,000,000 acre -feet annually, Mr. Robert Skinner, MIND general manager, states that this additionalwater will offset any claimed entitlement that may be lost to Arizona as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, Engineers for the ' State water project maintain that construction of the necessary facilities are on schedule and that commitments to deliver contract water on time will be honored, 5. CONCERNING THE CRITICAL YEAR OF WATER DEMAND IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA .. . ' There has been much speculation recently concerning the year or years in which the chronic water shortage will be most critical in Orange County, The initial works of the California Aqueduct are scheduled to be completed by I' 1971 -1972 which should relieve the water shortage inthis area for at least 15 years. This leaves a seven -year period inwhich it is possible that the demand for water will exceed the capacityofthepresent imported water supply system. Newport Beach is entirely dependent upon the MWD system for its water supply; consequently, if it becomes necessary to curtail delivery of Colorado River water, Newport would be directly affected. If water is ever to be rationed, it would be divided on the basis of total historic taxes paid to the MWD, and ' on this basis, the City of Los Angeles is entitled to approximately 50 percent of the water. At the present time,Los Angeles does not take its full entitlement and thus the surplus water is available to Orange and San Diego Counties and ' to the groundwater replenishment programs in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Of course, as Los Angeles continues to grow, along with Orange County, it will require more water and the surplus will decrease at the same ' time that Orange County's demand increases. This rapid reduction in the amount of surplus water could create problems for Orange County; however, it has never beenthe policy of the MWD or the Department of Water and Power to plan on dividing a shortage of water. On the contrary, both agencies have been far- sighted enough to avoid a water shortage, despite the fact that the present demands for water are phenomenally high and the natural recharge of groundwater basins has continued to decline. Tooffset the possible shortage ' of overall basin supply, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles is currently enlarging their Owens River Aqueduct System to import an additional 152,000 acre -feet annually. It is anticipated that this project will, be completed by summer 1969, intime to meet the expected increased demands of the City of Los Angeles and thus, in effect, forestall any curtailment in ' delivery of Colorado River water to Orange County. The 152,000 acre -feet, based upon the per capita consumption in Los Angeles, could supply water to 750,000 persons, or enough water to meet the anticipated increased demands ' of the City of Los Angeles for 15 years after the construction of the aqueduct is completed. If the construction of the California Aqueduct and the second barrel of the Los Angeles Aqueduct continues as scheduled, there should be no ' shortage of water for municipal and industrial uses in Southern California. The MWD also is actively engaged in augmenting its Colorado River supply. ' During the past year, the District authorized a contract for a study with the Department of Interior and the Atomic Energy Commission to determine the location, feasibility, and preliminary design of the world's largest nuclear- , fueled sea water conversion plant to be constructed at some point along the Southern California coast line. The plant would be designed to produce between 50 million and 150 million gallons of water a day, or enough water to supply a population of 250,000 persons to 750,000 persons. The anticipated date of completion would be in 1970 and its productionwould be available to meet water I 11 1 1 shortages that might develop if the California Aqueduct falls behind schedule, or to compensate for unanticipated growth in the Southern California service 1 area. It has been apparent for some time that the many water users in the water- scarce southwest have taken very provincial planning approaches to i solving what should be considered regional problems, In August 1963, the l Secretary of Interior released the first Pacific Southwest Water Plan, The plan met with lukewarm support from most water leaders and water agencies throughout the southwest, principally because of conflicts of interest affecting 1 both the areas in which the water supply was to be developed and the regions designed to benefit from the supply. MWD opposedthe plan because one of the provisions of the scheme proposed that ultimately, the Colorado River Aqueduct 1 would be abandoned. As objectionable as the planwas, it did focus attention to the fact that a regional approach to the problem was certainly the only way to 1 logically maximize water resources available to the Southwest. The most recent proposal would guarantee California 4.4 million acre -feet of 1 Colorado River water annually until at least 2,5 million acre -feet a year are diverted from some source to the Colorado River Basin, The United States Bureau of Reclamation would conduct a study to cover the water requirements 1 of all water -short areas in the entire country. The studies would examine the feasibility of diverting 2,5 million acre -feet annually from the water rich Columbia River Basin into the Colorado River, the construction of the Central 1 Arizona Project, and the constructionof Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams, It is proposed that revenue from