IR-13E Waste - SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY MIKE AGUIRRE ...

Interim Report No. 1 3 

Wastewater Exhibits by footnote

Footnote No. 6 1

downtown land uses. It should be emphasized that this study 

will not determine specific land uses or traffic circulation 

for downtown. This will be the role of the community 

planning effort. It should also be noted that the Mayor's 

Office distributed a memorandum to City Councilmembers 

proposing a Centre City Task Force to coordinate the ULI 

study and the Centre City Community Plan update, as well as 

other special downtown studies. 

Aud. Cert. 8700320. 

FILE LOCATION: MEET CONTFY87- 1 

COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: B 155- 160.) 

MOTION BY STRUIKSMA TO ADOPT. Second by Jones. Passed by the 

following vote: Wolfsheimer-yea, Cleator-yea, McColl-yea, 

Jones-yea, Struiksma-yea, Gotch-yea, McCarty-yea, Martinez-yea, 

Mayor O'Connor-yea. 

ITEM-15 1 : (R-87-762) ADOPTED AS RESOLUTION R-266973 

Authorizing the City Manager to submit a letter of intent 

to both revise the existing application for a waiver fiom 

secondary treatment at the Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment 

Plant in accordance with provisions in Section 301(h) of 

the Clean Water Act and to resubmit the revised application 

to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

(District-2.) 

CITY MANAGER REPORT: In 1977, the United States Congress 

amended the Clean Water Act to include Section 301(h) which 

allowed issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits for certain marine or estuarine sewage 

discharges at less-than Secondary treatment levels. On August 

3 1, 1979, the City submitted to EPA an application for 301(h) 

variance for the Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant. On 

September 8, 198 1, EPA issued a tentative approval of the 301(h) 

application. In order to reflect changes in existing 

conditions, the City submitted a revised application to the EPA 

on November 23, 1983. On September 30, 1986, the EPA issued a 

tentative decision to deny the City's original and revised 

applications, and withdrew their initial tentative approval. 

These actions were predicated and based on the revision in 1983, 

to the California State Ocean Plan. The City is currently 

meeting the Ocean Plan requirements; however, the EPA has 

indicated that the current application does not sufficiently 

define our ability for continued compliance with the standards 

and corresponding deadlines as set forth in the 1983 Ocean Plan. 

Several major concurrent issues with regard to City compliance

with the Ocean Plan are in process. In October, 1986, the Ocean 

Plan may again be revised by the State. Further, the City's 

discharge requirements are being reviewed by the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board. Thus, it seems necessary and prudent 

that the EPA be updated and informed of the results of these 

several issues. This can be done by submittal of a revised 

waiver application, which details all information relevant to 

future City compliance with the 1983 Ocean Plan. The City must 

notify the EPA of its intent to reapply for a 301(h) waiver by 

November 14, 1986. 

WU-U-87-05 1. 

FILE LOCATION: MEET 

COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: B 161 -C120.) 

MOTION BY GOTCH TO ADOPT. Second by Jones. Passed by the 

following vote: Wolfsheimer-yea, Cleator-yea, McColl-yea, 



ITEM- 152: (R-87-604) ADOPTED AS RESOLUTION R-266974 

Approving City Manager Report CMR-86-450, entitled "Use of 

Proposition 43 Grant Funds"; directing the City Manager to 

make an application for grant funding under the Community 

Parkland Act of 1986 pursuant to the recommendations 

contained in that report. 

(See City Manager Report CMR-86-450 and Committee 

Consultant Analysis PFR-86-35. Balboa Park Community Area. 

District-8.) 

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed by PFR on 9/24/86. Recommendation 

to approve the City Manager's report to expend the finds in 

Balboa Park. Districts 1, 2, 6 and 7 voted yea. District 5 not 

present. 


COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: C 12 1 - 130.) 

MOTION BY MARTINEZ TO ADOPT. Second by Struiksma. Passed by 

the following vote: Wolfsheimer-yea, Cleator-yea, McColl-yea, 



ITEM- 153: (R-87-886) ADOPTED AS RESOLUTION R-266975 

19861 103 

Discussion of the request of Kimiko Ann Fukuda, 

representing the San Diego Unified School District, to 

waive fees for the use of Plaza Hall CPAC, for a conference

Footnote No. 62

* ITEM-S400: (R-87- 1624) ADOPTED AS RESOLUTION R-26772 1 

Excusing Mayor O'Connor fiom attending the Council meetings 

of February 9-10, 1987, due to her attendance of official 

City business in New York. 


COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: A104-113.) 

CONSENT MOTION BY GOTCH TO ADOPT. Second by McCarty. Passed by 

the following vote: Wolfsheirner-yea, Cleator-yea, McColl- yea, 

Jones-not present, Struiksma-yea, Gotch-yea, McCarty-yea, 

Ballesteros-yea, Mayor O'Connor-yea. 

ITEM-S401: (R-87-1595) CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 23, 1987 

(Continued fiom the meeting of February 9, 1987, Item S402, 

at the City Manager's request, for the rest of the resumes 

fiom the appointees to the Committees.) 

Establishing a "Blue Ribbon Task Force" to assist the City 

of San Diego in the evaluation of the bond issues for 

Mission Bay and Balboa Park areas appearing on the November 

1987 Ballot. 

(See City Manager Report CMR-87-25 .) 

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed by RULES on 2/4/87. Recommendation 

to adopt the Manager's recommendation, as well as the Rules 

Committee directive of 1/14/87 that the Task Force include 

individuals suggested by each Councilmember. Districts 3,4,6, 

and the Mayor voted yea. District 2 not present. 

FILE LOCATION: -- 

COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: A060-070.) 

MOTION BY WOLFSHEIMER TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 23,1987, AT THE 

CITY MANAGER'S REQUEST TO OBTAIN ALL RESUMES FROM THE 

APPOINTEES. Second by Ballesteros. Passed by the following 

vote: Wolfsheimer-yea, Cleator-not present, McColl-yea, 

Jones-not present, Struiksma-yea, Gotch-yea, McCarty-yea, 

Ballesteros-yea, Mayor O'Connor-yea. 

ITEM-S402: NOTE AND FILE 

(Continued fi-om the meeting of February 10, 1987, Item 337, 

at Mayor O'Connor's request, to allow her to be present.) 

Discussion in the matter of the conversion of the 

Metropolitan Sewerage System to Secondary Treatment and the 

filing of a new revised waiver application fiom Secondary 

Treatment. 

(See City Manager Report CMR-87-70.)


COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: B 104-C558.) 

Hearing began 10:40 a.m. and halted 11:50 a.m. 

Testimony by Don Comer, Larry Hirsch, Mark Nelson, Lee Olsen, 

Howard Greenebaum, Doug Myers, Nancy Skinner, Alan Sakarias, 

Terry Thielen, and Thelma Cantrall. 

Motion by McCarty to go to secondary treatment or tertiary 

treatment and set up a task force as outlined in Council Member 

McCarty's memo dated February 10, 1987, to define the issues, 

provide the fiamework for decisions, set goals and objectives, 

plan and organize the study effort, define tasks, set 

timefiames, recommend consultant needs, coordinate the work 

effort, evaluate the results, and make recommendations to the 

City Council. The task force should include the following: a 

project manager, a civil engineer in the water treatment field, 

a legal expert, a representative of the construction industry, a 

financial expert knowledgeable in bond financing, a political 

team, led by the Mayor and including members fiom the State and 

Congressional delegations, a marketing expert, someone fiom the 

academic community with expertise in waste water technology, and 

a representative of the City, preferably the manager of the 

Point Loma Plant. Second by Gotch. No vote. 

MOTION BY McCARTY TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REJECT THE 

RECOMMENDATION TO SEEK A WAIVER AND MOVE TO SECONDARY 

TREATMENT 

OR TERTIARY, DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE TASK FORCE TO BE 

APPOINTED 

BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AND ASK THE TASK FORCE TO PROVIDE THE 

COUNCIL WITH OPTIONS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TERTIARY TREATMENT. 

Second by Struiksma. Passed by the following vote: 

Wolfsheimer-yea, Cleator-nay, McColl-yea, Jones-not present, 

Struiksma-yea, Gotch-yea, McCarty-yea, Ballesteros-yea, Mayor 

O'Connor-yea. 

ITEM-S403: (R-87-1436 Rev.) ADOPTED AS AMENDED AS RESOLUTION 

R-267727 

198702 17 

(Continued fiom the meeting of February 9, 1987, Item S403, 

at the City Manager's request, to allow Mayor OIConnor to 

be present .) 

Establishing a Committee Against Drug Abuse; authorizing 

the transfer and expenditure of funds not to exceed $64,800 

for staffing and supporting said Committee; waiving Council

Footnote No. 63

- ! 

6 

* 

FORM OBD.113 

MAR I3 

I 

1 i 

i 1 

i I 

ROGER J. MARZULLA 

Assistant Attorney General 

WALKER SMITH .-.,- J .-I__- . . ..__._ _.___ 

" Senior Trial Attorney 5 3 -;:-EL v - --.- . . .J : 

11 Environmental Enforcement ~ectibn RECEIVED 

I ! . -3 

U.S. Department of Justice ! 

" '' P.O. BOX 7611 i f- 

Ben Franklin Station 

i 

'! Washington, D.C. 20044 1 ; 2 1 la 

1 (202) 633-2639 

I 

I 1 CLEiiK, US. DiSTRiCi COi 1 ii 

: PETER K. NUNEZ 1 SOcjT!:E?IZ' DISTRICT OF CA1 Iri3E!.i!,k, 

1 United States Attorney ; SY ,.,-. . . . 

-------.-.- I STEPHEN V. PETIX - 

Assistant United States Attorney 

; 940 Front Street 

San Diego, California 92189 

(619) 293-5662 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP 

Attorney General 

JEREMIAH D. BLAIR 

Deputy Attorney General 

110 ~ est'~ Street, Suite 700 


(619) 238-3112 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

- - . .-- 

v. 

! 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

L- 

Plaintiffs, j 

1 

1 

Civil ~ction NO. - 

... 

-- .. 

1 

CITx OF SAN DIEGO 

1 

1 

1 

Defendant. 1 

-. - - 

. .. -& PnMPTATNT 

The United States of America, at the request and on 

behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental

1 i Protection Agency ("EPA"), and the California ~egional Water 

i; 

*. \ 

2 , Quality Board; San Diego Region, represented by the Attorney 

I. 

General, allege that: 

4 1: 

. . 

I. This is a civil action pursuant to Section 309(b), 

I' and (d) of the Clean Water Act (aActa), 33 U.S.C. P 1319 (b) and 

5 1: 

I1 

6 iJ 

7 

9 li 

(d.), for injunctive relief and for assessment of civil penalties 

I 1 against the City of San Diego ("Citya) for (1) the discharge of 

1 pollutants in violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

I 

I 5 1311, (2) violation of certain conditions and limitations of 

its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ('NPDESH) 

lo i, 

1; permit issued under Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1342, and 

11 ,I 

11 (3) violation of pretreatment requirements as set forth in 

12 11 

I' Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1317, and 40 C.F.R. 5 403. 

13 11 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter 

14 I/ 

I of this action pursuant to Section 309 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

15 i; 

11 5 1319(b) and 28 U.S.C. I§ 1345, and 1355. 

16 

I I 3. Venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to 

17 11 

I/ 

Section 309(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1319(b) and 28 U.S.C. 

18 

§ 1395 because it is the judicial district in which the City of 

19 11 San Diego is located and doing business. 

20 

FORM 080.183 

MAR 83 

4. The State of California is joined as a plaintiff in 

11 this action pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

- 

5 1319(e), which provides that the State shall be joined as a 

23 If party whenever the United States brings an action against a 

24 

25 

1 municipality under Section 309 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1319. 

1

5. The'city of San Diego is an incorporated city of the 

I1 

2 ji State of California, formed under the laws of the State, and is a 

/I I 3 Rmunicipalitya and a "persona within the meaning of Section 

4 1 502(4) and (5) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 ?362(4) and (5). 

6. i 

At all relevant times the City of San Diego has 

I! 

6 '; owned and operated a wastewater treatment plant, known as the 

5 I 

7 

i 

i 

FORM OBD.II3 )I 

MAR 83 

Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Point Lama Plantn), 

located at 1902 Gatchell Road, San Diego, California, and the 

collection system which transports sewage and other wastewater to 

Point Loma for treatment. The Point Lorna Plant collects and 

treats sewage and wastes from residential, commercial and 

industrial sources from the City of San Diego, seven neighboring 

municipalities, and seven sanitation districts, and has done so 

at all relevant times. 

7. At all relevant times the City has discharged 

pollutants, as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(6), into the Pacific 

Ocean, Mission Bay, Los Penasquitos Lagoon, the San Diego River, 

Lake HoLges, Rose Creek, Forrester Creek, and Chollas Creek. 

1 8. The waters set forth in paragraph seven above are 

11 "navigable - watersa of the United States, as defined by Section 

502(7) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1362(7). 

9. The discharges of pollutants by the City of San 

22 11 I Diego have been and continue to be through point sources as 

defined by 33 U.S.C. 5 1362(14). 

10. Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1311(a), 

25 (/ prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of 

26 ji

1 . 

' the 

United Stktes except in compliance with the terms and 

conditions of an NPDES permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of 

the Act, 33 U.S.C. f 1342. 

11. Section 301(b) (1) (B) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

5 l3ll(b) (1) (B) , requires all publicly owned treatment works to 

achieve effluent limitations based on seconciary t;reatniei,t no 

later than July 1, 1977. The City of San Diego applied for a 

modification from the requirements of secondary treatment on 

August 31, 1979, pursuant to 301(h) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

§ 1311(h). That application was tentatively denied by EPA on 

September 30, 1986. The City withdrew its application on 

February 17, 1987. The City failed to maintain a current 

facilities plan for secondary treatment during the pendency of 

its application, as required by 40 C.F.R. 5 35.2112. 

12. Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. f 1317(d), 

requires any publicly owned treatment works to comply with 

pretreatment requirements. Specific requirements that the City 

of San Diego must undertake in order to control wastes 

contributed to its treatment works by industrial users are also 

set forth in 40 C.F.R. 55 403.8 and 403.9. 

13. Section 309(a)(3) and (b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

9 1319(a)(3) and (b), provides, in part, for the commencement of 

an action for appropriate relief, including temporary or 

permanent injunctions, when any person is in violation of, among 

others, Sections 301 or 307 of the Act, or any permit condition

1 

L a 

or limitation implementing such sections in a permit issued under 

I Section 402 of the Act. Section 309(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

II 

3 11 

I 5 1319(d), provides, in part, that any person who violates 

4 j; 

: Section 301 or 307 of the Act, or any permit condition, shall be 

E ' 

- " subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each 

, i 

A 1; 

" violation occurring on or after February 4, 1987, and $10,000 per 

7 1: 

;; 

8 ;' 

10 1; 

! 

11 ti 

1; 

;2 /' 

43 11 

.u 

/ I 

day of such violations occurring prior to February 4, 1987. 

14. On May 23, 1977, pursuant to Section 402 of the 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1342, the State of California through the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, adopted 

Order No. 77-18, NPDES permit No. CA0107409 for the Point Loma 

Plant. This permit authorized the discharge of pollutants from 

the Point Lorna Plant into the Pacific Ocean, subject to the terms 

14 !1 I 

! 

and conditions of the permit. The permit has been subsequently 

revised and was most recently reissued by the State of California 

!i 

j6 $ through the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Dieso 

1: 

17 li 

I Region, in March, 1985, Order No. 85-16. 

15. The permit establishes requirements for the 

11 discharge of treated wastewater containing pollutants, including: 

!! 

': rf f luent limitations based on secondary treatment; development of 

I; 

a pretreatment program; effluent and receiving water effluent 

ii 1; limitations reflecting requirements contained in the State of 

23 California Water Resources Control Boardsls Water ~uality control 

I 

24 I' Plan, Ocean Waters of California (.Ocean Plann) ; requirements for 

I I 

25 11 disposal of sewage ~ludge; a prohibition against overflow or 

I 

bypass from any collection, conveyance or treatment facility; and 

j6 I 

I/ 

- 5 - 

1; 

I! 

FORM OED 183 11

- 

other applicable standards for the wastewater conveyed to and 

discharged from the Point Lorna Plant pursuant to Section 301(b) 

of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1311(b). 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are realleged and 

incorporated by reference. 

17. From at least July 5, 1983 to the present, the City 

of San Diego has ischarged wastewater from the Point 

Lorna Plant with of pollutants in excess of the 

limitations set forth in its NPDES permit, in violation of its 

NPDES permit and in violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 

U.S.C. 5 1311. The City has exceeded limitations for Biological 

Oxygen Demand, Suspended Solids, Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform, 

Oil and Grease, ~urbidity, Settleable Solids, Effluent Toxicity 

and Flow. 

18. Unless restrained by an Order of this Court, the 

l7 !! City will continue to violate Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

i! 

li I! 

1311, and the terms of its pennit. 

19 11 I 19. Pursuant to Section 309 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

*' 1: 

- 2 2 

I I 

§ 1319, the City is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

I 

It 

21 I! $25,000 per day for each violation occurring on or after I 

i! 

I 

- I 

February 4, 1987, and $10,000 per day of such violations ! 

23 occurring prior to February 4, 1987. 


?' " incorporated by reference. 

I

21. The City of San ~iego's NPDES permit prohibits 

unauthorized bypass or overflow from any collection, conveyance 

or treatment facility, and permits only the discharge of treated 

wastewater. The City has violated its permit on at least 

occasions by bypassing and overflowing its facilities, an 

discharging untreated wastewater. These discharges have been 

caused by failures in and overflows from the sewer lines and pump 

stations that are used to transport sewage. 


City will continue to violate Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

§ 1311, and the terms of its NPDES permit. 

23. Pursuant to Section 309 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

S 1319, the City is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

$25,000 per day for each violation occurring on or after February 

4, 1987, and $10,000 per day of such violations occurring prior 

to February 4, 1987. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 



25. section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1311(a), 

prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of 

- - -_ 

the United St,ete-s except in compliance with the terms and 

conditions of an NPDES permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of 

the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342. The City of San Diego has violated 

21 

the Act on at least ~l..(occasions by discharging untreated 

wastewater containing pollutants into the waters of the United

i 

I i 

1 ;i 

i\ States without an NPDES permit. These discharges have been 

2 // I 

I! caused by failures in and overflows from the sewer ljnes and pump ' 

/I stations that are used to transport sewage. 

4 /I 


I 

/ t 

5 jj 

, 

; City will continue to discharge without a permit in violation of . . 

1 Seciion 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1 1311. 


I/ 5 1319, the City is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

/j $25,000 per day for each violation occurring on or after February i 

lo 11 4, 1987, and $10,000 per day of such violations occurring prior 

I 

11 i 

/\ 29. The City of San Diegors NPDES permit prohibits the 

*' 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 /I 

FORM OBD.113 

MAR 13 

( to February 4, 1987. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

2-8. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are realleged and i 


disposal of sewage sludge except in authorized areas. The City 

has violated this condition of its NPDES permit on at 

occasions from January 3, 1984 until February 3, 1986, in that it 

' disposed of sewage sludge at the abandoned Brown Field treatment 

I 

I plant, an area not authorized for disposal. The City 

I violated this condition of its NPDES permit on at least 

doccasions from December 10, 1983 through October 1, 

discharging sewage sludge to Mission Bay. Mission Bay is noJan 

/------ 

authorized sewage sludge disposal area. 

30. The City of San Diego has failed to adequately plan 

26 for continued handling of its sewage sludge, and unless 

I 

86 -/ad c/b@ 

I 

! 

I

FORM OED-I81 

MAR. 81 

restrained by an Order of this Court, will continue to violate 

Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1311, and the terms of its 

NPDES permit. 


5 1319, the City is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

$25,000 per day for each violation occurring on or after February 

4, 1987, and $10,000 per day of such violations occurring prior 

to February 4, 1987. 

J FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 



33.. The City of San Diegors NPDES permit, Section 307 

of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1317, and regulations promulgated 

thereunder at 40 C.F.R. 55 403.8 and 403.9, require that the City 

comply with provisions regulating the pretreatment of industrial 

waste received by the Point Lorna Plant. The City of San Diego 

has violated its permit, the Act, and the regulations, by failing 

to properly implement a pretreatment program. 


City will continue to violate Sections 301 and 307 of the Act, 33 

U.S.C. 55 1311 and 1317, 40 C.F.R. 55 403.8 and 403.9, and the 

terms of its permit. 


5 1319, the City is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

$25,000 per day for each violation occurring on or after 

I 

I

1 I> 

1' February 4. 1987, and $10,000 per day of such violations 

* II 

1, 

1, occurring prior to February 4 , 1987. 

3 11 

I I PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

rc. 1: 

3 I. 

7 /j 

' 

,. li 

6 5; 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that: 

1. The City of San Diego be permanently enjoined fron 

I! any and all future violations of the Clear. Water Act and from any 

; I 

!I 

13 11 

II 

discharges of pollutants except as expressly authorized by an 

NPDES permit issued under Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 

2. The City of San Diego be ordered to comply with 

schedules for planning, design. and construction of secondary 

treatment. facilities which will bring about compliance with the 

terms of its NPDES permit; 

3. The City of San Diego be ordered to comply with a 

15 /I schedule of repairs, alterations, and modifications to existing I 

16 11 

li facilities which will bring about compliance with the terms of 

17 (1 its NPDES permit; 

4. The City of San Diego be assessed, pursuant to 

I Section 309 (6) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1319(d), a civil penalty ! 

*' not to exceed $25,000 for each day of each violation of the Act 1 

93 

-- 11 

23 

24 

*' li nc 

FORM OBD.183 

MAR 81 I 

and its permit occurring on or after February 4, 1987, and 

$10,000 per day of such violations occurring prior to February 4, 

1987; 

this action; and 

5. Plaintiffs be awarded the costs and disbursements of 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I

FORM OBD.183 

I! just and proper. 

3 I! 

I( 

6. This Court grant any such other relief as it deems 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROGER J. M Z U L U 


WALKER SMITH 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7611 

Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, D.C. 2004 

(202) 622-2639 

PETER K. NUNEZ 

STEPHEN V. PETIX 

Assistant United States Attorney 

940 Front Street 


(619) 293-5610 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP 

Attorney General 

?;*>. g€a;L 

JEREMIAIJ. - - D. BLAIR 

Deputy Attorney General 

110 West A Street 

Suite 700 

San Dieqo, California 92101 

!

Footnote No. 66

UNIT;ED STATES DISTRXCT COURT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I 

1 CITY OF SAN DEGO, STATE OF 

CALlFORNLA, 

i 

I 

Defendants, I I 

I 

I ORDER GBANIWG 

I ~LAlJYITZF-INTERVENOR 

I SI-ERR.4 CLUB'S MOTION FOR 

j ATTORNE;Y.'S FEES 

! 1 

! ' 

SIERRA CLUB, EMILY DURBXN and . . 

BRUCE HENDERSON, i , . 

i I 

19 1 r. TNTRODUC+ION 

20 

plaintiff-intervenor ~i- club ficd a motioh for attorney's fees in this action 

! I 

21 pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 5 1365td) on June 20, 1997. $'he United States Eavirmnental 

I 

' 22 Protection Agency (the united States or EPA), thc State of California (State), and the City of 

23 I 

San Diego (City) opposed theirnotion. This marter came on for hearing on April 24. 1998. 

I 

" Upon due consideration of thb moving and respond.& papers and d,c a-ents of counsel, 

25 

the Court hcreby GRANTS Sierra Club's motion CO~ a~tomey's foes. 

26 I 1 

27 

Z8 

1 

i 

' I 

7L BACKGROUND 

During the 1980~~ the City of San Diego was I a ! chronic violator of thc Federal. Water 

- 1 

Pollution Control Act (clean )Vatu Act or CWA). J3 'u.s.c. 83 1251-1387. The City's 

I 1 

- - I 

I 

I $6- 

I 

I 

8bllOl 

I

II I 

I 

2 . 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

7 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

. 16 

17 

. 

: 

Galations ranged h m wastewater o dowa along city sewer lines lo th. City's failure o 

treat raw sewagc to secondary tmamcnt standards bCfore discharag it into the Pacific 

Ocean. In 1988, thc United States and the State of CaZ;fornial (State) instituted a WA civil 

enforcement action against h e City- By 1989, thc tics were in the pro-s of negotiating 

a proposed Consalt Decree that would have required thc City to build a nurnbtr of new 

sewage treatment and water reclamation &&ties. Tbc new facilities purportedly would 

have m d thc City's wastewater trcatmmt and &sponal system to adequate capacity and 

enabled the City to Lnplcmcnt secondary treatment &andards. As the negotiations gained 

momentum, the Sicm Club. which had been monitoring the progress of the case, sought to 

interwm as a plaintiff and block enw of @c pmpo&d Consrnt Decrcc. The Sierra Club 

argued that the agreement being reached between the parties violated thc public interest for 

thc following reasons: 

. (I) Si- Club believed t ht secondary trcaImcnt standards could be attained at a lower 

cost and with less environmental impact by using experimental "physical-chemical" 

18 (2) Thc Consent Decree contained no watcr co&don measures, which Sierra Club 

19 

. 

20 (1 (3) 

believed would obviate thc need for new w&ewater tratmcnt facilities; 

The Consent Decrec reqldred seven new water reokarion facilities bur did not I 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(4) 

treatment methods at fic existing Point Lami Wastewater Treatmenr Facility (the 

Point h ma pIant), the City's ma*' sewage treatment facility, rathm than building ncw 

treatment facilities as required by the &m&t Decree; 

provide for the distribution and re-use ofthe;rc~lained water; and 

~br Conscnt Decrce rcquind cf~lucnt to bc heated with chlorine before bcbg 

discharged into the ocean. 

Sierra Club's motion to intervene was p ted on Septembcr 20, 1989. Mer extensive 

evidmtiaw he-gs, the Court deferred approval ok the Commt Dccree on J,we 18,199 1. 

26 On September 1 1, 199 1, Sierra Club filed a motion for interim attorney's fees 

27 pursuant to 33 U.S.C. €j -13'ij5(d). The Court grant& this 'motion TI part on February 6, 1992, 

U I I 

1 

I 

28 The State of . - ~alikkialarer re-died it~dith the City as a defadarrt in March 1994. 

! 

I 

-2- i 1%N1101 

I 

07/01/98 WED 08:02 ITX/RX NO 65051 @003 

t 

-.

finding that 3 1365(d) allowed intervening plains ih CWA actions to receive attorney's 

I 

To determine an appropriate fee award, the ~durt plad Sierra Club's work on the 

.&. I 

case in three categories. Thc first oaregory of work, for which the Court awardcd feeq 

! 

involved water reclamation issues. The second categkry of wodq for which tfie Court held 

I 

that a fee request w& prematux, involved experimentduse of physicaI-chemical . ' 

I I 

neatment methods at the: Point Loma The Cow found thc test redis too isconclusive 

I 

1 ' at that h e to justify a fee award Finally, the ~oddeclined to award fees for work on the 

9 /( pcnalty phasc of-thc litigation base it fiund that sierraclub had not made a be.ncEcia1 

10 

11 

14 

1.5 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

. 

contribution to fhat portion of tke case. 

The C ad awarded Sierra Club amount cq* 15% of its total reasanable fecs 

and costs accrued as of June 18, 1991. The United states, the Slate of CdLfomia, and the 

Ciry of Saa Dicgo wcrc held jointly and severally li&le for 67 2/. % of the interim feo ew& 1 

and the City of Sm Dicgo was solely liable for 33 12 %- The partics cvrntually stipulated to 

I 

a $375.406.24 lodestar, of which Sierra Club receiyd 15% or $56310.93. The award was 

made without prejudice b future fee motions. I 

I 

The Court cmied the interim award of attorney's ftes for interlocutory appeal 

pursuant to 28 U.S,C. § 1292@). The United Sulesiand the City of SanDicgo appealed on 

1 . 

the ground that as an inteTvcnor, Sierra Club codd qot receive fees. Sicrra Club cross- 

appealed the amount of the award. Thc Ninth ~irc& without reaching the merits of this 

Court7s decision, held that it lackcd jurisdiction over thc appeals un&r either 28 U.S.C. 35 

1 

1291 or 1292@), and the appeals were dismissed wi'ihout prejudice. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I . I 

Mer deferral of he Consent Decree, the ~ie~rra Club devoted extensive efforts to 

alternate resolutions to this rnamr. It mearched water recIamdan and rc-use 

24 dc~loping 

I 

25 possibilities and the effects of water conservation on wastewatei volumes at the Point Lorna 

ll 

I I 

I 

26 1) plant. It also monitomd the testing of physicalr~hcmical 

hamlent methods at the Pokt 1 

i 

27 Lorna plant In ~eptcmbor 1993, Si- Club reque&cd that the Court hold a final hearing On 

I 

. - 

28 thc Consent Decree and that the Consent becrec beldisapproved Allhough the United Sacs 

1 

I 

I 

07/01/98 WED 09:02 [TX/RI NO 65051 @OO 

-

(I md 

1 and the State continued to favor appmYal of the Consent Decree, the City changed positions 

4 

apposed thc d m . The parties participaled in ex-ensive discovery, fallowed by tturteen 

days of evideneiary beatings. Orr March 3 1, 1994, the Court rejected the Consent Decree. 

subsequently, ihc Corn issued an interim ordm an August 26, 1994 to address all 

rernedid phase issues in tl~e case pending fmal judgment. That order provided, among other 

things, consmdon dates for a number of projects, including the North City 'Water . 

Reclamation Plant (North City plant). Howevcr, the order-did not require completion of er. 

8 1 distribution system far reclaimad water by the tart-up date of thc North City Plant. Without I 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

24 

distribution pipelines, Sierra Club aswed.., the reclaimed water wauld be wastefully 

discharged into the ocean. Siemr Club therefarc moved to mmd thc interim orda to 

provide for "dishibution pipelines adequate to d e ? not less than 9,000 acre fcec per ycar." 

The Court did mend the interim order, blrt it did not adopt the Sierra Club's proposed . 

amendment. Instead. the Court adopted the City's suggestion-that the amended ordp 

incorporafe a map setting out a backbone distribution pipeline system ruld specify completion 

15 dates for cach sepenr of the pipeline project. It did not requirc a specific distribution 

i 

16 pipchc capacity- 

2 7 One of the most significant issues remaining in thc case after rejection of the Consent 

I 

Dccrce was dcthcr the City should be rcquired to best effluent to sccondiuy treament 

19 1 ~tax~d~ds at thc Point bma plant before discharging it into the ocean. Despite substantial I 

I 20 )/ improvements at ~c Point Loma plant due in part to the use of plzysicdzhemical ireamen* 1 

2 1 

22 

23 no environmental injq would result. Thc parties and the Court were convinced W under 

the circumstances, a 5 301 (h) waiver would bc approprkte,2 Unfoltunately, he City's prior I 

25 5 30 l(h) request had becn.withdrawn years before, and by 1995, the 9 301(h) waiver 

27 

28 

ll 

mcthods, secondary &eahtmt standards could not be reached. &fore 1994, the EPA was 

allowed to waive one or more secondary treatment standards da 8 3Ol(h) of the CWA if 

During this tima. thc National Science Foundation was studying the scicclcc of tee CWA 

regulations Tt issued a report w&ch was quite bvomble to tho Siena Club s and the Gty's asitlon that 

San Diego's sewage m m p-- improved mu& the use of physicd-chem~~d met R oh, caused 

no damage to the environment. 

07/01/98 WED 09:02 ITX/RX NO 65051 a005

-1 1 

I 

provision had Without a waiver, thc City would have becn forud to build an 

2 expensive and unnecessiq new sewage treatment plant to comply with the CWA To avoid 

3 this result, thc parties drafted, lobbied for, and obtained passage of a bill by Congress, the 

4 11 Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA), which allowed thc . City . to apply for a 3 301(h) 1 

5 

6 

1 

suspended 

8 

7 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

waiver. The City applied for the waiver an4 with the Sierra Uub's help, established in 

waiver permit hearings bcfm thc EPA drat the Point Loma plant had achieved an 85% 

solids removal rate, and that due to this. the Cisy's efflucnt discharges did not 

injurc the ocean environment. The City obtained a 5 301(h) waiver on Novcmber 9, 1995. 

-The resolution of the seconday treatment jssuc rmovcd a major obstacle to settling 

the case. The parties negotiated a complex sdcment, and the final Stipulated Judgment was 

entered on June 6, 1 997. 

Siem Club now moves 6 r a final award of attorney's fes. It seeks $866,628.85, 

t 3 which represents all work donc on the case, less the interim fee award. It dso requests a 

I 

14 25% enhancerncnt. 

15 ITL DISCUSSION 

16 A. Standard af Law 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Under thc CWA, a district court may award "costs of litigation . . . to any prevailing 

or substantially prcvailing party whencver the court determines such awkd is appropriate." 

33 U.S.C. 3 1365(d). 

The threshold determination is whether the moving. party is a "prevailing party." 

Earth Island Inst.. Tnc, v. S~uthem Cal. Edison Co., 838 F. Supp. 458, 463 (S.D. Cal. 1993) 

(citing HensIcv v. Eckerha 46 1 U .S. 424,433-37 (1 983)). A prevailing party "must have 

succeeded on 'any signrfcant issue in the litigation which achieves some ofthe benefit'" ( 

sought. Earth Island, 83 8 F. Supp. at 464 (quoting Henslcv, 46 1 U.S. at 433). 

The Ciry initially tuxbed a tempor ~5 301 &) waiver is 198 1. When the City amanded its 

application lo allow larger treatment volumes at Point Loma pIant, the vmiYer was temporaril denied 

h 1987. the City vifhdrcu. itS P 301 (h) waiver ap !idon ad coomr-d plarming to comply &ly with 

% CWA Early in the planning pro-, in 198b: the United States and the State ofC&fom~a filed the 

lnstanr lawsuit against the City. The City later relied on the proposed Consent Dccrce as a way of 

achieving CWA compliance. 

07/01/98 WED 09:02 [TXfRX NO 65051 @006

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 i 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 . 

Uni~ed States; therefore, the Courf may propcdy 

club's anmcy's iees. However, the Court recognizes that the war over the Consent Decree 

co,pored of many battles, and the United Stam did not E@t in every skirmish. Thus, 

the United Stavs' lack of opposition to the Sierra Club regarding some issues in this case is 

rdcctcd by the fact thar the Court has only held d ~e United States liable for a percentage of 

The Sierra Club's motion for attomeyTs fccr is granted. Sicm Club shall &cive an 

award of $78 1,306. The City shall be solely liable for 75% of this amount. The United 

Starcs Thc Sac, and the City shall be jointly and severally liable for 25% of this amonnf, bnt 

the Unitcd Starcs shall not be required b, pay more than 12.5% 01 the total (9781,306) award. 

21 IT 1s SO OWERED. 

22 

23 DATED: 6-3.- fl/ 

24 

25 1 

26 

27 . 

28 

the S~crra Club's attorney's fee award. 

G. Sierra Club k Not Entitled to Recovery unde;lqultablo~octrines. 

Sierra Club contends that if attorney's fees arc not appmpliato under the CWA the 

Court should award them undcr the equitable common bcncfit d odx. This issue is ' 

rendered moot by the Court's decision to award attorney's fek mdcr the CWA. 

~urth&more, the common benefit dockhe hs ao application where, as here, the alleged 

beneficiaries are the gencral citizenry of a counw & m t Lend Defense G-rouv v. 

A. 657 ~ .2d 1118. 1123 (9th Cir. 1981); Stevens u. Municiwol Co& 603 F.2d ill. 113 

(9th Cir 1979). 

CC: All Parties 

Ma$s!raic Judge Porter 

iV. CONCLUSION 

- 18 - 

--

Footnote No. 67

Footnote No. 68

2o l l 

21 

22 

23 

24 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

-- . . -a- I-. . __ __ -. 

--- - __ . - 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiffs, 

) 

civil No. 88-I~O~-B(IEG) 

vs . 1 MEMORANDUM DECISION 

DEFERRING APPROVAL OF 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, PROPOSED PARTIAL CONSENT 

DECREE 

Defendant. 

SIERRA CLUB, EMILY DURBIN, and 1 

BRUCE HENDERSON, ) 

1 

Intervenors. ) 

In considering plaintiffsf motion for entry of the proposed 

partial consent decree (Decree), this court has conducted a 

hearing in which the parties have presented evidence on the issue 

of whether the Decree is in the public interest. In addition, 

the court has allowed any interested citizens to provide public 

25 I 1 comment, in writing or in open court, concerning the Decree and !

1 

2 

3 

its impact on the citizens of San Diego.' Upon consideration of 

the evidence and the public comment discussed above, the court 

hereby enters the following memorandum decision. 

Procedural Backqround 

5~~ I* 

This is an action brought by the United States of America 

611 (united States) and the State of california (State) against the I 

811 City of San Diego (City) to require the City to comply with the I 

I I 

9 Clean Water Act (Act), 33 U.S.C. 5 1251 & sea., and with its 

I I 

10 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and to 

11 require the City to pay civil penalties for past violations of 

I I I 

12 the Act. The Sierra Club, Emily Durbin, and Bruce Henderson have 

I I 13 been granted leave to intervene in this action. 

I I I 

On May 10, 1989, the court bifurcated this case into I 

l5 I I 

I I 

remedial and penalty phases. On January 30, 1990, the United 

16 States, the State, and the city lodged the Decree with the court, 

1711 thereby settling the remedial phase of this case, subject to I 

I I 

19 

18 approval by the court. By Interim Order dated March 21, 1990, 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

this court found the Decree to be appropriate acti,on to achieve 

compliance with the Clean Water Act, and plaintiffs were 

permitted to publish notice of the Decree in the Federal 

Register, as required by law. 

On August 15, 1990, after publication of the Decree and upon 

review of the public comment received, plaintiffs moved for entry 

of judgment approving and ordering performance of the Decree. Sy 

1 This public comment was received at the request of the 

court, and sumlemented the ~ublic comment alreadv received b-l :?.a 

government In response to the legally mandated publication or zne 

Decree in the Federal Register. 

2 

. 8

Order dated December 4, 1990, the court, pursuant to its 

equitable authority with respect to the Decree, deferred 

consideration of the Decree so that evidence could be presented 

as to whether pursuit of a 9 301(h) waiver by the City would be 

in the public interest.' By Amended Memorandum Decision dated 

April 18, 1991, the court ruled that it would not defer 

consideration of the Decree in order to allow the city to apply 

for a waiver.= Accordingly, the court stated its intention to 

consider forthwith whether the Decree is in the public interest 

and should therefore be entered as a final judgment.' 

11. ScoDe of Review 

The Ninth Circuit has held that "a district court should 

enter a proposed consent judgment if the court decides that it is 

fair, reasonable and equitable, and does not violate the law or 

public p~licy.'~ Sierra Club v. Electronic Controls Desiun, 909 

F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990). However, entry of a consent 

decree "is a judicial act which deserves more than the court's 

rubber stamp on the agency's action." United States v. Ketchikan 

Pula Co., 430 F.Supp. 83, 85 (D. Alaska 1977). 

I If obtained, such a waiver would exempt the City from 

compliance with the secondary treatment requirements of the Clean 

Water Act at the Point Loma plant, thereby dramatically affecting 

the terms of the Decree. 

3 Simultaneously, the court resolved the penalty phase of 

this action by imposing a penalty of $3 million against the City. 

4 The court's rulinq on this issue did not foreclose the 

City's pursuit of a waiver while consideration of the Decree 

proceeded. Sea Amended Memorandum Decision, p. 5 n.3.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

I I 

In reviewing the Decree in this case, the court has heard 

evidence in order to determine whether the Decree is in 

the public interest and furthers the objectives of the Clean 

Water Act. While the court is mindful that it should not 

"tinkeru with the quasi-contractual agreement of the litigants, 

it is likewise imperative that the parties recognize and consider 

the substantial and long-term effect the Decree will have on the 

citizens of San Diego. Although immediate entry of a consensual 

agreement may be legally and politically expedient, the public 

10 interest demands that this court make a searching inquiry into 

11 

12 

20 

21 

22 

23 

possible alternative solutions where obvious shortcomings exist 

in the Decree. 

111. The Decree and the Public Interest 

The Decree reflects an impressive legal and scientific 

effort by the parties to identify and solve the sewage problems 

currently confronting the City. In all likelihood, the Decree 

would take the City through the twenty-first century and serve as 

a model for other municipalities attempting to comply with the 

Act. However, the court has identified four areas of concern 

which indicate that approval of the Decree in its present form 

should be deferred. 

. . 

A. Beneflclal Reuse of Reclaimed Water 

24 The Decree contemplates the construction of water 

2511 reclamation plants on an aggressive schedule, but fails to 

I 

2611 require reuse of the reclaimed water on even a minimally I 

27 I I significant basis until well after the plants have been 

28 , . 

I 

I

211 water may be pumped out to sea, and increasingly valuable potable I 

water will be used in its place. while the construction of the 

311 

4 11 reclaimed water plants is laudable, the level of beneficial reuse / 

contemplated by the parties is woefully inadequate, and is not in 

6 the public intere~t.~ 

I I 

711 Based upon the evidence received during the hearing, the I 

court concludes that the following schedule and levels of reuse 

are logistically feasible, economically preferable, and in the I 

1011 public interest: (I) upon the completion of any tertiary I 

11 / 1 treatment plant, the City shall immediately provide for the I 

12 I 1 beneficial reuse of at least 25% of the reclaimed water from that 1 

I I 

I I 

13 plant; (2) by December 31, 2003, the City shall provide for the 

1411 beneficial reuse of at least 50% of all reclaimed water produced I 

15 at the completed plants; and (3) by December 31, 2010, the City 

LL 

5 All of the tertiary facilities will be completed by 1999. 

As presently written, the Decree contemplates the following 

schedule and levels of reuse: (1) by December 31, 2003, the City 

shall beneficially reuse no less than 30,000 acre feet per year of 

reclaimed water; and (2) by December 31, 2010, the City shall 

benefi-cially reuse no less than 50% of the wastewater receiving 

ltertiary treatment (presently calculated at 49,800 acre feet). 

6 The court recognizes that under the Act the parties did 

23 not have to provide for the use of any of the reclaimed water. . 

However, this court's review of the Decree is not limited only to 

24 those aspects which are legally mandated. The Supreme Court has 

observed that "a federal court is not necessarily barred from 

25 entering a consent decree merely because the decree provides 

broader relief than the court could have awarded after a trial." 

26 L-93.s8n I of ~irefiahters. AFT, - CIO. v. Citv of 

Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 519 (1986). Given this statement of the 

27 law, it must follow that the court is required to review all 

components or the agreement, not merely those that satisfy explicit 

28 regulatory imperatives. 

i I

B. Point Loma Treatment O~tions 

The court received evidence during the hearing indicating I 

611that physical-chemical treatment solutions may obviate the need I 

I I 7 for the biological treatment program presently contemplated by 

8 the Decree. The City has stated its intention to conduct a plant 

I I 9 scale pilot program which will test the ability of the physical- 

I I 

loll 

I I 

chemical treatment option to meet the regulatory requirements of 

11 the Act at the Point Loma plant. If such a program is 

12 successful, the City may adapt the Point Loma plant so that the I I 

I 

13 goals of the Act are achieved at maximum savings to the citizens I I 

I 

14 of San Diego." At the very least, the public interest demands 

I I 15 that the court not blindly ltrubber-stampn the Decree before the 

I I 

1 

16 results of the program are evaluated. 

I I C. Sludse 

I I 

Evidence presented during the hearing indicated that the 

19 City is presently reusing 100% of the sludge produced by the 

2011 Point Loma plant. However, under the present terms of the I 

2111 Decree, the sludge produced by the city at point Loma and the new I 

2211 plants is likely to double. Despite this precipitous increase in I 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

' The court notes that the city is presently preparing a 

master plan for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water. By deferring 

approval of the Decree, the court hopes that the City will be 

afforded an opportunity, via the master plan, to alleviate the 

court's concerns with respect to beneficial reuse. 

B 

The presently contemplated secondary treatment option is 

the most expensive component of the Decree, and has been the 

sun3ecc of vlgorous attacK ~y Intervenor Henderson, members of the 

public, and expert witnesses. 

6

1 

2 

3 

I 

I I 

sludge generation, the Decree does not provide for a 

corresponding increase in reuse. Given the inherent difficulties 

associated with the reuse of sludge the court cannot find the 

4 Decree in the public interest without a viable sludge plan which 

5 

6 

1 I 

I I 

does not depend on the already overburdened landfills of this 

county. 

D. Water Conservation 

In assessing penalties against the City for past violations 

of the Act, the court offered the City a water conservation 

1011 program option which could potentially create a credit in the I 

11 City's favor of $2.5 million. In order to avail itself of this 

I I 

12 option, the City is required to pass certain ordinances which 

I I I 

I I 

14 the number of gallons of wastewater treated by the City. The 

13 could dramatically increase water conservation, thereby reducing 

I I 

I I 

16 is January 1, 1992. 

15 deadline imposed by the court for the passage of these ordinances 

I I I 

I I 

The Decree, because it was drafted prior to this court's 

l7 

18 imposition of penalties, does not contemplate the potential 

19 

20 

I I I 

I I 

passage of these ordinances, nor the substantial effect they may 

have on the City's compliance with the Acte9 The court remains 

21 hopeful that the City will act responsibly and progressively in 

2211 as sing the suggested ordinances. Therefore, approval of the I 

2311 Decree should be deferred so that the City has an opportunity to I 

I I 

24 do so. 

Likewise, the Decree predates this courtfs ruling on the 

Loma outfall extension and therefore also does r7ot 

incorporate the posltive impact that remedial effort is expected 

on the marine environment, particularly in the kelp beds. 

i

I I 0 

1 IV. P tent' la1 Waiver Amlication 

As noted above, the court's earlier refusal to defer 

211 

gllconsideration of the Decree was without prejudice to the City 

I I I 

4 independently seeking a 5 301(h) waiver during the pendency of 

5 

6 

this action. In light of the above analysis, it should be 

emphasized that the ability of the City to obtain a waiver may be 

711 

11 significantly enhanced by the treatment improvements and water I 

8 conservation advancements contemplated in this Memorandum 

011 Decision. I 

I Specifically, the following events may lend important 

101 

11 credibility to any future waiver application: (1) publication of 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

a promising master plan for the beneficial reuse of reclaimed 

1711 management program which maximizes beneficial reuse and minimizes I 

18 adverse environmental impacts; and (5) completion of the Point 

I I 

water; (2) creation of treatment innovations arising out of the 

plant scale pilot program; (3) enactment of water conservation 

ordinances by the City, thereby reducing the volume of wastewater 

treated at the Point Loma plant; ( 4) identification of a sludge 

19ll Loma outfall extension. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

I1 

24 were entered with the above improvements, the court concludes 

25 

26 

27 

28 

If the City is able to marshal its scientific resources and 

political will towards these objectives, then the court strongly 

believes that compelling and meritorious grounds would exist for 

a waiver application by the City.'' Moreover, if a consent decree 

10 However, this conclusion goes only to the merits of the 

application. The court acknowledges plaintiffs' contention that 

procedural obstacles mav ~revent consideration of such an 

application. This court makes no finding on the merits of that 

contention. 

8 

I 

I

I I 

2 treatment would represent a model of economic efficiency, water 

3 1 ~ 

conservation, and environmental protection. 