the sale of power operated at these dams would be used to defray the cost of the entire project, including importation facilities, if authorized. These are the positive steps that are being taken to avert disastrous water shortages, and consequently, in our opinion, the critical time is NOW and for 1 the next three years. Based upon the high water levels in the Anaheim Basin, and projecting for the anticipated growth of all of Southern California, it is our opinion that there will be no serious water shortage prior to 1970, if the 1 projects to pursue water development are continued as vigorously as they have been in the past, 1 7. CONCERNING THE CAPACITY OF THE ANAHEIM BASIN , Studies by the Orange County Water District indicate that the historical maxi- mum range of storage in the Anaheim Basin (considering the difference from all time low in 1956 to the record high 40 years ago) is 500,000 acre -feet, It is postulated by the District, that it would be possible to utilize the 500,000 acre -feet of storage in the Basin, by controlled pumping of selected wells in 1 -10- i I the pressure zone to steepen the hydraulic grade line, or in effect "tilt" the ' Basin. With the sea water barrier established in the Santa Ana Gap, it is conceivable that this yield could be doubled, ' Conservatively, if only 500,000 acre -feet are available, this is enough water to supply Orange County, WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTAL IMPORTS, for two years. Thus, under the concept of water resources management, or optimum ' utilization, the Anaheim Basin may be considered as cyclical storage for Orange County, ' Recent geological and hydrological investigation by the State of California has disclosed the presence of freshwater inthe Rho and Main aquifers immediate- ly northerly of the Inglewood - Newport fault. Continued presence of fresh water ' in these aquifers is dependent upon the construction of a barrier to sea water incursion anda continual basin management program. This represents a source of well water adjacent to Brookhurst Street northerly of Adams Avenue. Legal ' implications of exporting this water to Newport Beach or exchanging water from wells in this area for MWD Water in the Orange County Feeder through an agreement with another water agency should be explored. Ii 1 II 1 It 1 1 Alternatives to reclaimed waste water for a sea water barrier discussed here- in are also being considered. These alternatives include continued use of MWD water and the adjustment of the hydraulic gradient of the ground water aquifers by extracting water inland and reinjecting this water adjacent to the ocean. In the first case, considerably more water could be mined from the basin than would be required as imported water to permit this mining. In the second case, by adding energy in extracting, transporting, and injecting water already in the basin, the gradient of the ground water could be adjusted so that a high ground water level is maintained adjacent to the coast permitting inland pumping. The exact cost of all of these alternatives has not been determined, but some method of excluding sea water must be constructed in 1968 to permit mining a portion of the 500,000 to 1,000,000 acre -feet of water in storage in the lower Santa Ana River Basin prior to the arrival of Northern California water. Newport Beach could develop a source of ground water in the basin northerly of Adams Avenue if a barrier project is constructed. Wells in this area could easily provide 20 to 25 percent of the City's needs through 1972. Production from these wells would constitute exportfromthe basin and the legal implica- tions of the export should be determined as a part of water planning. - 11 - HI :aem .0 28/56 (7) 1 CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES (CITY WATER WELLS) 2 3 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ?h day of 4 Alayi- n her 1966, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT 5 BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City ", 6I and JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., an engineerinj 7 firm, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant ". 8 WHEREAS, City owns a parcel of real property located at 9 the southeast corner of the intersection of Adams Avenue and 10 Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach, upon which 11 property are located two water wells known as City wells Nos. 13 12 and 15; and 13 WHEREAS, City is not utilizing said wells at the present 14 time but contemplates that they may be useful in the future in 15 the event of a water shortage; and 16 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to secure an engineer - 17 ing report concerning the value of the water rights associated 18 with said wells and an analysis of the potential use of said wells 19 in the event that the City determines to use them as a supplemental 20 source of water; and 21 WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted a written proposal to 22 furnish the City with such an engineering report and the City 25 Council has determined that Consultant is well qualified to furnish 24 the consulting services in question; 25, NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Consultant, for the consid- i 26 eration hereinafter named, agree as follows: 27 1. Consultant agrees to prepare a comprehensive report 28 concerning City's water wells Nos. 13 and 15 which shall include 29 the following information: 30 General Scope of Study: 31 (a) An analysis and discussion of the value of the 32 water rights associated with the wells, the probable quality s ,4; 1 .I. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 0 and quantity of water production of the wells under present circumstances and an evaluation of the quality and quantity of water that would be available from the wells under pro- posed future regulation of pumping in the Anaheim Basin of the Santa Ana River. Specific Topics to be Discussed: (a) A discussion of water rights, political subdi affecting pumping rights, pumping taxes and the recharge pro- gram now existing. (b) A brief discussion of the value of water rights in adjudicated basins shall be prepared. This discussion would define adjudication and illustrate the difference between the Anaheim Basin of the Santa Ana River, which is not adjudi- cated, and the West Basin and Central Basin of Los Angeles County, which have already been adjudicated. The basis of establishing water rights in these basins would be shown. (c) An estimate of the productivity of the wells based on available pumping and water quality records. In addition, a discussion of the possibility of obtaining water at deep elevations from aquifers not susceptible to sea water incursion shall be prepared. (d) An estimate of the cost of constructing a pipe line to an entry point in the City distribution system from the well site based upon a unit price estimate along a feasible route. (e) An analysis of the transferability of the City's water rights shall be submitted in a form that will simplify obtaining a legal opinion on this question. 2. Representatives of Consultant assigned to this pro- ject shall meet and confer with members of the City administrative staff and /or the City Council upon request of City. 3. The report shall be prepared in letter form and 2. 11 2 3 4 5 6, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • twenty (20) copies shall be submitted to City. 4. Upon completion of the report and its submission to City it is agreed that City will pay Consultant for its services on the basis of actual time spent by Consultant in accordance with the hourly rate schedule attached to this agreement. It is estimated that the total cost for the report will be approximately two thousand dollars ($2000). If unforeseen problems should arise which indicate that the cost of said report will exceed the estimate by more than ten percent (1070), Consultant shall immed- iately notify City of the anticipated additional cost and the reasons therefor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this con- tract as of the day and year first above written. Dated: APPR VED AS TO FORM: %t/�h 6-f tWly H. Seymour y Attorney Approved and accepted on behalf of the City of Newport Beach �! _ /Harvey L. Hfirlburt City Manager CITY Appr d and eta � f Dated: // Zf /4' Q.. ✓��1.rw.u�� ill wjee � James M. Montgonwry, Consulting Engineers, Inc. CONSULTANT (Execution of this contract by City Manager authorized by City Council action on October 24, 1966.) 3. r HOURLY -RATE SCHEDULE* JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Effective July 1, 1966 James M. Montgomery and Russell C. Kenmir Principal Engineers Senior Engineers Engineers Engineering - Geologists Senior Designers Designers Draftsmen Senior Resident Engineers Resident Engineer- Inspectors Survey Party (3 -man) Mileage - 10 cents per vehicle -mile* $35.00 per man -hour $25. 00 per man -hour $18.00 per man -hour $13.50 per man -hour $13.50 per man -hour $11.50 per man -hour $10.50 per man -hour $ 9.00 per man -,hour $ 9.50 per man -hour $ 8.00 per man -hour $31.00 per crew -hour *Note - These individual hourly rates include overhead, payroll taxes, administration, profit, typing and clerical costs. Survey party rates also include survey equipment rental, stakes, flagging, supplies and automobile mileage. 0 TO: Finance Director FROM: City Clerk SUBJECT: Contract Contract No.— C -1074 0 Date November 15, 1966 Authorized by Resolution No. , adopted on City Manager Date executed Contract November 7, 1966 Effective date of Contract November 9, 1966 Contract with James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Address 535 East Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 Brief description of Contract Contract for consulting services (City water wells) Amount of Contract Estimated at $2000.00 72717,11 City Clerk 0 James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 445 Fast 17th Street Costa Mesa, California Gentlemen: .! November 15, 1966 Ehalosed for your files is a fully executed copy of the contract for consulting services in connection with water wells belonging to the City of Newport Beach and known as City wells Nos. 13 and 15. This agreement was authorized by the City Council at their regular meeting on October 24, 1966. dg Encl. Very truly yours, Laura Lagios Acting City Clerk City of Newport Beach Subject: Report on City Wells Number 13 and Number 15 Gentlemen: This letter is a proposal for engineering services for a report on City wells and confirms previous discussions with Mr. Devlin. We would prefer to prepare the report on the City wells at our standard hourly -rates, a copy of which is attached. We estimate the cost of such a report to be approximately 62,000, The exact cost would be a function of the amount of data available from the City and the number of meetings or conferences we attended after completion of the written portion of the report. These items are difficult to estimate at this time. SCOPE OF REPORT It is our understanding that the City wishes a discussion of the value of water rights associated with the wells, the probable quality and quantity of water production of these wells now, and an estimate of the quality and quantity that would be available from these wells under