Based upon all of the above, the court concludes that the 

411 

5lIpublic interest would best be served by deferring approval of the 

611 ~ecree." In doing so, the court is hopeful that the parties will 

I I 

7 take advantage of the opportunity to meet the requirements of the 

I I 

8 Act in a cost-efficient and environmentally comprehensive manner. 

101lv- . 

s of Deferral 

condition 

~uring the period of deferred approval, the City shall 

Il1 

12 continue to perform under the Decree to the same extent as if the 

I I 

I I 

13 court had approved the Decree in its totality. All relevant 

14 1 1 milestones and deadlines shall be met by the City in conformance 

15 I I with the terms of the Decree." Further, the City shall complete 

16 its master plan for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and 

I I 

" A deferral of approval should not be confused with the 

court's earlier decision concerning deferral of consideration. 

Most importantly, the inquiries made by the court in the two 

situations are dramatically different. In deciding whether to 

defer consideration, the court explored merely whether the present 

Point Loma outfall was causing significant harm to the marine 

environment, in the limited context of a potential waiver 

application. In contrast, the court's decision to defer approval 

required an analysis of all aspects of the Decree from a broader 

perspective. Fundamentally, deferral of approval suggests general 

satisfaction with the Decree, subject to certain modifications. 

11 However, if the City enacts the water conservation 

ordinances described in this court's Amended Memorandum Decision 

of April 18, 1991, the court will allow the City to defer 

25 I I compliance with the milestone contemplated by 5 VI.A.1 .c of the 

Decree for design of the South Bay secondary treatment plant. If 

26 ordered, this deferral shall remain in place until such time as 

the court has had an opportunity to evaluate the results of the 

27 plant scale pilot program at Point Loma, in approximately Januarv, 

Sucn dererral would not extend to the design milestone ror 

28 the South Bay tertiary plant. 

I I 1993. 

I

commence the plant scale pilot test at the Point Loma plant and 

provide the court with at least quarterly updates concerning 

same. 

To ensure compliance with these conditions, the court will 

hold a status conference on November 20, 1991, at 2:00 p.m, or at 

such earlier date as circumstances may require. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED : 6 -/SF ?/ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

i

Footnote No. 69

THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING 

OF 

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992 

AT 10:OO A.M. 

IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 12TH FLOOR 

To Council Members Wolfsheimer, Roberts, Hartley, Stevens, Behr, 

Stallings, McCarty, and Filner, members of the City Council of 

the City of San Diego, California: 

Pursuant to San Diego Municipal Code Section 22.0101(£), which 

provides that a special meeting may be called by a majority of 

the Council, A SPECIAL MEETING of the City Council will be held 

at 10:OO a.m. on Monday, April 27, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 

12th Floor, 202 C Street, San Diego, California. 

Said meeting has been called in the matter of the new Clean Water 

Program, in accordance with the majority vote of the Council at 

the meeting of April 21, 1992. 

Dated April 23, 1992. CHARLES G. ABDELNOUR, City Clerk 

CHRONOLOGY OF THE MEETING: 

The meeting was called to order by Deputy Mayor Roberts at 

10:ll a.m. The meeting was recessed by Deputy Mayor Roberts at 

10:17 a.m. to meet in Closed Session to review a document 

pertaining to the litigation. The meeting was reconvened by 

Mayor O1Connor at 10:30 a.m. with Council Member Stevens not 

present. Mayor O'Connor adjourned the meeting at 12:lO p.m. 

ATTENDANCE DURING THE MEETING: 

(M) Mayor 0' Connor-present 

(1) Council Member Wolfsheimer-present 

(2) Council Member Roberts-present 

(3) Council Member Hartley-present 

(4) Council Member Stevens-not present 

(5) Council Member Behr-present 

(6) Council Member Stallings-present

Minutes of the Council of the City of San Diego 

for the Special Meeting of Monday, April 27, 1992 Page 2 

FILE LOCATION: 

(7) Council Member McCarty-present 

(8) Council Member Filner-present 

MINUTES 

ITEM-800: ROLL CALL 

Clerk-Abdelnour (mc/mp) 

Clerk Abdelnour called the roll: 

Mayor O'Connor-not present 

Council Member Wolfsheimer-present 

Council Member Roberts-present 

Council Member Hartley-present 

Council Member Stevens-not present 

Council Member Behr-present 

Council Member Stallings-present 

Council Member McCarty-not present 

Council Member Filner-present 

ITEM-801: DISCUSSION HELD; DIRECTIONS GIVEN 

In the matter of the new Clean Water Program. 

(Docketed per Council directive at the meeting of 

Tuesday, April 21, 1992.) 

FILE LOCATION: WATER - New Clean Water Program 

COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: A020-C264.) 

MOTION BY FILNER TO RENEGOTIATE AND TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT 

OF A POLICY TO (1) STAY AT ADVANCED PRIMARY AT POINT LOMA; 

(2) ACCOMPLISH THE NEEDED UPGRADES TO OUR CURRENT SEWER 

SYSTEM, THE PLANS FOR GROWTH AND THE NEEDED WORK TO COMPLY 

WITH THE STATE PROGRAM; (3) ESTABLISH A SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM 

FOR WATER CONSERVATION; AND (4) ESTABLISH A FISCALLY SOUND 

PHASE-IN OF THE WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM. DIRECT THE CITY 

ATTORNEY TO GO BACK TO DISCUSS WITH THE COURT AND WITH 

WHATEVER ALLIES THEY CAN FIND AT THE STATE/FEDERAL LEVELS 

WITH RESPECT TO THE RESTRUCTURING OF THIS CURRENT CONSENT 

DECREE. Second and summarized by Roberts. 

Establish a program based on the actual needs and realities

Minutes of the Council of the City of San Diego 

for the Special Meeting of Monday, April 27, 1992 Page 3 

of San Diego by (1) not going to secondary. Remain at 

advanced primary as a basis for developing other needs; (2) 

continuing the upgrade and improvements to the existing 

system; (3) taking advantage of the bid for the outfall 

extension and moving ahead. Also, program the replacement 

of the parallel pipe. If evidence is there for a tunnel to 

be at our best efforts, then consider that. Otherwise, move 

full speed ahead, first with the extension, then with the 

paralleling of the existing pipe with respect to the Pt. 

Loma outfall; (4) making the system capacity driven, which 

means we will have to add one new plant. 

All new plants brought on line should have the capacity for 

water reclamation initially or as a second phase. If at 

construction time, water reclamation can be utilized, then 

it should be part of construction; and (5) continuing with 

the conservation efforts. 

Encourage water conservation and reward financially for 

conservation efforts. 

Amendment by Behr, accepted by Roberts to delete the second 

sentence on the municipal system. 

Amendment by Roberts, second by Filner to include the fact 

that new development would pay its fair share of the 

required facilities as part of this policy. 

Amendment by Filner, second by Roberts to instruct staff to 

come back with the financial and technical ramifications, 

and ultimately with the legal ramifications of this project 

for discussion at a special Council meeting on May 4, 1992. 

Passed by the following vote: Wolfsheimer-yea, Roberts-yea, 

Hartley-yea, Stevens-not present, Behr-yea, Stallings-yea, 

McCarty-yea, Filner-yea, Mayor OIConnor-nay. 

ADJOURNMENT : 

The meeting was adjourned by Mayor OIConnor at 12:lO p.m. 

FILE LOCATION: MINUTES 

COUNCIL ACTION: (Tape location: C265).

Footnote No. 70

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1 Civ. No. 88-1101-B 

1 

Plaintiff, 1 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

1 ORDER REJECTING PROPOSED 

vs . 1 PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE LODGED 

1 JANUARY 31, 1990, AND SETTING 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 1 STATUS HEARING FOR APRIL 25, 

1 1994. 

Defendant. 1 

) 

1 

SIERRA CLUB OF SAN DIEGO, 1 

SAN DIEGO AREA WASTEWATER 1 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND 1 

BRUCE HENDERSON, 1 

1 

Intervenors. 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The 'initial hearing to enter or reject the above Proposed 

Partial Consent Decree (hereinafter CD) commenced in June, 1991. 

Final action was deferred by Order of this Court on June 18, 

1991, however, in order to permit the parties to consider certain 

apparent deficiencies in the CD and-to allow the City to conduct 

a plant scale pilot test program to determine whether the Point

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Loma treatment plant could be brought into substantial compliance 

with secondary treatment standards by implementing certain recent 

innovative techniques of advanced primary physical-chemical 

treatment. After two stipulated continuances to accommodate 

family additions in the attorney ranks, that hearing was 

reconvened in this Court on February 8, 1994. 

Plaintiff United States of America (hereinafter U.S.A.) was 

represented by Karen Dworkin, Esq., Hugh Barrell, Esq., Michael 

~oodstein, Esq., James Farrell, Esq., and James Loftin, Esq.. 

The State of California (hereinafter State), which realigned as 

a defendant during the hearing, was represented by Randall 

Christison, Esq., James Patterson, Esq., and Jamee Jordan 

Patterson, Esq.. Defendant City of San Diego (hereinafter City) 

was represented by James Dragna, Esq., Ted Bromfield, Esq., 

Colleen Doyle, Esq., Douglas Painter, Esq., and Jack Opel, Esq.. 

The newly created San Diego Area Wastewater Management District 

(hereinafter District) intervened as future successor-in-interest 

of defendant City, and was represented by Thomas Woodruff, Esq., 

and Lois F. Jeffrey, Esq.. Intervenor Bruce Henderson 

(hereinafter Henderson), Esq. represented himself. The County of 

San Diego (hereinafter County), as an informal Amicus Curiae, was 

represented by Mark Meade, Esq.. Intervenor Sierra Club 

(hereinafter Sierra) was represented by Robert Simmons, Esq., and 

William Benjamin, Esq.. 

The Court heard fourteen days of further testimony and 

received dozens of additional documents and exhibits into

evidence. At the conclusion of all the evidence, each party 

summarized its position and the case was submitted to the Court 

for decision. 

The Court has reviewed all the prior orders in this case and 

most of the prior testimony and exhibits which were earlier 

received. Being fully advised in the premises, this Court has 

concluded that the Proposed Partial Consent Decree submitted on 

January 31, 1990, is not in the public interest and should be 

rejected. 

11. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

A. Factual History and Posture of the Parties 

San Diegofs current Metropolitan Sewage System began 

operations in 1963. At that time, the system discharged primary 

treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean through an outfall pipe 

running 2 miles out from the coast and at an ocean depth of 200 

feet. In 1985, chemical advanced primary treatment improved the 

rate of removal of solids from the sewage, achieving a removal 

rate of approximately 70-75%. In 1979, the City applied for a 

waiver from compliance with the secondary treatment requirements 

of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and was issued a temporary 

301(h) waiver based on the stated operation limits in 1981. When 

the City amended its application to allow larger treatment 

volumes through the Point Lorna Plant, their waiver was 

temporarily denied. In 1987, for reasons which are in dispute 

and not regarded by this Court as relevant to this motion, the 

City withdrew its 301(h) waiver application, and commenced

~lanning to achieve full compliance with the CWA. Just as that 

process was commenced, the U. S .A. and the State of California, in 

1988, commenced the instant action to force compliance and to 

seek statutory penalties for past and ongoing violations of the' 

cWA, as well as for past spills of raw sewage.l 

In settlement of the injunctive portion of the case, and to 

bring the City into compliance with the CWA, the parties entered 

into the aforementioned CD in January, 1990.2 This CD required 

the City to dramatically upgrade and expand its wastewater 

treatment system, and it also included unprecedented water 

reclamation and reuse requirement^.^ 

1 The complaint alleged continuous violations of 

secondary treatment effluent limitations for Total Suspended 

Solids (TSS) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). Furthermore, 

the complaint alleged violations of effluent limitations mandated 

by the state, including limitation for oil and grease, settleable 

solids, toxicity, turbidity, DDT, and flow. Al,so, the complaint 

alleged violations of state bacteriological standards. Finally, 

the complaint alleged numerous spills of raw sewage, violations 

of pretreatment requirements, and improper sludge disposal. See 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed June 21, 1991, 

Civ. 88-1101-B, at 2. 

2 Furthermore, as a civil penalty, this court fined the 

City $3 million, $2.5 million of which is credited toward a local 

water conservation ordinance enacted by the City in 1991. See 

Partial Judgment on Bifurcated Penalty Phase, Civ. No. 88-1101-B, 

filed on June 21, 1991. 

3 The CD mandated substantial changes. It required 

substantial design and construction work, a secondary treatment 

plant at Point Lorna at 100-150 million gallons per day (MGD), a 

South Bay secondary treatment plant at 55 MGD, and six water 

reclamation satellite plants. North City, Otay and Poway 

Reclamation Plants (Phase IA) were to be designed by March 1993, 

and were to be in compliance with tertiary treatment requirements 

by June 1998. Further, Mission Valley, Santee and South Bay 

Reclamation Plants and South BAY Secondary Plant (Phase IB) were 

to be designed by September 1993, and were to be in compliance 

with tertiary treatment requirements by June 1999. The Point

211 unworkable. The City argues the CD is not in the public 

311 interest, and claims CWA compliance can be achieved in more 

411 effective and ' less expensive ways than those required by the 

I I 

5 proposed CD. The City contends that the required expenditures 

6 1 1 

should be driven by sewage needs rather than by water 

711 conservation criteria. 

811 

The State realigned from plaintiff to defendant pursuant to 

91 its motion granted by the Court on March 1, 1994. The State 

1011 opposes approval of the CD, contending with the City that 

1111 circumstances have changed, and that the CD is massively 

121 1 excessive and unnecessary. It should be noted that the 

1311 completion of the extended outfall pipe to 4.5 miles from shore 

14 I I at a depth of 325 feet has eliminated all contribution to any 

I I 

15 pollution from the outfall along the shore and the kelp beds. 

161 1 The California Ocean Plan standards have been met. Additionally, 

1711 as a result of its one year pilot test program, the City has 

Loma plant was to be in compliance with secondary treatment 

requirements by December 31, 2003. . 

Second, the CD required extensive reclamation and reuse 

requirements that would require the City to reclaim no less than 

41 MGD by June 30, 1998, no less than 83 MGD by June 30, 1999, 

and no less than 89 MGD by December 31, 2003. Further, the City 

would be required to beneficially reuse 30,000 acre feet per year 

(AFY) by December 31, 2003, and increase that to 50% of all 

reclaimed water produced (estimated at 49,800 AFY) by December 

31, 2010. All reclamation plants are required to treat all 

sewage to tertiary standards, even though most of it will be 


Lastly, the CD requires interim effluent limits, sewage 

spill reduction, new pretreatment standards, staffing procedures, 

new Point Lorna interim operation standards, a capital 

improvements program, and contained a stipulated penalties 

section.

fffine-tunedff its advanced primary treatment procedures at Point 

Loma so that it is now removing 85% of solids (the EPA secondary 

treatment requirement), 40 mg/liter TSS (the EPA standard is 30 

mg/liter), and approximately 70 mg/liter BOD4 (the EPA standard 

is 30 mg/liter). The City is undertaking to install a $500,000 

computerized automatic chemical feed system which should further 

improve the performance of the Point Lorna Plant as to removal of 

solids. 

The CD is also opposed by all other parties intervenor and 

amicus in this action. 

The first intervenor, Sierra, opposes on the grounds that 

the CD is wasteful in over-building unnecessary satellite plants, 

and illegal in requiring all satellite plants to treat all sewage 

to tertiary standards, even though it appears that most of it 

will be dumped immediately into the ocean. Sierra favors adding 

additional treatment plants only when necessary to treat sewage, 

and supports tertiary treatment of sewage whenever possible, but 

only to the extent it is beneficially reusable. 

Intervenor Henderson opposes everything until the City can 

be heard by the EPA in its renewed attempt to obtain a 301(h) 

waiver for the Point Loma Plant. Henderson correctly points out 

that with the new outfall, the scientific evidence without 

dispute establishes that the marine environment is not harmed by 

present sewage treatment, and in fact it appears to be enhanced, 

4 BOD is a measurement of the lack of oxygen in the 

effluent, which will absorb oxygen from the environment into 

which the effluent is discharged.

since the new larger outfall discharge diffuser is expected to 

increase the total bio-mass abundance of organisms in the benthic 

community in the area of the new discharge. The ratio of 

suspension feeding organisms is expected to decline slightly in 

the immediate area of the diffuser, but the resulting Infaunal 

~rophic Index (ITI) ,' which measures the relative presence of 

various organisms that live in and on the bottom, is expected to 

stabilize at more than 70. The EPA has previously held that an 

IT1 of 60 or more is not considered a significant deviation from 

the normal IT1 to be expected of about 90 in that area. 

This Court has previously ruled that it does not have 

jurisdiction to consider any 301(h) waiver for the City, and it 

will not base its ruling in this motion on that ground. The 

Court notes with approval that the EPA commissioned the 

prestigious National Academy of Sciences to advise it on the 

scientific wisdom of enforcing uniform secondary treatment 

standards. The issue was whether environmental differences may 

warrant individual evaluation of discharge requirements which can 

maximize environmental protection at more efficient costs. 

Pursuant to that commission, the National Research Council 

undertook a study of the entire country, and concluded, in a book 

5 The Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI) is a device used by 

oceanographers to tell what types of creatures live in the ocean 

area. The IT1 is significant for determining how many suspension 

feeders exist versus how many subsurface feeders exist in a given 

ocean area. The closer the IT1 is to 100, the more abundant are 

the suspension feeders and scarce are the subsurface feeders. 

The introduction of sewage into the water causes the IT1 to 

decrease, because the subsurface feeders, anaerobic worms, 

thrive, while the suspension feeders are less successful.

1 

211 

311 

411 

511 

6 

published in 1993, that on a scientific basis, it would be wise 

to consider environmental differences in regulating sewage 

treatment standards under the CWA.6 Specifically, it commended 

waiver treatment for deep ocean discharges like those off the 

coast of Sari Dieg~.~ In addition, all scientists testifying 

before this Court as well as the National Research Council advise 

7 that BOD, which is a critical consideration for river and lake 

sewage discharges, is irrelevant in deep ocean discharges because 

811 

gll of the massive abundance of oxygen in the ocean which is 

1 available to digest the solids discharged.' Henderson urges the 

101 

1111 COU& that except for the BOD requirement, the City substantially 

I meets the secondary treatment regulations requirement of 85% TSS 

121 

removal, and a maximum of 30 mg/liter TSS. He is hopeful that 

131 1 

these undisputed scientific circumstances will persuade the EPA 

1411 

1511 to grant the waiver to the City. Therefore, Henderson opposes a 

1611 massive capital program costing billions of dollars to provide 

secondary and/or tertiary sewage treatment which may not 

1711 

ultimately be required by the EPA. 

1811 

Intervenor County and future successor in interest District 

1911 

20 oppose approval of the CD for the same reasons as the City. But 

21 

2211 

in addition, the District argues that the CD is a "political 

disastern because of its gross over-building of sewer capacity 

241/ National Research Council, Manaaina Wastewater In 

CoasLl Urban Areas 9-10 (1991). 

- 

7 Id. at 157.

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 

and tertiary treatment capacity which the District is convinced 

will be unacceptable to the numerous outlying communities which 

must Pay its share of the costs it entails. This, argues the 

~istrict, will jeopardize funding. 

The sole proponent of the CD is plaintiff U.S.A.. It 

contends that the CD was in the public interest when it was 

lodged with the Court in 1990, and it still is today, although 

the plaintiff readily concedes it needs to be modified 

substantially and immediately if it is approved. 

Plaintiff correctly points out that the CD contains a 

procedure and mechanism for modifying it by agreement, or by 

Court order, as to the provisions regarding design and 

construction of all treatment facilities. The CD, however, does 

not contain any stated procedure or mechanism for modifying the 

requirements to build all but one satellite plant to tertiary 

standards, even though most of the tertiary treated sewage must 

be immediately dumped into the ocean. Plaintiff suggests that it 

would not oppose the Court changing that aspect of the CD in the 

interest of justice. 

Plaintiff insists that even though the resulting bio-mass 

discharged into the Ocean would only be slightly less than is 

being discharged now (since 85% removal is now being achieved, at 

40 mg/l as opposed to 85% and 30 mg/l required) that difference 

should be given substantial weight in finding that the CD is in 

the public interest. Plaintiff concedes it produced no evidence 

refuting extensive and impressive scientific evidence presented

1 

211 

311 

411 

511 

that the present ocean outfall is of increasing benefit to the 

marine environment in the area of the outfall. 

B. Procedural Background 

On January 31, 1990, the parties lodged the CD with this 

Court. Six months later, in August, 1990, the plaintiffs moved 

for entry of the CD. However, the Court argued to defer 

consideration of the CD so that the City could run a pilot test 

on Point Loma treatment, to see if it could achieve compliance 

81 

911 1 under existing conditibns if the Court were satisfied that in the 

interim no harm was occurring to the marine en~ironment.~ In 

i1 11 April, 1991, after an evidentiary hearing, this Court held that 

i2)1 the Cityts Point Loma discharge was not causing significant harm 

1311 

1411 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 /I 

23 

24 

to the balanced indigenous population surrounding the outfall 

pipe.'' This Court also expressed its concern over the cost of 

compliance with the CD by noting that "regardless of the 

penalties imposed, the , 

Decree, 

if accepted, will create 

significant financial burdens for the City and those burdens will 

surely be passed on to the citi~ens.~" At that time, therefore, 

this Court further deferred consideration of the CD so that the 

City could enter into a full plant scale pilot program at Point 

Loma to see whether it could be brought into substantial 

9 Order Granting Motion t~ Intervene and Order re Limited 

Deferral of Consideration of the Proposed Consent Decree dated 

December 4, 1990, atpp. 2-3. 

lo Amended Memorandum Decision dated April 19, 1991, at 3. 

2611 

! 

IL Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 21, 

1991, at 21-25.

compliance with the CWA using physical-chemical treatment 

methods. The Court ordered the City, in the interim, to observe 

the time milestones of the Proposed CD until the Court made a 

decision on its entry.12 The Court modified this order on July 

10,. 1992, and directed the City to proceed immediately to 

construct only those projects included in a "Consumersf 

~lternativel~l~ pending completion of the Point Lorna treatment 

studies and final review of the CD. 

The Point Loma ~iiot Test program resulted in a substantial 

improvement in treatment standards. The City achieved 85% solids 

removal levels, with concentration of solids (TSS) down to 40-45 

mg/liter. BOD remained in the range of 50-70 mg/liter. The 

final review of the CD is now before this Court. 

l2 Memorandum Decision Deferring Approval of Proposed 

Partial Consent Decree dated June 18, 1991, at 9. 

13 The Consumerst Alternative (Alternative) was a 

compromise plan designed to alter strict adherence to the CD by 

requiring less action with more relaxed deadlines than the CD 

before the court's final approval or disapproval of the CD. 

First, the Alternative required the North City Water Reclamation 

Plant to be completed by June 30, 1998. Construction of this 

plant commenced last May, two years ahead of schedule and is 

anticipated to be on line by mid-1997, one year ahead of 

schedule. Second, the Alternative required the construction of 

a new Point Lorna outfall extension by August 26, 1994. In, 

satisfaction of this, the Point Lorna outfall extension began 

operating in November 1993, nine months ahead of schedule. 

Third, the Alternative established numerous Capital Improvement 

Project deadlines for the Municipal Sewer System. Of these, the 

South Chollas Trunk Sewer project was completed in July, 1993, 

five months ahead of schedule, -and the Morena Boulevard 

Interceptor is anticipated to be completed ahead of schedule. 

Lastly, the Alternative established Capital Improvement Project 

deadlines for the Metropolitan Sewer System.

1 

15 

111. STANDARD OF REVIEW BY DISTRICT COURT 

In analyzing a proposed consent decree, a district Court 

must be satisfied that it is at least fundamentally fair, I 

adequate, and reasonable. U.S. v. Oreaon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th 

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2889 (1991). Within those 

generalized criteria, the consent decree must be consistent with 

congressional and public policy, in the public interest, and 

conform to applicable laws. &; Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 

909, 920-923 (6th Cir. 1983). The district Court is admonished 

to approve or reject the decree proposed, and is not authorized 

to amend it. Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commfn, 688 

F.2d 615, 630 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217 

(1983). 

On the other hand, where the proposed consent decree 

contains provisions for modifying it over time to recognize 

16 changed circumstances, it should not be rejected simply because 

i711 some circumstances have already changed requiring early I 

modification of the decree if approved. 

Since it is the position of all opponents to the approval of 

the CD that there have been serious and pervasive changes in 

circumstances which would require, at a minimum, extensive 

modifications of the CD immediately, the issue seems to be 

whether the required modifications "re-writew the CD to such an 

extent that the CD is essentially unrecognizable and of 

questionable workability as a beginning document. 

The burden of proof in this hearing rests with any parties

who oppose implementing the CD. u.S. v. Oregon, 913 F. 2d at 581. 

The plaintiff and defendant City negotiated at arms length and in 

good faith from 1987 until the CD was lodged in January 1990. 

The plaintiff is entitled to the presumption that the CD is in 

the public interest and should be approved. The burden to prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the decree is not in the 

public interest resides with the defendants and all intervenors, 

since only the plaintiff wants the CD approved and implemented. 

In this case, the Court finds that the burden of proof has been 

sustained by the opponents of approval of the CD. 

IV. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

There are four main reasons this Court rejects the CD. 

First, without the CD the oceanic environment will benefit, and 

it would not be benefitted more if the CD were implemented. 

Second, by rejecting the CD valuable resources will be saved by 

not requiring the City to over-treat billions of gallons of 

wastewater to tertiary levels before dumping it into the ocean. 

Third, unnecessary sludge production will be avoided. Fourth, 

design, construction, and operational maintenance costs will be 

decreased immensely by not mandating the construction of 

unnecessary new reclamation and treatment facilities. 

A. Environmental Benefits 

The Court finds the benthic community near the new outfall 

will change. The new outfall pipe reaches 4.5 miles from the 

Pacific Coast to a depth of 325 feet, discharging advanced 

primary treated wastewater into an ocean bottom which is more

arren than the old site. This wastewater will slightly change 

the demography of the benthic community as measured by the 

~nfaunal Trophic Index (ITI). The control group IT1 taken at B- 

3, a location north of the old and new outfalls, was 90. The IT1 

at the old outfall was 69. There is a likelihood that the IT1 at 

I the new outfall will be more than 70. The EPA has previously 

found that any IT1 over 60 is not a significant change in the 

environment. Thus, this Court finds that the expected IT1 of 70 

and higher at the new outfall area is not a significant change in 

the environment. 

Further, this Court concludes from undisputed evidence that 

the expected slight change in the outfall environment will be 

beneficial to the benthic community, not harmful. The new 

discharge will cause a flourishing of organisms in the barren 

environment surrounding the new outfall because of the presence 

of additional food for the organisms. The combination of a 20% 

stronger current and a much larger plume will dissipate the 

concentration of sediment over a substantially larger area. 

Accordingly, the suspension feeders should be less adversely 

impacted, and the rest of the community will become more 

abundant. Therefore, the Court finds the San Diego ocean outfall 

discharge environment is improving presently, even without 

implementation of the CD, and that approval of the CD in the name 

of protecting the ocean environment is not scientifically 

correct.

B. Wasteful Over-~reatment 

The CD requires expensive over-treatment. The North City 

11 ~eclamation Plant presently under construction is scheduled to I 

4 produce 30 million gallons per day (MGD) of tertiary treated 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

wastewater. The initial proposed framework distribution system 

will be able to deliver only about 12 MGD of this water to 

reclamation water users. The CD would require the remaining two 

thirds of the tertiary wastewater to be dumped into the ocean. 

Under the Consumersf Alternative Order authorizing this 

plant, the City has the option of by-passing non-usable tertiary 

capacity at the end of the secondary treatment stage, and then 

discharging that secondary treated wastewater into the ocean 

through the Point Loma Outfall pipe. This program is the 

efficient way to spend public funds for needed sewage treatment 

15 

1611 

capacity. As more market for tertiary wastewater is reached, 

more can be produced, and less secondary treated wastewater will 1 

17 be discharged into the ocean. All tertiary wastewater produced 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

will be beneficially reused. 

Furthermore, the CD requires the City to produce 89 MGD 

(99,680 acre feet per year (AFY)) of tertiary reclaimed water by 

2003. However, the CD only requires the beneficial reuse of no 

less than 30,000 AFY of wastewater treated to tertiary level by 

2003. Therefore, approximately 69,680 AFY of tertiary treated 

wastewater will be dumped into the ocean during and after 2003 .I4 

Moreover, the CD only requires 50% of the tertiary treated 

1 MGD is equal to 1,120 AFY.

emaining 50% will be dumped into the ocean indefinitely. 

This dumping of tertiary wastewater into the ocean is not in 

311 

the public interest. The additional operation and maintenance 

411 .- 

costs alone to treat wastewater to tertiary standards will amount 

511 

to millions of dollars in a short time. The Clean Water Act only 

61 

11 

1 

requires secondary treatment for ocean discharge. The CD 

requirement that wastewater be treated to tertiary levels only to 

811 

be dumped into the ocean is wasteful of public funds as well as 

91 I natural resources. 

101 1 Additionally, the CD contains no provisions for modification 

11 1 1 

of these tertiary treatment requirements. Specifically, 

1311 Paragraph VI(c)l-3 requires the City to produce reclaimed water 

1411 whether or not the water can be beneficially used. These 

1511 sections do not contain provisions for modification." Unless 

16 

17 

11 

191 

the CD is amended, the City would have to dump the remaining 

unused tertiary treated wastewater into the ocean. This wasteful 

dumping would not be in the public interest. 

I C. Sludge Production 

201 1 Sludge disposal -is an ever-present problem. If sludge 

2111 cannot be beneficially reused," the sludge must be dumped into 

In fact, the federal government conceded that Paragraph 

VI(c)l-3 was not realistic and not in the public interest. The 

federal government proposed that it could work with the City to 

amend the CD in this regard. However, this amounts to 

"tinkeringI1 with the CD. This should be avoided. But even if it 

were an option, it shows the immense overhaul needed for the CD 

to be in the public interest. he court disapproves this route.

landfills which will rapidly overburden the limited landfills 

available. The CD will increase sludge production by at least 

35%, aggravating the existing disposal dilemma. ~ndependent of 

the CD, the City is currently constructing a new state-of-the-art 

sludge treatment facility at NAS Miramar, which will allow it to 

vacate the Fiesta Island location entirely - clearly in the 

public interest. But further increases in sludge production 

would only add to the ultimate disposal problem. To the extent 

that any increased production is not necessary, it is clearly not 

in the public interest.'' 

D. satellite Facilities 

The CD contemplates design and construction of at least six 

satellite reclamation facilities, one South Bay Secondary 

treatment plant, and the conversion of Point Loma to a secondary 

treatment plant. The approximate capital cost for this in 1990 

dollars was estimated at $3.5 billion, excluding financing. 

Measured in accelerated costs, it was estimated to approximate $5 

billion, excluding financing. The Court is not confident that 

these estimates could be met. 

If secondary treatment were required for point Loma, three 

options would be available for the conversion of the plant. 

First, the plant could be converted to produce from 112 to 150 

MGD of secondary sewage if 1,000 linear feet of adjacent Navy 

The Court is aware that if and as population grows, 

sludge production will increase. The evidence shows, however, 

that the likely increase in growth will be less than the CD 

contemplates, even if all treatment facilities are converted to 

secondary or tertiary standards.

1 

land is made available. Second, using 1,500 feet of adjacent 

2 1 ) Navy land, the plant could be converted to produce 180 MGD of 

31( secondary sewage. Third, using a new method," the plant could 

4 possibly be converted to produce up to 195 MGD of secondary 

511 

I I sewage on the same 1,500 feet of Navy land. The latter two 

6)) options for conversion would obviously reduce the necessity for 

as many satellite plants and would substantially decrease the 

811 capital outlay necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of 240 MGD. 

I 91 

While the Navy land is not guaranteed, it appears from the 

1011 totality of the evidenci that its availability is likely, but 

1111 only if the plant is converted to secondary treatment. 

121 Obviously, the location, size, and number of satellite plants is 

1311 intimately tied to the ultimate decision about the Point Loma 

1411 expansion. It is likely that the ultimate solution will hardly 

15 11 resemble the broad and expensive infrastructure of satellite 

1611 plants which are mandated by the CD. 

If Congress or the EPA were to issue a 301(h) waiver for the 

1711 

1811 Point Loma plant, it could be expanded to its ultimate capacity 

1911 of 240 MGD of advanced primary treatment without using any 

2011 adjacent Navy land, which would obviate all but the North City 

21 11 reclamation plant indefinitely. of course, that would save the 

2211 City billions of dollars. This Court will not and should not 

2311 reject the CD on the ground that the City may obtain a 301(h) 

10 Biological Aerated Filtration (BAF) is a recent 

variation of secondary treatment technology which may offer space 

efficiency advantages, but which is still somewhat experimental 

in large plant applications.

waiver from the CWA secondary treatment requirements. But, even 

if point Loma were converted to secondary treatment, it could be 

expanded to provide at least 180 MGD, reducing the need for 

additional satellite plant capacity to an additional 30 MGD, as 

opposed to the approximately 128 MGD contemplated by the CD.lg 

A far less expensive and smaller more efficient system than 

contemplated by the CD can and should be built, with or without 

the requirement of compliance with the CWA. 

V. CONCLUSION 

All of the groups represented by parties to this suit, other 

than the plaintiff, oppose the immense, costly, and wasteful 

program that is contemplated by the CD. The District will be 

succeeding the City in the operation and management of the sewage 

system in this case. That District represents 14 communities 

served by the system, and all oppose the CD on grounds of 

unnecessary costs, unnecessary capacity, and unnecessary waste of 

water resources. 

With respect to the waste of tertiary water, Sierra urges 

19 Furthermore, there exists evidence of Indirect Potable 

Reuse (IPR) treatment possibilities. IPR treatment would take 

the water to a fourth level of filtration, sanitization, and 

sterilization, producing drinking water. The City is applying 

for State approval to send tertiary water to an IPR treatment 

facility and then to the San Vicente Reservoir. This would 

amount to 100% beneficial reuse. Notably, the CD does not 

provide for or prohibit IPR because this opportunity arose after 

the parties drafted the CD. 

However, IPR would not be easily implemented. First, IPR 

needs public approval. People are understandably apprehensive 

about drinking what used to be sewage. Second, IPR is expensive. 

Regional subsidies to San Diego from other areas of California 

would probably have to be allocated before the City could afford 

such a plan.

the Court to find the CD violates the California constitution and 

Statutes mandating conservation and prudent use of water 

resources. The Court declines, as unnecessary, to make a finding 

that the CD violates the California Constitution and Statutes 

regarding the waste of water resources because if not illegal, 

the CD is manifestly not in the public interest by requiring the 

production of billions of gallons of tertiary water only to be 


The federal government claims that the CD can serve if it is 

modified and amended. Unfortunately, the CD does not need some 

modifications, but a complete overhaul. The overhaul will make 

the system nothing like the parties originally had in mind. The 

Court is not confident that its discretion would be broad enough 

to rectify all the changes needed if the issues are raised in the 

context of a motion to modify a document previously found to be 

in the public interest. This is not to say that whatever CD may 

be approved by the Court will not need to be modified over the 

years. The Court would expect that any CD might have to be 

modified as necessary to recognize changing conditions. Butthis 

CD would require immediate and extensive hearings for 

modifications. Also, the issue of amendment where not modifiable 

looms. It seems the wrong way to start a CD relationship. The 

CD is recognized by all the parties to be at least in need of 

drastic overhaul and amendment, if not totally unnecessary, 

wasteful, unrealistic and unworkable. 

Plaintiff is trying to enter a Rolls Royce in the Grand 

20

3 

support. The CD over-builds, wastes money and wastes water. The 

4 

511 

CD would sentence the supervising Court to constantly hearing 

motions attempting to modify the Rolls Royce into a Formula-1. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The CD should be rejected and the parties should agree on a 

Formula-1 of their choice. If the parties cannot agree, they 

should proceed to trial. 

The proposed partial consent decree lodged with this Court 

in January of 1990 is hereby rejected as not in the public 

interest. 

The parties are ordered to appear at a status conference on 

Monday, April 25 at 10:30 a.m. for the purpose of setting the 

pre-trial and trial date to complete the compliance phase of the 

case. Appearance by telephone is acceptable to the Court, at the 

partiesf expense. 


DATED: /?9 

cc: All Parties 

'

Footnote No. 7 1

Footnote No. 72

811 

9 

10 

11 

THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO and 

13 I I THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1 Civil No. 88-1101&~~~) 

Plaintiff, 1 INTERIM ORDER 

1 

Defendants. 

1 

15 

1 

SIERRA CLUB OF SAN DIEGO, 1 

16 BRUCE HENDERSON, and SAN DIEGO ) 

AREA WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT 

17 DISTRICT, 

20 

2 1 

22 

I I 

11 

23 

241 I 

25 

26 I I 

27 

28 

Intervenors. 

On June 24, 1994, a status hearing was held before the 

ll~onorable Rudi M. Brewster. Karen Dworkin, Esq., and Jim Farrell, 

Esq., appeared for the United States; James Dragna, Esq., and Ted 

Bromfield, Esq., appeared for the City of San Diego; Jamee Jordan 

Patterson, Esq., appeared for the State of ~alifornia; ill 

I I~enjamin, Esq. , and Robert ~immons, Esq. , appeared for intervenor, 

the Sierra Club; Thomas Woodruff, Esq., appeared for intervenor, 

the San Diego Area Waste Water Management ~istrict; Bruce 

Henderson, intervenor, appeared for himself. In addition, Mark 

Mead, Esq., appeared for the County of San Diego; Bruce Boogaard, 

1 

1 

1

Esq., appeared for the City of Chula Vista; D. Dwight Worden, 

Esq., appeared as Special Counsel for the City of El Cajon; and 

Lynn R. McDougal, Esq., appeared for the cities of El Cajon and 

Imperial Beach. 

Upon consideration of the proposed interim order, written 

objections by the Sierra Club, the County and the city of Chula 

Vista, and oral argument thereon, as well as the supplemental 

briefs submitted by the parties and intervenors, supplemental 

nitten submissions by interested cities and the County, and all 

relevant evidence, the court hereby enters the following interim 

xder on issues as noted. 

4. CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 

The Court approves and orders the construction of the 

following facilities by the specified dates where noted, all as 

Listed in the nConsumersf Alternative1! or as otherwise suggested 

3y the City: 

Proi ect Name Completion Date 

1. North city Water ~eclamation, Plant 

(CIP 42-910 -1) 

Construction of a water reclamation plant near the 

intersection of 1-805 and Miramar Road, and related 

conveyance and disposal pipelines. 1 

I By this order, the court does not intend to alter the 

rights or obligations of any party to any contract, including, 

2ut not limited to, the Sewage Disposal Agreements of 1960, 

1972 and 1974 between the City of San Diego and the 

Farticipating Agencies and Later Participating Agencies. The 

zourt understands that the Sewage Disposal Agreements provide 

chat the City may reclaim water and install reclamation works 

3r facilities, but that the cost of such reclamation is to be 

che sole expense of the City. However, this contract 

lpparently also provides that the City is required to operate 

:he sewer system "under the terms of this contract in such 

nanner as to comply with all applicable laws, rules and 

regulations. This order shall not be construed as 

'applicable laws, rules and regulations1I under those 

3greements. 

2,

2. Sludge Facilities 

a. ~iramar Fiesta Island 

Replacement Project 

(NSPF/FIRP - CIP 42-911.4) 

Relocation of sludge facilities from Fiesta Island 

to a site on the Miramar Naval Air station. 

Project includes a sludge dewatering facility, 

sludge pipeline and sludge pumping station. 

b. North City Treatment Plant N/A 

Digesters 


Project will provide for processing of sludge 

produced at the North City Water ~eclamation 

Plant, and provide trucked liquid waste disposal 

site. 

3. Point Loma Treatment Plant Improvements 

a. Construction of Additional Digesters 

(Point Loma Digesters 7 and 8 - CIP 

46-170 .O) 

At the plant, which digest sludge for further 

processing. 

b. Construction of Sedimentation Basins N/A 

No. 11 and 12 (CIP 46-177.0) 

Used to reduce suspended solids in the sewage. 

c. South Effluent Line 

(SECC CIP - 46-134.0) 

To channel effluent from the plant to the ocean 

outfall. 

d. FIRP Pump Station (CIP 46-055.0) 

Construction of New Sludge Pump Station. 

e. Chemical Feed System 1/31/95 

f. Replacement of two grit tanks, 

at the Plant 

4. Capital Improvement Projects for the 

Municipal Sewer System 

a. Annual Allocation -- Freeway Relocation N/A 

Funds the relocation of existing sewer 

utilities which conflict with outside agency 

activity on an as-needed basis.

Annual Allocation -- Sewer Main 

Replacements 

Funds the ongoing program to replace and 

upgrade deteriorated concrete sewer mains in 

various groupings throughout the City. 

Annual ~llocation -- Pump Station 

Restorations 

Funds the rehabilitation and upgrade of 

existing pump stations on an as-needed basis. 

Annual Allocation -- Utilities N/A 

Communications 


existing communication facilities on an as- 

needed basis. 

Camel Valley Trunk Sewer (CIP 46-122.0) 12/31/96 

Replacement and expansion of portions of the 

existing trunk sewer and to conform to the 

relocation of Pump Station No. 65 at its new 

site. 

East Mission Gorge Trunk Sewer 

Rehabilitation (CIP 40-920.4) 

Rehabilitation of manholes and realignment of 

existing sewer where warranted. 

Encanto Trunk Sewer (CIP 46-163.0) 4/15/95 

Upgrade and expansion of existing trunk 

sewer. 

Highland Park Estates Trunk Sewer -- 12/31/97 

Phase I1 (CIP 46-138.0) 

Upgrade and expansion of portions of existing 

trunk sewer. 

North ~ission Valley Interceptor -- 

Phase I1 (CIP 46-140.0) 

Replacement and expansion of portion of the 

existing interceptor. 

Pump Station No. 65 -- Expansion and 6/30/96 

Force Main (CIP 46-117.0) 


existing interceptor and relocation of the 

existing pump station.

6 

7 

13 

14 

~ 

k. Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer 

(CIP 46-111.0 and 40-920.0) 

Installation of new trunk sewer. 

1. ~alencia Park Trunk Sewer 

(CIP 46-166.0) 

Upgrade and expansion of existing trunk 

sewer. 

5. Capital Improvement Projects for the ~etropolitan Sewer 

system 

a. Annual Allocation -- Point Lorna Plant N/A 

(CIP 46-119.0) 


facilities as needed. 

b. North Metro Interceptor -- Phase I 

(CIP 46-104.0) 

Installation of new interceptor sewer. 

B. INTERIM EFFLUENT LIMITS 

Until such time as a final order is issued by this Court 

1511concerning the Cityts obligation to meet secondary treatment under 

1611the Act, the City shall achieve compliance with the non-secondary 

17 

treatment based effluent limitations set forth in Cease and Desist 

18 

Order 87-113, as amended, except as provided bglow. 

''11 1. The City shall achieve compliance with, and thereafter 

maintain full compliance with, the effluent requirements set forth 

I a. For Total Suspended Solids (nTSSf') : 

The City shall achieve and maintain a 80% removal 

efficiency on a thirty (30) day running average basis. 

b. For Biochemical Oxygen Demand ("BOD") : 

Effective upon the date of entry of this Interim 

larder, the City shall achieve and maintain a concentration-based 

llimit of 125 mg/l on a thirty (30) day running average basis.

2. This Interim Order is not and shall not be interpreted 

to be a permit, or a modification of an existing permit, issued 

under Section 402 of the Clean Water ~ ct, 33 U.S.C. Section 1342. 

Any new permit, or modification of an existing permit, must be 

accomplished in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws 

and regulations. Provided, however, that insofar as this Interim 

Order establishes any compliance schedule or effluent standard 

that is inconsistent with any such NPDES permit, any regulation or 

order, the United States and the State will take no enforcement 

action, other than through enforcement of this Interim Order, 

concerning any violation of such permit, any regulation or order 

for which this Interim Order establishes a different effluent 

limit or compliance schedule than that required in such permit, 

law, regulation or order. This order does not preclude the United 

States or the State from taking enforcement action on any new 

violations not directly involved in these construction or effluent 

limit milestones (i.e., spills). 

C. SEWAGE SPILL REDUCTION 

1. The City shall use its best efforts to prevent, to the 

maximum extent reasonably possible, unpermitted discharges of 

sewage. In order to achieve this end, the City shall expand the 

capacity of, or reduce flows through, its sewer pump stations as 

necessary to ensure to the maximum extent practicable that its 

system will have adequate pumping capacity for the flows 

reasonably anticipated, and shall operate and maintain its sewage 

collection and conveyance system so as to reduce unpermitted 

discharges of sewage to the maximum extent reasonably possible.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

2. The City shall implement the following sewer Pump 

capacity monitoring program for the pump stations identified in 

~ttachment A to this Interim Order: 

a. For sewer pump stations which either require more 

than one pumping unit to meet the design rated capacity or have a 

design rated capacity equal to or greater than one (1) million 

7 gallons per day (mgd), a flow meter shall be installed to provide 

~ 1a 1 continuous flow recording and/or totalizer reading, as specified 

9 in Attachment A. In addition, pump hour meters (running time), 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

1811 

'"I 

electrical usage data and annual pump dwell time data shall be 

used with the flow meter data to determine the following pump 

station flow parameters: 

(1) Station operating capacity; 

(2) Station average daily flow pumped; 

(3) Station peak daily flow pumped; 

(4) Individual pump flow rate; 

(5) Station peak in-flow rate; and 

(6) Station holding time (wet well and 

mains). 

b. Sewer pump stations that have a design rated 

of less than one (1) million gallons per day (mgd) and 

only one pumping unit to meet the design rated 

shall be equipped with pump hour meters. Data from pump 

(running time), electrical usage and pump dwell time 

2511shall be used to determine the following pump station flow 

2711 

2811 

(1) Station operating capacity; 

(2) Station average daily flow pumped; 

(3) Station peak daily flow pumped; 

7

(4) Individual pump flow rate; 

(5) Station peak in-flow rate; and 

(6) station holding time (wet well and 

mains) . 

c. The City shall submit the results of its capacity 

nonitoring program to EPA and the State annually. The first 

report shall be due on December 31, 1994, and shall cover the 

?eriod of July 1, 1993, to June 30, 1994, and yearly thereafter. 

d. For each pump station identified in Attachment A to 

this Interim Order, the City shall advise EPA and the State when 

its monitoring program identifies any pump station that has on any 

lay reached its Capacity Notification Level (llCNL1t) as set forth 

in Attachment B. Notifications under this Paragraph shall be in 

qriting and received by EPA and the Regional Board within fifteen 

(15) days of the event, and shall specify the flow rate, including 

xojected future capacity increases, and what steps, in any, the 

3ity will take to reduce flow or expand capacity. ongoing 

lotification is not required once the CNL has been reached. In 

:he event that the City undertakes action to reduce flow or 

increase capacity, the City shall advise the Court and the parties 

parterly of the implementation of such, actions. 

e. EPA or the State may request supplementation within 

forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof. Failure to request 

;upplementation by EPA or the State as specified herein will be 

leemed to be a waiver of said right by that party. The city shall 

respond to such requests for supplementation within thirty (30) 

lays of receipt thereof. 

f. Within forty-five (45) days receipt of the City's 

~otification that a pump station has reached its CNL or within

forty-five (45) days of receipt of supplemental information 

pursuant to Paragraph C.2.e., above, EPA or the State may request 

the City to modify its response actions or to take additional 

response actions other than those specified in the notification. 