proposed future regimens o_ operation of the Anaheim Basin of the Santa Ana River. To determir.e this information, we would propose to prepare a report containing the following: (1) A discussic_J of water rights, political subdivisia-6 affecting pumping r :ts, pumping taxes, and the recharge prcgr-1�1':- now existing. (2) A brief' - iscussion of the value of water rights in adjuL_oated basins would be prepared. This discussion would defir.c adjudi- cation_ and illustrate the difference between the Anaheim Basin of the Santa Ana River, which is'not adjudicated, and tike West Basin and Central Basin of the Los Angeles County, which have a:l_:E�_dy been adjudicated. The basis of establishing water rights L. aee basins would be shown. (3) Bast.. on existing pumping records and existing records of water qua_iLy, an estimate would be made of the productivity of the R E P 0 R T 5 • . • V A L U A T 1 0 N 6 . . . P L A N S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S ... 8 U P E R V 1 5 1 0 N JAMcS M, MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. I 535 EAST WALNUT STREET. PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 01101 TELEPHONES: 703.7130 AND 001.0010 JAMES M. MONTGOMERY JOHN{L P. FEE RUSSELL C. KENMIR P. DEWEY DICKSON October 14, 1966 WILLIAM W. AULTM AN EARL BM J. CARROLL JR. A. GENE RHEAULT j PAUL V. HENNESSY WILLIAM D. MATHIS OU WAYNE R. LI ORE WILLAM H. BLACKMER CARLOS M. CAMPUZANO BRIAN G. STONE CARL A. RAMBOW City of Newport Beach RICHARD S. HOLMOREN. JR. MILES E. 9 LEA MO 300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach California wP J EDWARD A. LA BANN JOHN E. WARD WILFRIED F. LANGER PHILIP GATSOULIS JOHN G. EGAN LORNE E. SWANSON NORBERT SCHNEIDER MINE V. LEE Attention: Mr. Joseph T. Devlin Director of Public Works Subject: Report on City Wells Number 13 and Number 15 Gentlemen: This letter is a proposal for engineering services for a report on City wells and confirms previous discussions with Mr. Devlin. We would prefer to prepare the report on the City wells at our standard hourly -rates, a copy of which is attached. We estimate the cost of such a report to be approximately 62,000, The exact cost would be a function of the amount of data available from the City and the number of meetings or conferences we attended after completion of the written portion of the report. These items are difficult to estimate at this time. SCOPE OF REPORT It is our understanding that the City wishes a discussion of the value of water rights associated with the wells, the probable quality and quantity of water production of these wells now, and an estimate of the quality and quantity that would be available from these wells under proposed future regimens o_ operation of the Anaheim Basin of the Santa Ana River. To determir.e this information, we would propose to prepare a report containing the following: (1) A discussic_J of water rights, political subdivisia-6 affecting pumping r :ts, pumping taxes, and the recharge prcgr-1�1':- now existing. (2) A brief' - iscussion of the value of water rights in adjuL_oated basins would be prepared. This discussion would defir.c adjudi- cation_ and illustrate the difference between the Anaheim Basin of the Santa Ana River, which is'not adjudicated, and tike West Basin and Central Basin of the Los Angeles County, which have a:l_:E�_dy been adjudicated. The basis of establishing water rights L. aee basins would be shown. (3) Bast.. on existing pumping records and existing records of water qua_iLy, an estimate would be made of the productivity of the R E P 0 R T 5 • . • V A L U A T 1 0 N 6 . . . P L A N S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S ... 8 U P E R V 1 5 1 0 N JAMES M. MONTGOMERY . CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. City of Newport Beach . 638 EAST WALNUT BET . PASADENA, CALIFORNIA -2- October 14, 1966 wells as they now exist. Utilizing recent geologic information determined by the Orange County Water District and the California Department of Water Resources, a discussion would be prepared on the possibility of obtaining water at deep elevations from aquifers not susceptible to sea water incursion. (4) An estimate would be prepared on the cost of a pipe line from the well location to an entry point in the City distribution system. This estimate would not be detailed, but merely a unit price estimate along a feasible route. (5) The ability of the City to transfer the water rights would be summarized in a manner that would simplify obtaining a legal opinion on this question. The report would be in letter form and 20 copies would be submitted. Approximately 60 days would be required for its preparation. Respectfully submitted, JAPES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGIN=S, INC. Paul V. Hennessy Ir Vice President Russell C. Kenmir Pr6sident HOURLY -RATE SCHEDULE= JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Effective July 1, 1966 James M. Montgomery and Russell C. Fenmir Principal Engineers Senior Engineers Engineers Engineering- Geologists Senior Designers Designers Draftsmen Senior Resident Engineers Resident Engineer - Inspectors Survey Party (3 -man) Mileage - 10 cents per vehicle -miler $35.00 per man -hour $25. 00 per man -hour $18. 00 per man -hour $13.50 per man -hour $13.50 per man -hour $11.50 per man -hour $10.50 per man -hour $ 9.00 per man -hour $ 9.50 per man -hour $ 8.00 per man -hour $31.00 per crew -hour -Note - These individual hourly rates include overhead, payroll taxes, administration, profit, typing and clerical costs. Survey party rates also include survey equipment rental, stakes, flagging, supplies and automobile mileage.