The request shall specify in detail the reasons for requested 

modifications. The City shall respond to the request within 

forty-five (45) days from its receipt thereof. If there is a 

dispute between the City and the State or EPA on such 

modifications, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve 

the dispute informally. If the parties are unable to resolve 

their disputes within forty-five (45) days of EPAfs and the 

State's receipt of the Cityfs response (unless that date is 

extended by agreement of the parties), EPA or the State may move 

the Court to resolve the dispute. 

g. EPA and the State shall use their best efforts to 

coordinate their responses pursuant to this Section C. 

h. Unless otherwise agreed to by EPA and the State, 

the City shall prevent any pump station identified in Attachment A 

to this Interim Order from pumping more than its applicable 

Maximum Rated Capacity (lgMRCU) as set forth in Attachment B. 

3. a. The City shall operate and maintain its collection 

and miscellaneous sewer system and pump stations ("Collection 

Systemgg) so as to reduce unpermitted discharges of sewage to the 

maximum extent reasonably possible. 

b. The City shall track spills from its Collection 

System resulting from grease, roots, rocks, debris, power outages, 

vandalism, physical collapse or failure, construction damage, 

hydrologic conditions and from miscellaneous causes. These data 

shall be collected and reported quarterly to EPA and the State,

vith the first report due on December 31, 1994, for the period of 

April to July 1994. The report shall show the date, location, 

cause and volume of each spill, and the action taken or proposed 

by the City to prevent reoccurrence, in the form of Attachment C 

hereto. 

c. The City shall provide to the parties a copy of its 

Fiscal 1995 Operations and ~aintenance Budget. ~othing in this 

Interim Order shall waive any rights otherwise possessed by any 

?arty to request the Court to order the city to undertake any 

3dditional operation and maintenance measures not otherwise 

zontained in the 1995 Budget or to oppose such request. 

3. SLUDGE PLANNING 

The City of San Diego shall continue developing and 

implementing its Biosolids Beneficial Use Plan. As part of the 

status reports required pursuant to this order, the City shall 

report on the status of its sludge facilities construction and the 

implementation of its Biosolids Beneficial Use Plan. The City 

shall implement its Biosolids Beneficial Use Plan to maximize the 

e 

:ost-effective reuse of sewage sludge with the goal of complete 

~eneficial reuse of sewage sludge. 

3. CASE .MANAGEMENT 

1. Discovery shall commence immediately on all outstanding 

injunctive relief issues excludingsecondary treatment, which 

shall commence on February 1, 1995. Discovery shall be concluded 

)y July 31, 1995. 

2. The parties shall designate expert witnesses by August 

L4, 1995. Each party may supplement its expert list once and must 

io so by August 21, 1995. ~ l expert l witness discovery must be 

:oncluded by September 31, 1995. 

I0

1 

2 

3 

1995. 

3. The pretrial conference shall be held on November 13, 

4. A trial to resolve the remaining issues in this 

I I 5. The parties shall appear before the Court at 2:00 p.m. 

I I 

611 

711 

I I 

I I 

4 litigation will commence on November 28, 1995. 

on January 19, 1995, to discuss the status of this case. At that 

time, the City shall present to the Court a contingency plan that 

8 describes what preliminary efforts the City proposes to undertake 

9 to enable it to se1ect.a treatment option that will bring the City 

into compliance with the secondary treatment standards under the 

1°1 1 11 Act. 

12 

1311 

1411 

15 

E. OBLIGATIONS OF THE SAN DIEGO AREA WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 

DISTRICT 

In the event that the District takes over ownership or 

16 treatment system, the District shall- comply with all applicable 

17 requirements of this Order. 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

I I 

operation of any portion of the City's wastewater collection or: 


DATED: hUG 2 I3 ]yg 

cc: Attached service list 

TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' a ~fi0f-l: -CITY RTTORNEY CI( TO: 

BEWER PUMP BTRTION8 IN COKH,UNXTIEB YHLCX WILL 

~XPERXRNCQ h 30% GROWTH OVER THE NEXT 30 YEAR PERIOD 

B~~~10N8 RECO~~SHDED FOR IHCLUBIOH IN X~NITORIND PROCRW 

UP- JfjYJKOD OF FTlOY 

(GALLONS PER MINUTE/ CPM) WAEUREVN 

2. 8 ~ #9 8 

4 pumpu B 1,825 gpm Meter 

2. 8PS #22? 2 pumps @ 2,000 gpm 

IeIeter 

3. 6PB #3LT 2 punps @ 1,125 gpm Data Pod 

4. spa #is 2 pumps e 1,140 gpm .Data ~ o d 

2 Sets @ 9,000 gpm 

2 sets Q 8,700gpm 

2 sets @ 8,600 gpm 

2 sets @ 3,400 gpm 

3 pumps Q 3,300 gpm 

Meter 

Meter/Data 

Pod 

0, 6PS #?7 4 SO~S @ 3,100 gpm Meter 

9. .aPB 8'77B 3 sets Q 2,420 4Pm 

3 sets @ 464 gPm 

2 pumps @ 350 4Pm 

12. 8P8 6'62 2 pumps @ 370 gPm 

13..aP8 885 2 pumps @ 156 gpm 

Meter 

Meter 

Data Pod 

Data Pod

NOTE: The values for! statlon #65 revieed from the report to the EPA dsted 

6/30/93. V8luee ehown wlll be reported in the EPA reporta due 6/30/94. 

Table 1 

PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE. PART VII REPORT INFORMATIOH 

sewer Pujnn station "~aximum Rated C W t v " and Capacity 

potif ication ~evels" com~ared to a l-ixi~~l 

purnoigs Capacity a peak Sewacre Inflow JIB' R @ ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ 

6 1 0.38 0.26 (4) 

8 2 0.41 0.46 

83T 0.22 0.25 

85 0.17 0.25 

(1) 

Station 31T is not in service yet. 

(2) SPS 62 doe6 not meet the required MRC. The City is 

continuing upgrading this station so that the pumps w i l l 

meet the required MRC of 860 gpm. 

(3) The cI~L at SPS 65 has been reached. Since the station has 

not reached the MRC there is no pumping deficiency a t the 

station at this time. Design has been completed for the now 

station 65. Bids for ~onstrucrion of the station have been 

opened and are being evaluated. 

(4) SPS 81 does not meet the required MRC. New pumps are 

scheduled to be installed at the station during Sunrner, 1993.

Footnote No. 73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT.COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 88-1 101-B 

v. 

Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

1 

CITY OF SAN DIE,GO and 

IME STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

) 

1 

) 

Defendants. 

1 

1 

SIERRA CLUB OF SAN DIEGO, 

BRUCE HENDERSOWand THE 

SAN DIEGO AREA WASTEWATER 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 

) 

) 

1 

Intervenors. 

) 

STIPULATED FINAL ORDER 

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

BACKGROUND 

This matter has been before the Court since July 27, 1988 when a complaint for civil 

mion was brought by the plaintiff United States of America ("United States") against the 

defendant City of San Diego ("City") alleging inter alia violations of the Clean Water Act 

'33 L U. S.C. 5 125 1 et seq.). The City has denied the violations and the Court has held numer- 

3us hearings over the course of the litigation regarding the alle~ed activities, most notably 

mtering partial judgment on the bifurcated penalty phase of this action on June 2 1, 199 1 ; 

1

ejecting a proposed partial consent decree on March 3 1, 1994; and issuing an Interim Order 

)n August 26, 1994 requiring specified action of the parties. 

The parties now desire to enter into the following stipulation to resolve all remaining 

;laims of the United States against the City for violations of the Clean Water Act arising out of 

he First Amended Complaint. 

I. .JURISDICTION 

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties stipulating hereto 

br the purpose of enforcing this Order. 

t. APPLICABILITY 

The provisions of this Order shall apply to and be binding upon the parties hereto, their 

3gents, successors, and assigns. Any action taken by any contractor or consultant retained by 

the City to implement the City's duties under this Order shall be considered an action of the 

City for purposes of determining compliance with this Order. The City shall give notice and a 

true copy of this Order to any of its successors in interest prior to any transfer of ownership or 

operation of the publicly owned treatment works ("POTW'), including the collection system 

or any part thereof, and shall simultaneously notifjr the representative identified pursuant to 

Paragraph 14 of such succession in interest and that such notice and copy has been given by 

the City. ,' . 

3. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS 

A. This Order constitutes a full and complete settlement of all outstanding claims for 

relief presented by the United States against the City under the Clean Water Act in the First 

Amended Complaint filed in this case and for violations that have occurred up to and including 

the date of lodging of this Order. 

B. This Order is not and shall not be interpreted to be a permit, or a modification of 

an existing permit, issued under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. $ 1342. Any 

new permit, or modification of an existing permit, must be accomplished in accordance with 

applicable federal and state laws and regulations. 

I 1 l 1 1

4. CONCRETE SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 

A. The City shall continue its level of effort on the planning, design, and construction 

~f concrete main replacement that is presently listed in the Capital Improvement Program 

("CIP") for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. (Fiscal years are July 1 through June 30 

respectively.) Construction shall mean replaced or rehabilitated in place. The City shall award 

contracts for replacement or rehabilitation in place of at least 60 miles of concrete main by 

June 30, 2000, which shall be in service conveying sewage no later than June 30,2003. 

B. The City shall complete a comprehensive evaluation and criticality ranking of all 

concrete sewer mains remaining in service by December 3 1, 1997. Copies of the report shall 

be supplied to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). 

C. By no later than March 30, 1998, the City shall submit to EPA a plan and schedule 

for the replacement or rehabilitation in place of the remaining concrete mains. The plan shall 

contain sufficient information to evaluate the recommendations contained therein. The City 

shall implement the plan as submitted to EPA or as modified by the Court pursuant to 

Paragraph 17.C. or upon agreement of the parties. 

D. The City shall continue its investigation of the use of crown spraying to retard 

degradation of concrete sewers. The City will also institute a 12-month test program to treat 

approximately 10,000 linear feet of various sizes of concrete sewers. The testing and 

evaluation would be completed by September 30, 1997. Based on this test and evaluation, the 

City may in its discretion institute a longer term crown spraying program. 

5. SEWER PUMP STATIONS AND FORCE MAIN AUDIT 

The City shall conduct a comprehensive audit of all pump stations and force mains by 

June 30, 1997, to augment existing records and provide a basis for fbture planning efforts. The 

audit report will be considered as part of the City's normal C P planning process. 

6. GREASE CONTROL, 

A. The City shall expand its residential education program on grease control to include 

multi-family dwellings no later than December 3 1, 1997. This &ay include the use of local

media and coordinated assistance with agencies involved in the maintenance and management 

2 11 of multi-family dwelling units. 

11 B. The City shall maintain its current program of inspecting and issuing a wastewater 

3 

4 discharge permit to each commercial food facility in the City, approximately every two years. 

II 5 Also, when a grease related blockage and/or overflow occurs, the City shall continue its 

I I 

6 11 practice of assessing the cause of the blockage and, if deemed appropriate, inspect those 

I I 

7 facilities that may have contributed to the blockage regardless of permit expiration date. 

II 

In addition, no later than December 3 1, 1996, the City shall submit to EPA 

9 11 a supplemental inspection program for more frequent and more in-depth inspections, targeting 

10 /I specific facilities, or faciiities within areas of the City that have a history of grease problems 

I I 11 andfor high potential for future grease problems. If deemed appropriate by the City, such 

I 12 facilities will be required to maintain grease hauling records. The supplemental inspection 

13 11 program may include, as appropriate, flowldye tests to determine whether appropriate fixtures 

14 11 are connected to grease removal equipment, and a review of such establishments' grease 

15 11 hauling records. 

I I 

16 7. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

17 

18 

A. The SewerIWater Infrastructure Management System ("SWIM") will be hlly 

implemented by December 3 1, 1997, including the operation of all applications and the full 

1 9 11 conversion of non-archived data. 

B. The City shall upgrade its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition ("SCADA") 

system for pump station telemetry. All sewer lift stations, interceptor valve sites, tide sensors, 

22 11 and flow sensors shall be tied into the upgraded system. 

23 11 1. The SCADA system upgrade shall be implemented pursuant to the following 

I I schedule: 

Pump Stations 9, 15, 77, and 79 and MBSIS fully tied into 

the SCADA system: no later than June 30, 1998 

SCADA system upgrade: Critical Pump Stations 19, 23T, . 

48T, 62, 77B, 81, 82, and 85 shall be included no later than 

June 30,2000. Stations may be added or deleted upon the 

mutual agreement of the parties.

2. No later than 30 days after the deadlines set forth in subparagraphs A. and B. 1, 

the City shall submit a report to EPA documenting completion. 

3. The parties recognize that the City may not pursue the SCADA system in favor 

of the COMNET (Clean Water Operations Management Network) currently in development. 

The City shall have the option of adopting either of these systems so long as the deadlines set 

forth in subparagraph B. 1 are observed. 

C. The City will monitor all critical and semi-critical trunk sewers on an annual basis. 

Non-critical sewers will be monitored at least once every three years. From 1998 through 

2003, no later than March 1 st of each year, the City shall submit a report to EPA documenting 

completion of these programs. 

sewer criticality: 

1. The following criteria have been developed and will be used to classify trunk 

Critical: When the volume has been verified to have reached a maximum 

instantaneous peak flow of 50% of the pipeline cross-sectional area in lines less than 18 inches 

in diameter, and 75% in lines 18 inches or greater. 

Semi-critical: When the volume has been verified to have reached a maximum 

instantaneous peak flow of 40% to 49% of the pipeline cross-sectional area in lines less than 

18 inches in diameter, and 50% to 74% in lines 18 inches or greater. / 

Non-critical: When the volume has been verified to have reached a maximum 

instantaneous peak flow of less than 40% of the pipeline cross-sectional area in lines less than 

18 inches in diameter, and less than 50% in lines 18 inches or greater. 

D. Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, the City shall submit a proposed schedule 

to EPA for approval of static model development through December 3 1,2003. The schedule 

shall be based on the criticality of the City's trunk sewers, as defined in Paragraph C. This pro- 

posed schedule shall include the necessary resource commitment for fill model development 

as well as its management and use by engineering staff to assess trunk sewer system upgrades. 

Full development shall include, at a minimum, completion of system definition, configuration, 

calibration, and verificationlvalidation. All trunk gravity sewers 15 inches in diameter or greatel

shall be included in the modeling and pump stations shall be included as outputs. The parties 

recognize that additional data gathering after this date may result in krther refinement of this 

model. 

E. The City shall submit annual reports to EPA for approval in January of each year 

through January 2004 verifllng that it is in compliance with the approved schedule for static 

model development. 

8. ROOTS 

A. In fiscal years beginning 1997 and 1998, the City shall increase its allocation for 

the contractual application of root inhibitor from $100,000 per year to no less than $300,000 

per year. 

B. During fiscal year 1998, the City shall submit a report to EPA detailing the effects 

of the increase and a determination of future program levels. In the report the City shall also 

advise EPA to what extent, if any, the City shall increase the use of its own resources in 

response to a decreased level of contractor activity. 

9. INTERIM ORDER 

The parties agree that this Order shall require implementation of the Capital 

Improvement Program Projects originally listed in the Court's Interim Order of August 26, 

1994 as clarified on May 10, 1995 and listed on Attachments A-C to this Order. 

10. STIPULATED PENALTIES 

The following penalties shall apply to any failure by the City to comply with the specified 

obligations set forth in this Order: 

A. For failure to timely submit a-report or schedule required by this Order, the City 

shall pay a stipulated penalty of $500 per day per submittal. 

B. For failure to award bids for the replacement of the sixty (60) miles of concrete 

sewer main required in subparagraph 4.A., and/or failure to complete implementation of the 

plan required by subparagraph 4.C. by the date contained therein, the City shall pay a

Days 1 through 60 $ 500 per mile per day 

Days 6 1 through 180 $1,000 per mile per day 

Days 18 1 on $2,000 per mile per day 

C. For failure to comply with the following requirements, the City shall pay a 

tipulated penalty of $1,000 per day: 

,ubparagraph 4.D.; 

~ubparagraph 6.B.; and 

7.B. 1. 

1. Completion of the evaluation of the crown spraying program required by 

2. Submission of the supplemental grease inspection program required by 

3. Implementation of the SCADA upgrade schedule as required by subparagraph 

D. Payment of the stipulated penalties shall be made on demand by the United States 

md shall be made in the manner specified in subparagraph 10.E. 

E. The City shall make such payment by certified check made payable to the 

'Treasurer of the United States" referencing case number 88- 1 10 1 -B (LSP), and such payment 

;hall be tendered to the U. S. Department of Justice by hand delivery at the following address: 

Chief, Civil Division 

Office of the United States Attorney 


San Diego, CA. 92 101 

The City shall give notice of delivery to EPA pursuant to Paragraph 14. 

F. Pursuant to 3 1 U.S.C. § 3717, the United States is entitled to assess interest and 

penalties on debts owed to it and a charge to cover the cost of processing and handling a 

delinquent claim. Interest will therefore begin to accrue on a civil or stipulated penalty if it is 

not paid by the last date required, as provided for by law. Interest will be assessed at the rate 

of the United States Treasury tax and loan rate in accordance with 4 C.F.R. § 102.13(c). In 

addition, a penalty charge of twelve per cent per year compounded annually will be assessed or: 

any portion of the debt which remains delinquent more than ninety days aAer payment is due. 

Any such penalty charge on the debt will accrue from the date the penalty payment becomes 

due and is not paid. 4 C.F.R. §§ 102.13(d) and (e). .

1. RESERVATION OF FUGHTS 

Stipulated penalties paid pursuant to Paragraph 10 shall be in addition to, and shall not 

~reclude the use of, any other remedies or sanctions that may be available to the United States 

o enforce this Order and the Clean Water Act. Nor shall the payment of such stipulated penal- 

ies be construed so as to relieve the City from specific compliance with this Order or federal or 

,tate law, or limit the authority of the United States to require compliance with such laws. 

12. FORCE MAJEURE 

A. If any event occurs that may cause a failure to timely carry out any requirement of 

his Order, the City shall notify EPA in writing within twenty-one (2 1) calendar days of the 

ime the City becomes aware of the effect the event may have on compliance. The notice shall 

iescribe in detail the precise cause of the failure and measures taken to prevent or minimize the 

Bilure. The City shall implement reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure. 

zailure of the City to timely notify shall render the provisions of Paragraph 12 void and of no 

:ffect as to the particular incident involved unless notice is impossible due to catastrophic 

:ircumstances. 

B. For purposes of this Order, a force majeure is defined as any event arising from 

:auses beyond the control of the City and which could not be overcome or prevented by due 

iiligence, and which delays or prevents performance by a date required by this Order. If a 

failure of the City to timely carry out any requirement of this Order has been caused by a force 

majeure, there shall be no obligation to pay the stipulated penalty for that particular failure. 

C. If EPA agrees that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the control of the 

City, the parties shaU request the Court, and the Court shall mod* this Order to provide 

additional time for performance of the requirement and as applicable, any subsequent 

requirement. Provided, however, the fact that the parties have previously stipulated or the 

Court has found that any delay in meeting any other schedule or date in this Order was caused 

by circumstances beyond the control of the City shall not, in and of itself, be determinative of 

whether circumstances beyond the control.of the City exist or existed for failure to comply 

with any subsequent compliance date.

D. If the parties are unable to agree that a delay has been caused by circumstances 

uising from causes beyond the control of the City or if the parties are unable to agree on a 

nodification of this Order to provide additional time for performance, the parties shall jointly 

nove the Court to resolve the dispute. In such a proceeding, the City shall bear the burden of 

roving that: 1) the delay is or was caused by circumstances arising fiom causes beyond the 

City's control, and, 2) the amount of additional time requested is reasonable to compensate 

For the event. 

13. CERTIFICATION 

Any report, plan, or other submission required by this Order shall be signed by an 

authorized agent of the responsible party and shall include the following certification: 

I certify under penalty of law that the document and all attachments 

were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance 

with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly , 

gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my 

inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those 

persons directly responsible for gathering,the information, the 

information submitted is, to the best of my information and belief, 

true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant 

penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility 

of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. 

14. COORDINATION 

EPA and the City agree that they will each designate a single agent who shall be 

responsible for directing all documents required by this Order to the proper party. Such agent 

shall be named within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Order. 

15. RIGHT OF ENTRY 

Any designated representative or contractor of EPA may, upon presentation of 

credentials, enter upon any premises of POTWs operated by the City and all facilities operated 

by the City upstream of these POTWs, including the collection system, by providing reasonable 

prior notice to the City and without interference of City operations, for purposes of monitoring 

compliance with the provisions of this Order. This right of entry shall be in addition to EPA's 

right of entry under applicable law. All inspectionsand monitoring by representatives or

:ontractors of EPA shall be at reasonable times, and shall be conducted in a manner that will 

lot interfere with the safety or operations of the facilities. 

16. SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 

The City agrees to submit upon request such further information as may be reasonably 

eequired by EPA pursuant to its applicable statutory authority in order to ensure compliance 

with the terms of this Order. 

17. REVIEW OF SUBMITTALS 

A. The City agrees that the reports submitted to EPA pursuant to this Order shall 

;onform with generally accepted sound engineering practice. 

B. Within 60 days of receipt of the reports required to be submitted to EPA pursuant 

.o Paragraphs 4.B., 4.C., and 5, EPA may request in writing that the City supplement the 

-eport. If EPA does not submit its response within such 60 day period, EPA shall have waived 

ts right to comment on the report. 

C. Nothing in this paragraph shall authorize EPA to require the City to perform any 

work that is not specifically required to be performed pursuant to this Order. Provided, 

however, EPA reserves its right to move the Court, consistent with the provisions of 

Paragraph 19, to compel the City to comply with the requirements of this Order and the 

Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to, moving the Court for a determination as to 

whether the City's submittals under Paragraphs 4.B. and 5 are appropriate to satisfy the City's 

obligations pursuant to this Order and the Clean Water Act and whether the plan and schedule 

submitted pursuant to Paragraph 4.C. represent a reasonable level of effort in light of such 

obligations. 

18. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and all disputes arising thereunder 

as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or execution of this Order. 

19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

In the event a dispute arises between the parties to this order regarding compliance with 

or interpretation of any provision in this Order, the resolution of which is not governed 

10

ereu under, such dispute shall in the first instance be the subject of informal negotiations 

letween the City and the United States. The party to this Order wishing to pursue the dispute 

shall send a written notice to the other pdy to this Order outlining the nature of the dispute 

3nd requesting informal negotiations to resolve the dispute. Such period of informal 

negotiations shall not extend beyond thirty (30) days from the date when notice was sent, 

unless the parties agree otherwise. In the event the parties are unable to reach an informal 

settlement of a dispute arising out of this Order, either party may petition the Court to resolve 

the dispute. 

20. TERMINATION 

This Order shall terminate upon satisfaction of the requirements of the Interim Order 

incorporated by reference in Paragraph 9, completion of the program for replacement of 

concrete sewer mains required by Paragraph 4, and payment of any stipulated penalties due. 

Upon EPA's determination that the City has satisfied these requirements, the parties shall file 

a motion for termination of this Order. 

2 1. SATISFACTION OF DUTIES 

The parties agree, and the Court hereby finds, that entry of this Order, and performance 

by the City of the obligations required hereunder, shall constitute diligent enforcement by the 

plaintiff of the City's obligations under the Clean Water Act pursuant to Section 505 of the 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1365. 

22. PUBLIC COMMENT 

The parties agree and acknowledge that final approval by the United States and entry of 

this stipulation is subject to the requirements of 28 C.F.R.5 50.7, which provides for notice 

and opportunity for public comment. The United States consents to entry of this Order, 

subject to publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 5 50.7 

and an opportunity to consider comments thereon. 

23. EXECUTION 

above. 

The parties listed below through their,respective counsel stipulate to the provisions listed

Dated: I/,/ 2 714 

Dated: IL[I)$L 

Dated: l ~ - / i ~ / ' ~ ( ~ 

FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES 


Environment and Natural Resources Division 

n 

E 

rial Attorney 

nviron men tal Enforcement Section 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 761 1, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, D. C. 20044-761 1 

ALAN D. BERSIN 

United States Attorney 

Southern District of California 

THOMAS C. STAHL 

Assistant U.S. Attorney , 



San Diego, CA 94101-8893 

'L .- 

Dated: -- 1.- \ 

VLICIA 

MAR~S 

Dated: 

OF COUNSEL: 

n Akencv Region 

w 

/ San Francisco, CA 94105 \ 

kidministrator for Enforcement and 

U. S . Environmental -Agency 

Washir-+-- 

HUGH BARROLL 

Assistant Regional Counsel 

U. S . Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94 105 

JOE THEIS 

Attorney Advisor 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

401 "M" Street S.W. 

Washington, D. C. 20460 12

~ated- 

Dated: 

,% ! ' 

Dated: .Ll , '1 d I :, 

I , . . ',L 

Dated: t 

OF COUNSEL: 

HUGH BARROLL 

Assistant Regional Counsel 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 

75 Hawthorn Street 

San Francisco, CA. 94 105 , 

JOSEPH THEIS 

Attorney Advisor 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

40 1 "M" Street S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES 

r~ttornev General 

Washington, D.C. 20044-76 1 1 

ATAN D. & 

THOMAS C. STAHL 

Assistant U. S. Attorney 



San Diego; CA. ,92101-8893 

/ 

Regional Administrator 

STEVEN A: HERMAN 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 

.

Dated: 4 -/7 4 4 

Dated: 9/ 171 96 

Dated: 7-2 7- F& 


Dated: 

4ttachrnents A-C: 

Interim Order - Section A 

Map - Optimized Reclaimed Water 

Distribution System 

Interim Order - Section D 

FOR THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

Jm McGRORY 

Cify Manager 

TED BROMFELD / 

Head Deputy City Att 

202 "C" Street 

San Diego; CA. 

Brown & Enersen 

Suite 4400 

Los Angeles, CA. 9007 1 - 1 560 

RUDI M. BREWSTER 

United States District Judge 

-

A. CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 

The Court approves and orders the construction of the 

following facilities by the specified dates where noted, all as 

listed in the I1Consurr,ers' Alternative" or as otherwise suggested 

by the City: 

Proiect Name Completion Date 

1. North City Water Reclamation Plant 

(CIP 42-910.1). 

Construction of a water reclamation plant near,,the 

intersection of 1-805 and Miramar Road, and related 

conveyance and disposal pipelines.' 

ATTACHMENT. A

' . 

7 . 

* .'. . 

3 

1 

8 

9 

10 

I 

2. Sludge Facilities 

a. Miramar Fiesta Island 

Replacement Project 


Relocation of sludge facilities from Fiesta Island 

to a site on the ~iramar Naval Air station. 

Project includes a sludge dewatering facility, 

sludge pipeline and sludge pumping station. 

b. North City Treatment Plant 

Digesters 


Project will provide for processing of sludge 

produced at the North City Water Reclamation 

Plant, and provide trucked liquid waste disposal 

site. 

Point Loma Treatment Plant Improvements 

a. Construction of Additional Digesters N/A 

(Point Loma Digesters 7 and 8 - CIP 

46-170.0) ,. 

At the plant, which digest sludge for further 

processing. 

b. Construction of Sedimentation Basins 

No. 11 and 12 (CIP 46-177.0) 

Used to reduce suspended solids in the sewage. 

N/A 

c. South Effluent Line N/A 

(SECC CIP - 46-134.0) 

To. channel effluent from the pla,nt to. the ocean 

outfall. 

do PIRP Pump Station (CIP 46-055;O) NIA 

Construction of New Sludge Pump Station. 

e. chemical Feed System 1/91/95 

f. Replacement of two grit'tanks 

at the Plant 

capital 1mp.rovement projects for the ., 

Municipal Bewer System 

a. Annual Allocation.,-- Freeway ~elocation 

'- - N/A 

, . 

Funds the relocation of existing sewer 

utilities which conflict with outside agency 

activity on an as-needed basis:

~nnual Allocation -- Sewer Main 

Replacements 

Funds the ongoing program to replace and 

upgrade deteriorated.concrete sewer mains in 

various groupings throughout the City. 

Annual Allocation -- Pump Station 

~estorations 


existing pump stations on an as-needed basis. 

Annual Allocation -- Utilities 

~ommunications 


existing communication facilities on an as- 

needed basis. 

N/A 

N/A 

carmil Valley Trunk Sewer (CIP 46-122.0) 12/31/96 

Replacement and expansion of portions of the 

existing trunk sewer and to conform to the ,, 

relocation of Pump station No. 65 at its.. new ,," 

site. 

East Mission Gorge Trunk sewer 

Rehabilitation (CIP 40-920.4) 

Rehabilitation of manholes and realignment of 

existing sewer where warranted. 

Encanto Trunk Sewer (CIP 46-163.0) 4/15/95 

Upgrade and expansion of existing t-k. 

I 

sewer. 

Highland Park Estates Trunk Sewer -- 12/3 2/97 

Phase 11 (CIP 46-138.0) 

Upgrade and expansion of portions of existing 

trunk sewer. 

North Mission Valley Interceptor -- 12/31/98 

Phase 11 (CIP 46-140.0) 


existing interceptor. 

Pump station No. 65 -- Expansion and 6/30/96 

Force Main (CIP 46-117.0) 

Replacement and expansion of portion of the.. 

existing interceptor and relocation of the 

existing pump station.

k. Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer 

(CIP 46-111.0 and 40-920.0) 

~nstallation of new trunk sewer. 

1. Valencia Park Trunk Sewer 

(CIP 46-166 -0) 

- 

upgrade and expansion of existing trunk 

sewer. 

5. Capital Improvement Projects for the Metropolitan Sewer 

Sys teln 

a. Annual Allocation -- Point Loma Plant N/ A 

JCIP 46-119.0) 


facilities as needed. 

b. North Metro Interceptor -- Phase I 

(CIP 46-104 -0) 

Installation of new interceptor sewer. 

Upon consideration of the points and authorities of the 

parties, the statements of counsel, and oral evidence of the 

City, the Court desires to clarify its previous Order. For the 

North City Water Reclamation Project- listed in Section A.1, 

footnote 2 is added as follows: 

2. The term "related conveyance and disposal 

pipelinesN shall be defined by reference to 

Attachment A of this Order. The completion date 

for segments 1, 2, 3, 5A, 5B, 6, and 12 shall be 

August 1, 1997. The completion date for segment 16 

shall be August 1, 1998. The Court understands 

that the completion date of April 30, 1997, for the 

North City plant is construction completion and 

that the plant will undergo operational testing and 

permitting by regulatory agencies prior to full 

start-up.

I . s.l-G 

The City of San Diego shall continue developing and" 

implementing its Biosolids Beneficial Use Plan. As part of the 

status reports required pursuant to this order, the City shall 

report on the status of its sludge facilities construction and 

:he implementation of its Biosolids Beneficial Use Plan. The Cit 

shall implement its Biosolids Beneficial Use Plan to maximize th 

/ 

zost-effective reuse of sewage sludge with the goal of complete 

beneficial reuse of sewage sludge. 

SECTION D OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF AUGUST 26, 1994

Footnote No. 74

33 U.S.C.A. 5 1311 Effluent limitations 

(j) Modification procedures 

(5) Extension of application deadline 

(A) In general 

In the 180-day period beginning on October 31, 1994, the city of San Diego, 

California, may apply for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of this section 

of the requirements of subsection (b)(l)(B) of this section with respect to 

biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids in the effluent discharged 

into marine waters. 

(B) Application 

An application under this paragraph shall include a commitment by the applicant 

to implement a waste water reclamation program that, at a minimum, will-- 

(i) achieve a system capacity of 45,000,000 gallons of reclaimed waste water 

per day by January I, 2010; and 

(ii) result in a reduction in the quantity of suspended solids discharged by the 

applicant into the marine environment during the period of the modification. 

(C) Additional conditions 

The Administrator may not grant a modification pursuant to an application 

submitted under this paragraph unless the Administrator determines that such 

modification will result in removal of not less than 58 percent of the biological 

oxygen demand (on an annual average) and not less than 80 percent of total 

suspended solids (on a monthly average) in the discharge to which the 

application applies. 

(D) Preliminary decision deadline 

The Administrator shall announce a preliminary decision on an application 

submitted under this paragraph not later than 1 year after the date the 

application is submitted. 

,

Footnote No.

Footnote No. 8 1

Page 2 of 8 

242 F.3d 1097 Page 1 

242 F.3d 1097,52 ERC 1007,31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,529,Ol Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2062,2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 

2614 

(Cite as: 242 F.3d 1097) 

C 

Briefs and Other Related Documents 

City of San Diego v. WhitmanC.A.9 (Ca1.),2001. 

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a California municipal 

corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

Christine Todd WHIT MAN,^^* an individual in 

her capacity as Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency; United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

FN* Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(c), 

Christine Todd Whitrnan is automatically 

substituted as a party defendant-appellant 

for Carol Browner. 

NO. 00-56561. 

Argued and Submitted Feb. 8,2001 

Filed March 13,2001 

City brought action to enjoin Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) fiom applying Ocean 

Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA) to city's unfiled 

application for renewal of modified National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

pennit. The United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California, Rudi M. Brewster, 

J., granted city's motion for preliminary injunction, 

and EPA appealed. The Court of Appeals, David R. 

Thompson, Circuit Judge, held that EPA's letter in 

response to city's inquiry was not subject to judicial 

review. 

Vacated and remanded. 

West Headnotes 

[I] Federal Courts 170B -776 

170BVIII(K) 1 In General 

170Bk776 k. Trial De Novo. Most 

Cited Cases 

Court of Appeals reviews de novo question of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

[2] Environmental Law 149E -661 

149E Environmental Law 

149EXIII Judicial Review or Intervention 

149Ek661 k. Finality. Most Cited Cases 

(Formerly 199k25.15(3.2) Health and 

Environment) 

Letter from Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) in response to city's inquiry as to whether 

Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA) would 

apply to city's unfiled application for renewal of 

modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit was not "final agency 

action," and thus was not subject to judicial review; 

EPA's decision-making process would not begin 

until city filed its application, and letter stated that it 

was not final action, but that final action would not 

occur until administrative appeal process was 

completed. 5 U.S.C.A. 5 704; Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 5 

301(j), 33 U.S.C.A. 5 13110). 

[3] Administrative Law and Procedure 15Aw 

704 

15A Administrative Law and Procedure 

15AV Judicial Review of Administrative 

Decisions 

15AV(B) Decisions and Acts Reviewable 

15Ak704 k. Finality; Ripeness. Most 

Cited Cases 

Until administrative appeal process is completed, 

judicial review is premature. 

170B Federal Courts [4] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A- 

170BVIII Courts of Appeals 704 

170BVIII(K) Scope, Standards, and Extent 

O 2007 Thomsoflest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Page 3 of 8 

242 F.3d 1097 Page 2 

242 F.3d 1097, 52 ERC 1007,31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,529,01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2062,2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 

2614 

(Cite as: 242 F.3d 1097) 



Decisions 

15AV(B) Decisions and Acts Reviewable 


Cited Cases 

Although agency's own characterization of its action 

as non-final is not necessarily determinative, it 

provides indication of nature of action. 5 U.S.C.A. 

5 704. 

[5] Administrative Law and Procedure 1 5Aw 

704 



Decisions 

lSAV(B) Decisions and Acts Reviewable 


Cited Cases 

Agency action is not final unless it imposes 

obligation, denies right, or fmes some legal 

relationship. 5 U.S.C.A. 5 704. 

"1098 Martin F. McDermott,United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the 

defendants-appellants. 

John R. Reese, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & 

Enersen, Los Angeles, California, for the 

plaintiff-appellee. 

Appeal fiom the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Califomia; Rudi M. Brewster, 

Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 

CV-00-00436-RMB. 

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMPSON 

, Circuit Judges. 

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: 

The United States Environmental Protection 

Agency ("EPA") appeals the district court's entry of 

a preliminary injunction in an action brought by the 

City of San Diego seeking judicial review, under 

the Administrative Procedure Act ("MA"), 5 

U.S.C. § 704, of a letter written by the EPA. The 

EPA's letter stated that it would apply the 

provisions of the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 

1994 ("OPRA"), 33 U.S.C. 5 131 lCj), to the City's 

as-yet-unfiled application for renewal of a modified 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (" 

NPDES") permit. The City characterizes this letter 

as "final agency action" and contends that it 

violates the intention of Congress that OPRA 

govern only the City's original application for a 

modified NPDES permit, not subsequent 

applications for renewal of that permit. The City 

argues that the application process is lengthy, 

complicated and costly, and that it needs a judicial 

determination, before it files its application for 

renewal of its modified NPDES permit, whether it 

will have to comply with the provisions of OPRA 

on an ongoing basis. 

The district court concluded that the EPA's letter 

was subject to judicial review under the APA as " 

final agency action." The district court issued a 

preliminary injunction enjoining the EPA fiom 

enforcing a July 15, 2000 deadline for submission 

of the City's application for renewal of its modified 

NPDES permit until after the court conducted a 

bench trial and a decision in the case had become 

final following any appeal. 

We have jurisdiction over the EPA's appeal of the 

district court's preliminary injunction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(l). We conclude that the district 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the 

EPA's letter did not constitute final agency action. 

We decline to consider the other issues raised in 

this appeal. We vacate the preliminary injunction, 

and remand the case to the district court with 

instructions to dismiss the City's underlying action. 

BACKGROUND 

The City of San Diego operates the Point Loma 

Wastewater Treatment Plant, a publicly-owned 

wastewater treatment facility that discharges 

pollutants into the Pacific Ocean. The Clean Water 

Act ("CWA") prohibits such discharge except as 

authorized by a NPDES pennit. See 33 U.S.C. 5 

131 l(a); Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 

F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th (3.1999). To receive a 

permit, the CWA requires that a publicly-owned 

O 2007 Thomson~West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Page 4 of 8 

242 F.3d 1097 Page 3 

242 F.3d 1097, 52 ERC 1007,31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,529, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2062,2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 

2614 

(Cite as: 242 F.3d 1097) 

wastewater treatment facility meet secondary 

treatment requirements. See 33 U.S.C. 5 

1311(b)(l)(B). In 1977, Congress amended the 

CWA to permit the EPA to modify the secondary 

treatment requirements for publicly-owned 

wastewater treatment facilities that discharge 

pollutants into ocean waters. See 33 U.S.C. 5 

13 1 1(h) ("section 301(h)"). 

The City wanted to obtain the benefits of mohfied 

secondary treatment requirements for its Point 

Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant, but failed to 

submit an application for a section 301(h) modified 

permit by the deadline specified in 33 U.S.C. 5 

131 l(j)(l)(A). In order to relieve *I099 the City 

of the consequences of failing to comply with that 

deadline, Congress enacted special legislation 

authorizing the City to apply for a section 301(h) 

modified permit during a 180-day period beginning 

October 31, 1994. See OPRA, Pub.L. No. 

103-431, 108 Stat. 4396, codified at 33 U.S.C. 5 

1311(j)(5). In order to take advantage of the 

revised deadline for submitting its application, 

OPRA required the City to: (1) commit to 

implement a wastewater reclamation program that 

would achieve a system capacity of 45 million 

gallons of reclaimed wastewater per day by January 

1, 2010, (2) commit to implement a wastewater 

reclamation program that would result in a 

reduction in the quantity of suspended solids 

discharged by the City into the marine environment 

during the period of the modification, (3) show that 

modification would result in removal of not less 

than 80% of total suspended solids (on a monthly 

average) in the discharge of the wastewater plant, 

and (4) show that modification would result in 

removal of not less than 58% of the biological 

oxygen demand (on an annual average) in the 

discharge of the wastewater plant. See 33 U.S.C. 5 

13 1 l(j)(5)(B) and (C). 

Within the deadline imposed by OPRA, the City 

submitted an application for a section 301(h) 

modified permit. Pursuant to that application, on 

December 12, 1995, the EPA and the State of 

California issued a section 301(h) modified permit 

for the Point Loma facility, which incorporated the 

substantive requirements of OPRA.~' This permit 

was due to expire December 15, 2000. An 

application for renewal of the modified permit was 

to be filed six months before the permit expired 

(June 15, 2000).~~ See 40 C.F.R. 5 122.46; 40 

C.F.R. 5 125.59. 

FN1. The State of California is authorized 

to issue NPDES permits for point source 

dischargers within its jurisdiction. The 

EPA, however, issues permit modifications 

under OPRA and 33 U.S.C. 5 1311(h) and 

) Accordingly, the City's NPDES 

pennit, which included modifications 

under OPRA, was jointly issued by the 

State of California and the EPA. 

FN2. The EPA granted an extension of the 

application deadline to July 15,2000. 

On December 13, 1999, the Mayor of the City of 

San Diego wrote to EPA Administrator Carol 

Browner "request[ing] your assistance regarding an 

issue impacting the City of San Diego's application 

for renewal of its National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System ('NPDES') permit for its Point 

Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant under the Clean 

Water Act." The Mayor stated: 

By law, the City of San Diego must submit a 

renewal application for its NPDES permit for Point 

Loma by June of 2000 (40 C.F.R. 122.46,125.59) .... 

As detailed below, the City's position is that OPRA 

was intended to govern the reopening of the waiver 

application window only. Once a permit is 

granted, the renewals are to be governed not by 

OPRA, but by the waiver regulations applicable to 

all dischargers. Given the obvious significance of 

this issue, and its impact on the nature and 

consideration of the application, it must be resolved 

before the City can file its renewal application .... 

The City is presently developing the information 

necessary to submit its renewal application for Point 

Loma. EPA's interpretation of OPRA is of obvious 

and primary importance to the effort, as it will 

dictate how the City must proceed towards renewal 

of its permit. In the absence of this determination, 

the City will be faced with the prospect of 

submitting dual and inconsistent renewal 


Page 5 of 8 

242 F.3d 1097 Page 4 


2614 

(Cite as: 242 F.3d 1097) 

applications, which will not only be wasteful, but 

will also wreak havoc on the City's wastewater 

programmatic and financial planning efforts. 

On February 17, 2000, the EPA Regional 

Administrator for Region M responded to the 

Mayor's request for assistance in a letter stating that, 

"[alfter thorough review of this question with the 

Offices of Regional Counsel and General Counsel, 

EPA interprets the OPRA conditions to continue in 

effect upon application for renewal of the City's 

301(h) modified permit."*1100 The Regional 

Administrator further stated: 

I encourage the City to submit its application for 

renewal of its 301(h) modified permit promptly and 

in accordance with OPRA. I assure you that EPA 

Region IX will give fair and timely consideration to 

the City's renewal application. In addition, like all 

other EPA actions on 301(h) modified permit 

applications, Region IX's action on the City's 

application will be subject to review by the 

Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB) once 

Region IX makes its decision on the City's 

application for renewal of the 301(h) modified 

permit. If the City bases its application on its own 

interpretation of the applicability of OPRA 

conditions, the City could raise the OPRA issue in 

an appeal to the EAB. This letter, however, cannot 

constitute "final agency action" for purposes of 

obtaining judicial review. Final agency action 

occurs upon completion of the permit appeal 

process described above. 

Instead of filing an application for renewal of its 

modified permit, the City filed the present action in 

district court. The City sought judicial review 

under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 9 

704, of the EPA's letter stating that OPRA was 

intended to apply not only to the City's original 

application for a section 301(h) modified permit, 

whch Congress permitted to be filed late, but also 

to all subsequent applications for renewal of the 

modified permit.FN3 The City alleged that the 

EPA's letter constituted "final agency action." The 

City also alleged that the letter constituted 

rule-makmg undertaken without notice and public 

FN3. The City's complaints with the 

application of OPRA to its application for 

renewal are detailed in a declaration of the 

Deputy Director of the Metropolitan 

Operations and Maintenance Division of 

the Metropolitan Wastewater Department. 

The Deputy Director states that: (1) the 

City currently spends $1,000,000 per year 

to comply with OPRA's requirement of 

removing 58% of biological oxygen 

demand on an annual average; (2) the City 

cannot continue to comply with OPRA's 

conditions due to estimated population 

growth, (3) the City will be forced to 

retrofit its facilities in order to attain 

secondary treatment standards and the 

advanced primary facilities at the Point 

Loma plant will be rendered obsolete; and 

(4) the OPRA conditions do not benefit the 

environment and constitute wasteful 

overtreatment. 

FN4. The City also sought declaratory 

relief and a writ of mandamus compelling 

the EPA to apply the requirements under 

33 U.S.C. 1311(h)(l)-(9) to its 

application for renewal of its section 

301(h) modified permit. The parties do 

not dispute that jurisdiction over these 

claims turns on whether the EPA's letter 

constituted final agency action under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

The EPA moved to dismiss the City's complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The EPA 

argued that its letter was not "final agency action;" 

that the dispute was not ripe for review; that the 

City had not exhausted its administrative remedies; 

and that 33 U.S.C. 9 1369(b)(1) vested exclusive 

jurisdiction over EPA decisions related to NPDES 

permits in the United States Courts of Appeals. 

The district court denied the EPA's motion to 

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It 

determined that the EPA's letter "constitute[d] a 


Page 6 of 8 

242 F.3d 1097 Page 5 


2614 

(Cite as: 242 F.3d 1097) 

final action reviewable in this court because it 

constitute[d] Defendants' defmitive position on the 

applicability of 33 U.S.C. 5 131 1(j)(5), and 

create[d] immediate and direct adverse effects on 

Plaintiff." The court also determined that the letter 

was ripe for review because judicial intervention 

would not interfere with administrative action, the 

issue was a question of law, and delay would cause 

substantial hardship to the City. Finally, the court 

concluded that the doctrine of exhaustion of 

administrative remedies did not bar the City's suit, 

nor was jurisdiction to review the EPA's action 

vested solely in the Court of Appeals, because the 

EPA's letter did "not constitute either the approval 

of an 'effluent limitation or other limitation' or the 

issuance or denial of a permit" under 33 U.S.C. 5 

1369(b)(l).~~~ 

FN5. The district court also ruled that the 

EPA's letter did not amount to rule-making 

subject to notice and comment. 

*I101 The district court denied the City's motion 

for summary judgment on the ground that "there are 

material issues in dispute as to the correct 

interpretation of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(j)(5)," and set 

the case for trial. The court granted the City's 

motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the 

EPA from "enforcing the July 15, 2000 deadline for 

submission of an application for renewal of [the 

City's] NPDES permit and the section 301(h) 

waiver therein and otherwise from taking any action 

on such submission until 90 days after final 

judgment on all claims in [the City's] complaint, 

including all appeals thereof." 

The EPA appeals the district court's preliminary 

injunction. Its principal argument on appeal is that 

its letter did not constitute "final agency action" and 

thus the district court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

[I] We review de novo the question of subject 

matter jurisdiction. See Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. 

United States Forest Sew., 192 F.3d 922, 924 (9th 

Cir. 1999). 

B. Final Agency Action 

The APA provides for judicial review of "final 

agency action." 5 U.S.C. 5 704. In Bennett v. 

Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 

281 (1997), the United States Supreme Court stated 

that two criteria must be satisfied for agency action 

to be final: 

As a general matter, two conditions must be 

satisfied for agency action to be "final": First, the 

action must mark the "consummation" of the 

agency's decision-making process-it must not be of 

a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And 

second, the action must be one by which "rights or 

obligations have been determined," or from which " 

legal consequences will flow." 

Id. at 177-78, 117 S.Ct 1154 (internal citations 

omitted). 

[2] The EPA's letter does not satisfy the fnst of the 

Bennett v. Spear requirements for final agency 

action-that the action mark the " 'consummation' 

of the agency's decisionmaking process." Id. The 

EPA's decision-making process on the City's 

application for renewal of its section 301(h) 

modified permit will not even begin until the City 

files its application. If and when the City is 

aggrieved by the EPA's decision regarding its 

application, the City's recourse is to appeal to the 

Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB"), as a 

prerequisite to review by this court. See 33 U.S.C. 

5 1369(b)(1); 40 C.F.R. 5 124.19(e) ("A petition to 

the Environmental Appeals Board under paragraph 

(a) of this section is, under 5 U.S.C. 5 704, a 

prerequisite to the seeking of judicial review of the 

final agency action."). 

[3][4] It is the EAB's decision that will constitute 

the "consummation of the agency's decision-making 

process." This point is made in the EPA's letter 

itself: "This letter, however, cannot constitute ' 

O 2007 ThomodWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Page 7 of 8 

242 F.3d 1097 Page 6 


2614 

(Cite as: 242 F.3d 1097) 

final agency action' for purposes of obtaining 

judicial review. Final agency action occurs upon 

completion of the permit appeal process described 

above."FN6 The letter described the appeal 

process and made it clear that the decision of the 

EAB would represent the consummation of the 

decision-making process on the issue of whether the 

City's application for renewal of its section 301(h) 

modified permit should be governed by OPRA or 

by the regulations applicable to all dischargers. 

Until the administrative appeal process is 

completed, jumcial review is premature. See 

Sierra Club v. United States Nuclear Regulatory 

Comm'n, 825 F.2d 1356, 1362 (9th Cir.1987) ("We 

will not entertain a petition where pending 

administrative proceedings or further agency action 

might render the case moot and judicial review 

completely *I102 unnecessary."). Cf: Queen in 

Right of Ontario v. EPA, 912 F.2d 1525, 1532 

(D.C.Cir.1990) (agency action was final because it 

was "unambiguous and devoid of any suggestion 

that it might be subject to subsequent revision"); 

Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F.2d 430, 436-37 

(D.C.Cir.1986) (agency action was final because " 

[nlot only did the statement of position admit of no 

ambiguity, but it gave no indication that it was 

subject to further agency consideration or possible 

modification.") (internal citation omitted).M7 

FN6. Although an agency's own 

characterization of its action as non-final is 

not necessarily determinative, it provides 

an indication of the nature of the action. 

See Blincoe v. FAA, 37 F.3d 462, 464 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (per curiam). 

FN7. The EPA also argues that the letter 

represents only the "regional 

administrator's opinion." This argument is 

unpersuasive. The letter clearly states that 

"After a thorough review of this question 

with the Offices of Regional Counsel and 

General counsel, EPA interprets the OPRA 

conditions to continue in effect upon 

application for renewal of the City's 

section 301(h) modified permit." 

(Emphasis added.) 

[5] The EPA's letter also fails to satisfy the second 

requirement of the Bennett v. Spear finality test-that 

the agency action impose an obligation, deny a right 

or fur some legal relationship. See Bennett, 520 

U.S. at 178, 117 S.Ct 1154; Association of Am. 

Med. Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 

780-81 (9th Cir.2000). The EPA's letter simply 

responds to the City's request for "assistance" on 

the issue of whether it can expect the EPA to apply 

OPRA's conditions to its application for renewal of 

its section 301(h) modified permit. The letter only 

"encourage[s]" the City to submit its application in 

accordance with the EPA's interpretation of OPRA 

and informs the City that it can raise the OPRA 

issue on appeal to the EAB if it chooses to complete 

the application in accordance with its own 

interpretation of OPRA. 

C. Conclusion 

Because the letter fails the finality test of Bennett v. 

Spear, it does not constitute "final agency action" 

required for judicial review under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 5 704. 

The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

We need not consider the EPA's other challenges 

to subject matter jurisdiction. The preliminary 

injunction is vacated and this case is remanded to 

the district court with instructions to dismiss the 

City's underlying action. 

Issuance of this court's mandate is stayed for thrty 

days from the filing of this opinion, and in the event 

any petition for rehearing is filed, issuance of the 

mandate is further stayed until a decision on all 

petitions for rehearing becomes final. 

VACATED and REMANDED. 

C.A.9 (Ca1.),2001. 

City of San Diego v. Whitman 

242 F.3d 1097, 52 ERC 1007, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 

20,529, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2062, 2001 Daily 

Journal D.A.R. 2614 

Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) 

O 2007 ThornsodWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Page 8 of 8 

242 F.3d 1097 Page 7 

242 F.3d 1097,52 ERC 1007,31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,529,Ol Cal. Daily Op. Sew. 2062,2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 

2614 

(Cite as: 242 F.3d 1097) 

2000 WL 34012331 (Appellate Brief) Reply Brief 

for the Defendants-Appellants (Nov. 30, 2000) 

Original Image of this Document (PDF) 

2000 WL 34012332 (Appellate Brief) Reply Brief 

for the Defendants-Appellants (Nov. 30, 2000) 

Original Image of this Document (PDF) 

2000 WL 34012330 (Appellate Brief) Brief for 

the Defendants-Appellants (Oct. 16, 2000) Original 

Image of this Document (PDF) 

00-56561 (Docket) (Sep. 22,2000) 

END OF DOCUMENT 

O 2007 ThomsonIWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Footnote No. 82

Stat~. Vater Resources Conf 31 Board 

Winston H. Hickox Office of Chief Counsel Gray Davis 

Secrernv for 1001 I Street, 22"* Floor, Sacramento, Calrfomra 95814 Governor 

Envrronrnentnl 

P 0. Box 100, Sacramento, Cal~fom~a 95812-0100 

Protection (916)341-5161 ~~x(916)341-5199 

-- 

+ www.swrcb.cagov 

nte energy challenge facing California is real. Evev Calgornian needs 10 fake imnlediate action ro reduce energy consunrption. 

For a list ofsimple ways you can reduce de~~rand and cut your energy costs, see our website nt www.swrcb.ca.gov. 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

James J. Dragna, Esq. 

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen 

355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4400 

Los Angeles, CA 9007 1-3 106 

Dear Mr. Dragna: 

PETITION OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO (WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER 

NO. R9-2002-0025 [NPDES NO. CA01074091 FOR E.W. BLOM POINT LOMA 

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT), SAN DlEGO REGION: ADOPTED ORDER 

SWRCBIOCC FILE A-1477 

Enclosed is a copy of WQO 2002 - 0013. This Order was adopted by the State Water Resources 

Control Board at its regular business meeting on August 15,2002. 

Sincerely, 

- - 

(;dd fi I l,dldun 

traig M%ilson 

Chief Counsel 

Enclosure 

cc: Mr. John Robertus, Executive Officer 

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 

9771 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite A 


Interested Persons Mailing List 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

%? Recycled Paper

Petition of 

City of San Diego 

SWRCBIOCC File A-1477 

SWRCB 

Office of Chief Counsel 

INTERESTED PERSONS 

MAILING LIST 

Revised 07-1 8-02 

James J. Dragna, Esq. Ted Bromfield 

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen Senior Deputy City Attorney 

355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4400 City of San Diego 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 -31 06 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100 

San Diego, CA 92101 

John Robertus, Executive Officer 

San Diego Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

9174 Sky Park Court, #I00 


Janet Hashimoto 

WTR-2 

U.S. EPA Region 9 



Terry Fleming 

WTR-2 



San Francisco, CA 94105 

Lauren Fondhal 

WTR-7 

U.S.EPA Region 9 

, 75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 

Alan Langworthy 

City of San Diego Metro Wastewater 

4918 North Harbor Drive, Suite 201 


Jan D. Vandersloot 

Ocean Outfall Group 

2221 East 16th Street 

Newport Beach CA 92663 

Jim Peugh 

San Diego Audubon Society 

2321 Morena Boulevard, Suite D 

San Diego CA 921 10 

Theodore A. Cobb, Esq. 


State Water Resources Control Board 

1001 1 Street, 22nd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Bob Hoffman 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 

Long Beach, CA 90802 

Rob~ert E. Moyer 

U.S. EPA 

610 West Ash Street, Suite 905 

San Diego, CA 921 01 

Doreen Stadtlander 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2730 Locker Avenue, West 

Carlsbad, CA 92008 

Mark Delaplaine 

California Coastal Commission 

45 Fremont, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 941 05-221 9 

Marco A. Gonzalez 

Surfrider Foundation, .San Diego Chapter 

215 South Highway 101, Suite 206 

Solana Beach, CA 92075 

Jeffrey Stevens 

2307 16'~ street 

Newport Beach, CA 92663 

Bruce Reznik Edward Kimura 

San Diego BayKeeper Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter 

1450 Harbor Island Drive, Suite 205 6995 Camino Amero 

San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, California 921 11 

-- 

San Diego 

Reqional Water Quality Control Board 

Waste Discharge Reuirements Order 

NO. R9-2002-0025 

[NPDES No. CA01074091 

Terry Oda 

WTR-5 




John Richards, Esq. 



1001 I Street, 22" Floor 


Gordon lnnes 

Program Support Unit 

Division of Water Quality 

SWRCB 

1001 1 Street 


Robyn Stuber 

WTR-5 




Laurinda Owens. 

California Coastal commission, 

San Diego District 

7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103 


Robert Simmons 

Sierra Club 

P.O. Box 19932 


Bill Paznokas 

California Department of Fish and Game, 

South Coast Region 

4949 Viewridge Drive 


Bill Ullrich 

Superintendent of Public Works 

City of Chula Vista 

707 F Street 

Chula Vista, CA 91910 

David L.Scherer 

Public Works Director 

City of Del Mar 

1050 Camino del Mar 

Del Mar, CA 92014-2698

Augie Caires 

Padre Dam Municipal Water District 

P.O. Box 719003 

Santee, CA 92072-9003 

Eugene Mitchell 

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce 

402 West Broadway, Suite 1000 

San Diego. CA 92101-3585 

Senator Dede Alpert 

1857 Columbia Street 


Patti Krebs 

Industrial Environmental Association 

701 B Street. Suite 1445 


Richard Ramos 

City of El Cajon 

200 East Main Street 

El Cajon. CA 92020 

Andrew Currie 

CP Kelco 

2025 East Harbor Drive 

San Diego, CA 921 13-21 23 

John Norton 


Compliance Assurance and Enforcement 

P.O. Box 100 

Sacramento, CA 9581 2-01 00 

John Snyder 

Director of Public Works 

County of San Diego 

Department of Public Works 

555 Overland Avenue, Building 2 


Mark Delaplaine 

Federal Consistency Supervisor 

California Coastal Commission 

45 Fremont Street. Suite 2000 


The Honorable Dennis Hollingsworth 

California State Assembly 

P.O. Box 942849 

Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 

Laura Hunter 

Environmental Health Coalition 

1717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100 


W. Erik Bruvold 

San Diego Regional Economic 

Development Corporation 

401 B Street, suite 1100 


Mayor Dick Murphy 


202 C Street 


Thomas J.P. McHenry 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 

333 South Grand Avenue 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 

Barry Johnson 

City of lmperial Beach 

825 lmperial Beach Boulevard 

lmperial Beach, CA 91 932 

Councilmember Scott Peters 


202 C Street 


Chris Beegan 


Division of Water Quality 

P.O. Box 100 

Sacramento, CA 9581 2-01 00 

County Supervisor Dianne Jacob 

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 


Attention: Mike Kulis 

The Honorable Shirley Horton 

Mayor of Chula Vista 

City of Chula Vista 

276 Fourth Avenue 

Chula Vista, CA 91910 

The Honorable Randy "Duke" Cunningham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2350 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-0551 

-- 

Hank Levien 

Public Works Director 

City of lmperial Beach 

825 lmperial Beach Boulevard 

lmperial Beach, CA 91932 

Burton Myers 

Public Works DirectorlCity Engineer 

City of National City ' 

1243 National City Boulevard 

National City, CA 91950 

Mr. Edward Wimmer 

City Engineer 

Lemon Grove Sanitation District 

3232 Main Street 

Lemon Grove, CA 91945 

Mr. Harold E. Bailey 

Director of Operations and Water Quality 

Padre Dam Municipal Water District 

9120 Carlton Oaks 

Santee, CA 92072 

Gary Erbeck 

Department of Environmental Health 


P.O. Box 129261 

San Diego, California 921 12-9261 

Scott W. Huth 

Director of Public Services 

City of Coronado 

101 B Avenue 

Coronado, CA 921 18-1510 

Al Cablay 

Public Works Superintendent 


1050 Vernon Way 

El Cajon, CA 92020 

Cameron Berkuti 

City EngineerlPublic Works Director 

City of La Mesa 

P.O. Box 937 

81 30 Allison Avenue 

La Mesa, CA 91 942 

James R. Howell 

Director of Public Works 

City of Poway 

P.O. Box 789 

Poway, CA 92074-0789 

Robert Griego 

General Manager 

Otay Water District 

2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard 

Spring Valley, CA 91 978

7 

-. Keith Silva 

The Honorable Susan A. Davis I The ono or able Darrell lssa WTR-7 

U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives U.S. EPA Region 9 

1517 Longworth House Office Building 1725 Longworth House Office Building 75 Hawthorne Street 

Washington, DC 2051 5 Washington, DC 20515 San Francisco, CA 941 05 

The Honorable James F. Battin, Jr. 

Larry Wasserrnan 

The Honorable Raymond N. Haynes 

California State Senate California State Senate City of San Diego . 

P.O. Box 942848 

4918 North Harbor Drive 

P.O. Box 942848 




The Honorable Mark Wyland 


P.O. Box 942849 


The Honorable Tom Smisek 

Mayor of Coronado 

City of Coronado 

1825 Strand Way 

Coronado, CA 921 18 

The Honorable Jay LaSuer 


P.O. Box 942849 


The Honorable Mickey Cafagna 

Mayor of Poway 

City of Poway 

P.O. Box 789 

Poway, CA 92074-0789 

The Honorable Howard Wayne 


P.O. Box942849 


The Honorable Dede Alpert 

California State Senate 

P.O. Box 942848 

Sacramento. CA 94248-0001 

The Honorable Christine Kehoe 


P.O. Box 942849 

Sacramento. CA 94249-0001 

Mr. Ron Roberts 

Chairman 




The Honorable Steve Peace 


P.O. Box 942848 


The ono or able Art Madrid 

Mayor of La Mesa 

City of La Mesa 

81 30 Allison Avenue 

La Mesa, CA 91944-0937 

The Honorable Bob Filner 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2463 Rayburn Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Charlene Gonzales Zettel 


P.O. Box 942849 


The Honorable Mark Lewis 

Mayor of El Cajon 


200 East Main Street 

El Cajon, CA 92020 

Ms. Dianne Jacob 

Supervisor, Second District 

San Diego County Board of Supe~isors 



The Honorable Patricia C. Bates 


P.O. Box 942849 


Mr. Byron Wear 

Councilrnember, Second District 


202 C Street 


The Honorable Juan Vargas 


P.O. Box 942849 


The Honorable Bill Morrow 


P.O. Box 942848 


The Honorable Duncan Hunter 

U.S. House ~f Representatives 

2265 Rayburn House Ofice Building 

Washington, DC 20515-0235

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 

ORDER WQO 2002 - 00 13 

In the Matter of the Petition of 

City Of San Diego 

(Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R9-2002-0025 WPDES No. CA01074091 

for E. W. Blom Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant 

BY THE BOARD: 

Issued by the 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

San Diego Region 

S WRCB/OCC FILE A-14 77 

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region 

(Regional Board), adopted waste discharge requirements for the E.W. Blom Point Loma 

Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant), owned and operated by the City of San Diego 

(City). Those requirements were adopted in conjunction with the renewal of the NPDES permit 

issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for discharge to the Pacific 

Ocean pursuant to a process set forth in the Clean Water Act, title 33 of the United States Code 

Annotated Section 13 1 1 (h), and generally referred to as Section 30 1 (h). Pursuant to 

Section 301 (h), EPA may issue a permit for discharge to marine waters from a publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW) that is given less than full secondary treatment.' The federal permit 

may only be issued with the concurrence of the state in which the discharge takes place. In 

' In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, which required publicly owned 

treatment works to achieve secondary treatment capability by 1977. After passage, some municipalities with 

POTWs that discharged into marine waters, argued that this requirement might be unnecessary on the grounds that 

marine POTWs usually discharge into deeper waters with large tides and substantial currents, which allow for 

greater dilution and dispersion than their freshwater counterparts. As a result, Congress added Section 301(h) to the 

Clean Water Act in 1977, allowing for a case-by-case review of treatment requirements for marine dischargers that 

applied by September 13, 1979. Although it was filed after the deadline, the City's application was accepted. 

\I

California, that concurrence takes the form of state-issued waste discharge requirements, a 

separate permit that ensures compliance with state water quality standards. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The City has operated the Plant for nearly forty years. A waiver pursuant to 

Section 30 1 (h) was issued in December 1995. An application to renew the waiver was submitted 

to EPA by the City in April 200 1. On March 13, 2002, the Regional Board conducted a joint 

hearing with a representative of EPA to take testimony concerning the Section 30 1 (h) waiver and 

the waste discharge requirements. On April 10,2002, the Regional Board reconvened to discuss 

the evidence and testimony and to vote on the adoption of the waste discharge requirements. No 

further public testimony was permitted. After a lengthy discussion, the Regional Board adopted 

the waste discharge requirements as proposed but made three changes to the order, only one of 

which is the subject of the City's petition. 

The City filed a timely petition objecting to the procedure used by the Regional 

Board in adopting the order and to the reduction in the mass emission limits for total suspended 

solids (TSS) in the final order. Those limits were set at 15,000 metric tons per year in the 1995 

permit but were reduced to just under 14,000 tons in the final order. 

11. CONTENTION AND FINDING' 

Contention: The decision of the Regional Board to reduce the mass emission 

limits for TSS from 15,000 to 13,995 metric tons per year for the first four years of the permit is 

not supported by evidence in the record. 

Finding: While there is no evidence in the record that the City will, under any 

reasonable set of circumstances, exceed the limits set by the Regional Board, the record does not 

contain evidence that the reduction from 15,000 metric tons per year to 13,995 is based on actual 

water quality considerations. 

The City has been operating the Plant since the early 1960s and has been subject 

to regulation by the Regional Board for essentially that entire time. When the first Section 

301 (h) waiver was issued in 1995, the Regional Board set a discharge limit of 15,000 metric tons 

per year of TSS in. its waste discharge requirements. At the time, the Plant was discharging a 

The City raises numerous procedural issues in its petition. Because of the disposition of this matter, it is 

unnecessary to address any of those issues. People v. Barry (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1% (239 Cal.Rptr. 349.)

little less than 11,000 tons per year. Since then, the Plant has succeeded in reducing the mount 

of TSS discharged almost every year, despite considerable growth in its service area. In 1996, 

the discharge of TSS was 10,622 metric tons per year; in 1997, it was 10,183; in 1998, the 

number was 10,469; in 1999, the discharge was down to 9,188; and in 2000, the Plant only 

discharged 8,888 metric tons of TSS. That represents a 16 percent reduction over five years. 

Nevertheless, the City, in its application to renew the Section 301(h) waiver, told both EPA and 

the Regional Board that its discharge of TSS from the Plant would be 14,100 metric tons in 200 1 

going up steadily to 14,600 tons in 2005. The waste discharge requirements provide, and the 

City has not challenged the provision, that the discharge must be no more than 13,599 tons in 

2006. No explanation has been provided for why the City's discharge from the Plant would 

increase 59 percent between 2000 and 2001 nor is there any explanation of what the City will do 

between 2005 and 2006 to reduce its discharge by 7 percent. 

The record indicates that the Plant removes more than 85 percent of the TSS in 

its efff uent stream.3 No testimony or evidence was offered to show that this removal rate could 

not be assumed for the duration of this permit. At that rate of removal, even if the Plant were to 

operate at its full design capacity of 240 million gallons per day (MGD), the Regional Board has 

calculated that the mass emissions discharge would be less than 13,900 metric tons. As the City 

has projected the actual flow for the Plant in the year 2006 to be only 195 MGD, continued 

operation at the current rate of efficiency ought to result in a discharge of slightly more than 

12,000 tons in that year.4 

Nevertheless, the Regional Board's decision to reduce the limit for TSS mass 

emissions by 6.7 percent must be supported by evidence in the record. EPA approved the permit 

with the 15,000 ton limit.5 Regional Board staff proposed adoption of the permit with the 15,000 

ton limit. No evidence was offered to the Regional Board that a significant water quality impact 

In its submittal to EPA in support of its Section 301(h) waiver application, the City assumes a mass emission 

removal rate of "at least 80 percent." Removal of less than 80 percent would be a violation of the permit. The City 

has not challenged that requirement. 

4 The discharge resulting from an SO percent removal rate would be about 6 percent higher. If the Plant operated at 

an 80 percent removal rate, the figure for 2006 based on the City's projected discharge would be slightly less than 

12,000 tons. 

' EPA indicated in its February 1 1, 2002 response to comments that "the proposed discharge would meet the nine 

301(h) requirements and is in full compliance with the CWA [Clean Water Act]." EPA also stated that the 

discharge of mass emissions at the proposed 15,000 metric ton level was "entirely consistent with the language and 

purpose of the OPRA [Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 19941."

would occur with a discharge of 15,000 tons per year that would not occur if the discharge were 

limited to 13,995 tons. 

California law requires that an administrative agency "build a bridge" between 

the decisions it makes and the record that supports the decision. Topanga Association for a 

Scenic Cornrntlnity v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506. It is difficult to find such a 

bridge in this case. The absence of a real-world controversy makes the entire issue seem 

academic at best. As we pointed out in our discussion above, unless the City fails to comply 

with its obligation to remove 80 percent or more of the TSS from its effluent, neither the 15,000 

ton limit nor the 13,995 ton limit is actually at issue. If it continues to remove TSS at the current 

85 percent rate, the Plant will not even approach those limits until it is operating at near design 

capacity, many years from now. Any concern about the short-term performance of the City in 

this regard would seem not to be addressed by the reduction and any long-term concerns ought to 

be resolved by the requirement that the discharge be no greater than 13,599 metric tons per year 

beginning in 2006. Clearly, the discharge from the Plant in 2006 is more relevant to its 

performance ten or fifteen years from now than its discharge in 200 1. 

The Regional Board discussed the reduction at its April 10 meeting. No clear 

reason was given for reducing the limit from 15,000 to 14,000 metric tons, although most of the 

Board members indicated on the record that they believed the 15,000 ton figure was not based on 

any legitimate environmental standards and that the reduction was an important statement of 

policy for the Regional Board to make. When asked by the Regional Board's counsel to 

articulate the findings in support of the reduction, the Chair responded: 

"I think the record supports a ratcheting down of the limit, and that this is our 

effort to ensure that the public health, welfare, and safety is protected beyond that 

which is proposed by the permit. I also offer the observation that the 15,000 

limit was simply selected based on the old permit so that we are entitled to adopt 

a permit that is more protective of the public health than is proposed." 

At no time does either the Chair or any other member of the Board point to evidence in the 

record that leaving the mass emission limit at 15,000 tons will cause a water quality or public 

health consequence that reducing it to 13,995 tons will avoid 

There is little or no evidence in the record that the Regional Board considered reducing the mass emission limit for 

technology-based reasons, anti-degradation principles, the need to prevent nuisance conditions, or other statutory or 

regulatory bases.

In its response to the petition, the Regional Board submitted a justification for the 

decision that is slightly more specific: 

There are many facts in the administrative record considered by the Regional 

Board in reaching its decision. These include, but are not limited to, the disparity 

between Petitioner's actual TSS emission rates and those proposed in their 

application, the ability of the PLMWTP [the Plant] to achieve much lower mass 

emissions than those proposed, the need to encourage water reclamation, the 

uncertainly of long-term impacts of the discharge, the lack of deep ocean 

monitoring, and the lack of monitoring for many human pathogens including 

viruses. [Response, page 9.1 

Most of those issues have already been discussed above. The issues involving reclamation and 

the lack of monitoring are certainly very legitimate concerns. However, the question must be 

repeated with regard to those issues: how does a reduction from 15,000 tons to 14,000 tons in 

the order, when the actual discharge cannot exceed 12,000 tons during the life of the permit, 

improve reclamation prospects or lessen the need for more monitoring? 

111. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the State Board concludes that the Regional Board 

failed to make findings, either in its order or during its deliberations, that justify reducing the 

mass emission limits for TSS from 15,000 metric tons per year to 13,995 metric tons per year in 

the waste discharge requirements. The order should be amended. 

Ill 

I//

IV. ORDER 

It is hereby ordered that waste discharge requirements No. R9-2002-0025 be 

amended as follows: in paragraph B.1 .a.(l), Limits on Total Suspended Solids, the narrative is 

amended to read: 

"The discharge shall achieve a mass emission of TSS of no greater than 135995 

15,000 mtlyr; this requirement shall be effective through December 3 1, 2005. 

Effective January 1, 2006, the discharger shall achieve a mass emission of TSS of 

no greater than 13,599 mtlyr." [The remainder of the paragraph is unchanged.] 

CERTIFICATION 

The undersigned, Clerk to the Board, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and 

correct copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources 

Control Board held on August 15,2002. 

AYE: Arthur G. Baggett, Jr. 

Peter S. Silva 

Richard Katz 

Gary M. Carlton 

NO: None 

ABSENT: None 

ABSTAIN: None 

Clerk t h e Board 

%

Footnote No. 84

RESOLUTION NUMBER R-298435 

ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 29,2003 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF THE POINT 

LOMA OUTFALL PROJECT CONSULTANT AGREEMENT; 

AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS. 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego as follows: 

1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and empowered to execute, 

for and on behalf of the City, the Point Loma Outfall Project Consultant Agreement with the 

Regents of the University of California, San Diego [the Agreement] for a period of seven 

months, under the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement on file in the office of the City 

Clerk as Document No. RR-298435 contingent upon City Council approval of the originating 

department's operating budget for fiscal year 2004 and provided that the City Auditor and 

Comptroller first furnishes one or more certificates certifying that the funds are, or will be, on 

deposit with the City Treasurer. 

2. That the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $232,250.00 fiom Sewer 

Revenue Fund 41508 with $107,250.00 fiom fiscal year 2003 appropriations and $125,000.00 

fiom fiscal year 2004 appropriations is hereby authorized for the purpose of funding the 

Agreement contingent upon City Council approval of the originating department's operating 

budget for fiscal year 2004 and provided that the City Auditor and Comptroller first furnishes 

one or more certificates certifying that the funds are, or will be, on deposit with the City 

Treasurer.

3. That the City Auditor and Comptroller is authorized, upon advice from the 

administering department, to transfer excess budgeted hnds, if any, to the appropriate reserves. 

APPROVED: CASEY GWINN, City Attorney 

BY 

James W. Lancaster, 

Deputy City Attorney

Footnote No. 86

a 

w- 

3 r; *::Y'~! .:< 

fy-. . L.k& 5, ,- ,. 8 g Y..: 3,.. . 

..// ~ p . gt5 I. q r 

- z >r 

a 2 

Jk2 g 5 a, 

C ow- .h 0 

- Y - C l j ~ ~ . + 

- - (R-2004-440) - 

- RESOLUTION NUMBER R- 2 9 8 7 8 1 

~DOPTED ON 

JAN 1 3 2004 

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE 

STUDY OF INCREASED ASPECTS OF WATER REUSE 

W&E@AS, the Council of the City of San Diego adopted Resolution No. R-291210 on 

January 19, 1999, directing the City Manager not to spend any monies on water repurification 

until options for such reuse of water are evaluated and hrther direction is given by the Council; 

and 

WHEREAS, the State of California in June 2003 issued a report entitled "Water Recycling 

2030: Recommendations of California's Recycled Water Task Force," which called for a 

community-based process to evaluate a wide range of potential uses of recycled water; and 

WHEREAS, on October 10,2003, the City Manager issued City Manager's Report No. 

03-203 entitled "Status Report on City of San Diego Long-Range Water Resources Plan (2002- 

2030)," which identified reclaimed water as an important source of a locally produced water 

supply and identified the City's two water reclamation plants: the North City Water Reclamation . 

Plant and the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, as important sources of reclaimed water to 

reduce the City's imported potable water demand; and 

WHEREAS, the City's Natural Resources and Culture Committee on November 19, 2003 

" heard a full presentation on Alternative Water Sources, including testimony on the recently 

. issued "Water Recycling 2030: Recommendations of California's Recycled Water Task Force" 

and unanimously recommended that the City Manager conduct a study of all aspects of 

increased water reuse; NOW, THEREFORE, 

L" 

$ 

I

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Diego, that the City Manager - 

is directed to conduct a study of one year duration evaluating all aspects of a viable increased 

water reuse program, including but not limited to groundwater storage, expansion of the 

distribution system, reservoirs for reclaimed water, livestream discharge, wetlands development, 

and reservoir augmentation. The study and report of same shall include a general assessment of 

costs and benefits of such projects including, but not limited to, consideration of public health, 

public acceptance, wateF costs, water supply reliability issues, compilation of research/studies 

concerning reservoir augmentation, and information concerning potential impacts of 

pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, personal care products, and additional constituents of 

the wastewater stream on water quality and health. The study and report, when completed, 

shall be calendared before the Natural Resources and Culture Committee for such action as it 

deems appropriate. 


BY 

Ted Bromfield 

Senior Deputy City At orney 

t

Footnote No. 87

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In The Matter Of 1 NPDES Appeal Nos. 02-07 & 02-08 

City of Sail Diego 1 RESPONDENT' S NOTICE CONCERNING 

1 STAY OF PERMIT TERMS 

NPDES Permit No. CA0107409 ) 

Respondent, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, files this 

notice pursuant to 40 CFR 124.16(a)(2)(ii) which provides, in relevant part: 

The Regional Administrator shall, as soon as possible afier 

receiving notification from the EAB of the filing of a petition for review, 

notify the EAB, the applicant, and all other interested parties of the 

'u~~contested (and severable) conditions of the final permit that will become 

hlly effective enforceable obligations of the permit as of the date 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

1. On October 16, 2002, the City of San Diego (the "City") filed a petition for review with the 

EAB regarding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit for its 

E.W. Blonl Point Loma Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Point Loma Plant"). The 

specific provisions for which review was requested concern the applicability of the Ocean 

Pollution Reduction Act of 1994 ("OPRA"), 33 U.S.C. 13 1 1 Cj)(5) to the City's request for a 

waiver from secondary treatment standards pursuant to Section 30 1 (h) of the Clean Water Act, 

33 U.S.C. 131 l(11). -... 

6 

2. On October 16, 2002, San Diego Baykeeper, Surfrider Foundation, and Sierra Club also filed 

a petition for review with the EAB regarding the NPDES permit for the Point Loma Plant. The 

specific provisions for which review was requested concern the mass emission rate ("MER") 

limits for total suspended solids established pursuant to Section 301(h) and OPRA. These 

petitioners requested that the MER for total suspended solids limits be remanded to EPA to 

establish limits in compliance with all federal and state laws and regulations. 

3. Neither of the petitions for review cited the specific perinit provisions that are being disputed. 

However, the only provisions in dispute are those dealing with the Section 301 (h) waiver and the

applicability of OPRA. They appear in Fii~dingslG - 27, as modified on October 10. 2002, Part 

B. 1 .a(l) of the Permit, and the Final Decision of the Regional Administrator Pursuant to 40 CFR 

Part 125, Subpart G. 

4. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.16(a)(2)(ii) and 124.60(b), EPA is notififying the EAB, the 

Petitioners, and all interested parties that all permit conditions except those identified in 

paragraph 3 above constitute uncontested and severable conditions of the final perinit that 

become fully effective enforceable obligations of the permit thirty days after the date of this 

notice. 

kwaayne H. Nastri 

1 Regional Administrator 

Region IX 

U.S. Environlnental Protectioil Agency 

Date: f,, I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certi@ that a copy of RESPONDENT'S NOTICE CONCERNING STAY OF PERMIT 

TERMS, dated May 16,2003, was faxed to the Enviroiunental Appeals Board, fax nuinber (202) 

501-7580, and the original and copies were mailed via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, as 

follows: 

Original to U.S. Environlnental Protection Agency 

Clerk of the Board, Environmental Appeals Board (MC1103B) 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Copies to Ted Bromfield 

Office of the City Attorney 


1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1 100. 

San Diego, CA 92 10 1-41 00 

James J. Dragna 

Bingham & McCutcheon 

355 So~~tll Grand Avenue, Suite 4400 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 -1 560 

Marco A. Gonzales 

San Diego Baykeeper 

Environmental Law and Policy Clinic 

2924 Emerson Street, Suite 220 


,. Robert Simmons 

San Diego Sierra Club 

P.O. Box 19932 


Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX

h 

Footnote No. 88

RATE ANALYSIS PROGRAM- 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE : March 2, 1994 

TO : Distribution 

FROM : City Rate Analyst 

SUBJECT: WATER/SEWER SERVICE AND CAPACITY CHARGE HISTORY 

Attached for your information and reference is an updated history 

of water and sewer service and capacity cha'rges. Should you have 

any questions, please contact me at ~34115. 

histtran 

Distribution: 

Executive Committee 

Finance Team 

Water Utilities Department: Director, Assistant Director, all 

Deputy Directors 

Metropolitan Wastewater Department: Director, all Deputy 

Directors 

City Attorney: Mssrs. Fitzpatrick, Bromfiel

A. WATER SERVICE CHARGES 

SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 

WATER AND SEWER RATE HISTORY 

Revised 3/2/94 

2/27/58 Rates increased 15%. Domestic had 5 blocks. 

Commercial/Industrial had 6 blocks. Rates rqnged from $0.352 

to $0.23 per HCF. Bills subject to minimum charge based on 

meter size. 

3/31/59 Three additional blocks added t otail of Commercial/Industrial 

schedule in order to settle dispute with Navy. Reduced Navy's 

rate increase based on 2/27/58 rates from 28% to 18%. 

2/06/62 Interruptible Agricultural Service rate established. Set at 

$50 per acre foot. 

1/01/67 After 15% increase, minimum charge set at $2.25 with 9 block 

quantity rates ranging from $0.412 down to $0.212 per HCF. 

7/01/69 Interruptible Agricultural Service per acre foot rate changed 

to SDCWA charge plus $10. 

3/01/73 Rate form changed to customer plus commodity form. Customer 

charge range $1.00 - $22.00; Commodity 4 block range $0.344 to 

$0.287 per HCF. 

1/01/74 Commodity rate increased by $0.09 purchased water cost offset. 

5/0 1/74 Rates increased 15%. Customer charge range $2.10 - $900.00; 

.commodity reduced to 1 block at $0.292 per HCF. Combined 

Irrigation and Domestic service rate discontinued. 

3/22/75 Rates increased 9.6%. Customer charge range $2.30 - $984.40; 

commodity increased to $0.338 per HCF ($0.32 regular rate plus 

$0.018 buy-in offset). 

1/01/76 Commodity increased to $0.343 to include $0.005 purchased 

water cost offset. 

1/01/77 Commodity increased to $0.357 to include $0.014 purchased 


6/24/77 Commodity rate, ,customer charge and fire service rate 

increased by 6.0%. Customer charge range $2.44 - $1,045.58; 

commodity rate $0,379 (including $0.018 buy-in offset).

Commodity rate increased to $0.388 to include $0.012 purchased 

water cost offset and reduction in buy-in offset from $0.018 

to $0.015. 

Commodity increased to $0.418/HCF to include $0.03 for 

purchased water cost offset. 

Commodity increased by $0.005 to $0.423/HCF for purchased 








Lifeline commodity rates for Single Family Domestic (SFD) 

class adopted. 0-10 HCF/Mo. @ $0.471/HCF; 11+ HCF/Mo. @ 

$0.578/HCF. All other classes, $0.515/HCF. 

Lifeline commodity rates for SFD, 0-10 HCF/Mo. @ $0.667/HCF; 

11+ HCF/Mo. @ $0.774/HCF. All other classes, $0.711/HCF. 



General rates increased 13.1%. Based Fee range $2.76 - 

$1,182.55; Fire Service range $6.29 - $83.92; Lifeline 

commodity rates for SFD, 0-10 HCF/Mo. @ $0.756/HCF; ll+ 

HCF/Mo. @ $0.877/HCF. All other classes, $0.805/HCF. 

$0.015/HCF buy-in offset allocation eliminated. 



General rate; increased 13.2%. Base Fee range $3.12 - 

$1,388.65; Fire Service range $7.12 - $95.00; Lifeline 

commodity rates for SFD, 0-10 HCF/Mo. @ $0.869/HCF; 11+ 

HCF/Mo. @ $1.006/HCF. All other classes, $0.925/HCF. 


11+ HCF/Mo. @ $1.018/HCF. All other classes,, $0.937/HCF. 



Lifeline commodity rates for SFD, 0-10 HCF/Mo.@ $0.938/HCF; 

11+ HCF/Mo. 8 $1.075/HCF. All other classes, $0.994/HCF.

11/8/91 Lifeline commodity rates for SFD, 0-10 HCF/Mo. @ $1.076/HCF; 

ll+HCF/Mo. 8 $1.213/HCF. All other classes, $1.132/HCF. 


ll+HCF/Mo. @ $1.306/HCF. All other classes, $1.225/HCF. 


ll+HCF/Mo. @ $1.422/HCF. All other classes, $1.341/HCF.

B. WATER CAE'ACITY CHARGES 

5/18/74 Capacity charge adopted at $300 plus 6% interest per single 

family dwelling unit or equivalent (EDU). 

3/22/75 Capacity charge reduced to $200 per EDU without interest and 

$3000.00 maximum charge per connection. 1.s per HCF buy-in 

offset added to regular water rate to cover resulting decrease 

in water capacity revenue. 

1/01/78 Capacity charge increased to $290 per EDU, maximum charge 

increased to $5000.00, and buy-in offset reduced to 1.54 per 

HCF. 

7/01/86 Capacity charge increase to $393 plus 6% interest per EDU, 

$5000.00 maximum charge limitation and l.S@/HCF buy-in offset 

eliminated. 

7/01/87 Capacity charge increased to $565 plus 6% per EDU. 

7/17/89 Capacity charge increased to $1,651 plus 6% per EDU. 





1/14/94 Capacity charge increased to flat fee of $3,380 per EDU; 

interest escalator eliminated. 

7/01/94 Capacity charge increases to $4,012 per EDU pursuant to 

Council Resolution No. 282998, adopted November 15, 1993.

SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 

Sewer Revenue Fund established. Domestic charge set at $0.12 

per HCF of average monthly consumption. Commercial/Industrial 

charge set at 30% of water bill. 

Single family rate set at $l.lO/month. Multiple dwelling unit 

rate set at 30% of water bill. Commercial/Industrial rate 

kept at 30%. 

Approximate 35% increase put single family rate at $1.50 and 

40% of water bill for other classes. 

Approximate 43% increased sTngle family rate to $2.15 and t o 

50% of water bill for other classes. 

Retained $2.15 single family charge, but changed charge for 

other classes to $0.153 per HCF of water use. 

Single family charges increased 16% to $2.50; charge for other 

classes increased by 16% to $0.177 per HCF of water use. 

Single family charges increased 20% to $3.00. Charge for other 

classes increased to $0.213/HCF of water use. 

Sewer service charge increased 50%. Single family charge 

$4.50. Charge for other classes $0.32/HCF of water use. 

Sewer service charge increased 22.2%. Single family charge 


Sewer service charge increased 15%. Single family charge 


1/01/84 Sewer service charge increased 2.5%. Single family charge 

$6.49/mo. Charge for other classes $0.461/HCF of water use. 

2/21/84 Sewer service charge User Classes A through K based on 

suspended solids concentration adopted for customers other 

th& Single Family Domestic. Rates range from $0.412/HCF (0- 

100 parts/million) to $0.589/HCF (901-1000 parts/million). 

Bulk of customers in User Class C and D (201-400 

parts/million) charged $0.461/HCF of water use. 

7/0 1/84 Sewer service charges increased 7.86%. Single Family charge 

$7.00/mo. Other classes charged based on User Class from 

$0.444/HCF to $0.635/HCF. Bulk of customers in User Class C 

and D charged $0.497/HCF of water use. 

7/01/85 Sewer service charges increased 14.3%: Single family charge, 

$8.00/mo. other classes $0.507 - $0.726/HCF. Bulk pay $0.568.

Sewer service charges increased 30.0%. Single family charge, 

$10.40/mo. ; other classes $0.659 - $0.943/HCF. Bulk pay 

$0.738. 


$13.52/mo.; other classes $0.856 - $1.226/HCF. Bulk pay 

$0.959. 


$17.12/mo.; other classes $1.084 - $1.551/HCF. Bulk pay 

$1.214. 

Sewer service charges increased 6%. Single family charge, 

$18.15/mo. ; other classes $1.044 - $2.126/HCF. Bulk pay $1.35. 

Sewer service charges increased 6%; Single Family converted to 

winter months billing concept. Single Family customers pay 

$1.75 per HCF of average winter months water use. Other 

Classes, $1.11-$2.35/HCF. Bulk pay $1.43/HCF. 

Single Family charge reverts to a flat rate of $19.24 per 

month; no change in other class rates. 

Sewer service charges increased 6%; Single Family charge, 

$20.39/mo.; Other Classes, $1.173-$2.39/HCF. Bulk pay 

$1.50/HCF. 

Sewer service charges increase by an average of 6%; Single 

Family converted to winter months billing concept using cap. 

Single Family customers pay $6.36 base fee plus $2.15 per HCF 

of average winter months water use monthly; those not having 

history pay $21.61/mo. Other Classes, $1.243-$2.53/HCF. Bulk 

pay $l.GO/HCF. 

Sewer service charges to increase by 6% pursuant to Council 

Resolution No. 275941, adopted June 19, 1990. Single Family 

customers pay $6.74 base fee plus $2.28 per HCF of average 

winter months water use monthly; those not having history pay 

$22,91/mo. Other Classes, $1.318-$2.684/HCF. Bulk pay 

$1.70/HCF.

D, SEWER CAPACITY CHARGE 

DHK: his tory 

3/01/73 Capacity charge adopted at $200 per single family dwelling 

unit dr equivalent (EDU), plus 6% interest. 

7/01/81 Capacity charge increased to $400 per EDU plus 6% interest. 

7/0 1/83 Capacity charge in.creased to $636 per EDU plus 6% interest. 

7/01/84 . Capacity charge increased to $774 per EDU plus 6% interest. 

- 

7/01/85 Capacity charge increased to $921 per EDU plus 6% interest. 

7/01/86 Capacity charge increased to $1,076 perEDU plus 6% interest. 

7/06/87 Capacity charge increased to $1,483 per EDU plus 6% interest. 

7/17/89 Capacity charge increased to $3,235 per EDU plus 6% interest. 

7/01/90 Capacity charge increased to flat fee of $3,865; interest 

escalation eliminated. 

7/01/91 Capacity charge increased to $4,484 per EDU. 

7/01/92 Capacity charge' increased to $5,201 per EDU. 

7/0 1/93 Capacity charge increased to $6,033 per EDU. 

7/01/94 Capacity charge increases to $6,998 per EDU pursuant to 

Council Resolution No. 275941, adopted June 19, 1990.


Adopted on April 26, 1982 

WHEREAS, Section 64.32 of the San Diego Municipal Code provides that 

sewer service charges may be established by resolution of the City Council 

upon the giving of ten (10) days' notice of intention to establish, amend or 

increase said charges; and 

WHEREAS, said notice has been given by posting the intention to increase 

said charges by the City Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as follows: 

That pursuant to Section 64.32 of the San Diego Municipal Code the 

following sewer service charges are established: 

(1) The domestic sewer service charge for each single family dwelling 

unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be five dollars and fifty cents 

($5.50) per month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all premises, other than single 

family dwellings serviced by separate water meters shall be at the rate of 

thirty-nine and one-tenth cents ($.391) per hundred cubic feet of water usage 

by such premise, but in no case less than a minimum charge of five dollars and 

fifty cents ($5.50) per month. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be effective and in 

force on the first day of July, 1982. 

APPROVED: John W. Witt, City Attorney 

By C. M. Fitzpatrick Senior Chief Deputy City Attorney 

CMF:vl:455 

2110182 

0r.Dept:W.Util.


Adopted on June 27, 1983 





WHEREAS, said notice has been given by posting the intention to increase ; 


BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as follow: . 

That pursuant to Section 64.32 of the San Diego Municipal Code the 


(I) The domestic sewer service charge for each single family 

dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be six 

dollars and thirty-three cents ($6.33) per month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all premises, other 

than single family dwellings serviced by separate water meters shall 

be at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per hundred cubic feet of 

water usage by such premise, but in no case less than a minimum 

charge of six dollars and thirty-three cents ($6.33) per month. 




By Stuart H. Swett Chief Deputy City Attorney 

4/4/83 REVISED 611 5/83

RESOLUTION NUMBER R-260 134 

Adopted on February 2 1,1984 

WHEREAS, Section 64.0406 of the Municipal Code provides that the City 

Manager shall have the power to prescribe reasonable sewer service charges 

other than established in the Municipal Code and to establish rules and 

regulations for the granting of variances fiom established sewer service 

charges for property connected with the sewer service, such rules, regulations 

and sewer service charges to be effective when approved by the City Council, 

and the City Manager shall have the power to grant variances fiom the 

established sewer service charges upon his own initiative or when the owner or 

occupant of any premises applies therefor where the wastewater from any parcel 

or premise, except single-family residences shall be substantially different 

in type from the average wastewater entering the sewer system of the City, and 

for these purposes "average wastewater" shall be 300 milligrams per liter 

(mgll) of suspended solids, and procedures are set forth for the owner or 

occupant of any premises subject to the sewer service charge to apply for a 

reclassilication of such premises; and 

WHEREAS, the City Manager fiom time to time submits to the State of 

California Water Resources Control Board a revenue plan for operation of the 

Metropolitan Sewerage System in fulfillment of grant funding q uamg 

requirements, the most recent submission of April 26, 1982 concluding that the 

municipal sewer system cost to treat suspended solids in the untreated sewage 

is 4.459 cents per dry pound; NOW, THEREFORE, 


1. The domestic sewer service charge for each single- family 

dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be six 

dollars and forty-nine cents ($6.49) per month. 

2. That pursuant to Section 64.0406 of the Municipal Code the 

following Classifications of nonsingle-family residence User Groups 

are established for the corresponding Average Suspended Solids 

Concentrations and with corresponding rates per hundred cubic feet 

(HCF) of monthly water usage (assuming a normal 50% -70% ratio of 

sewer flow to water use): 

Average Suspended Percent of Monthly

User Solids Concentration Sewer Service 

Class (Parts per Million) Rate Per HCF Charges 

A 0 -100 4 1.2 cents 89.3 

*Class K includes all dischargers of wastewater containing average 

suspended solids concentration of more than 1,000 parts per million. 

The percent of the monthly sewer charge will be computed 

individually for each discharger in Class K with 127.8% to be 

increased by 4.27 for each 100 ppm suspended solids above 1,000. 

But in no case less than a minimum charge of six dollars and 

forty-nine cents ($6.49) per month. 

3. Each customer other than single-family residences shall be assigned 

to one of the User Group Classifications based on the type of their wastewater 

entering the sewer system of the City according to generally accepted industry 

standards and in accordance with types of discharges found in this, and other 

communities. All multiple dwellings and apartments will be assigned in User 

Class C. The owner or occupant of any premises subject to the sewer service 

charge may apply for a reclassification as detailed in Municipal Code Section 

64.0406(b). 

4. The Water Utilities Department shall establish a three (3)

person Sewer Variance Board of Review to assign customers other than 

single-family residences to one of the User Group Classifkations, 

and to make decisions in behalf of the City Manager in the cases of 

requests for reclassification. The Board of Review shall be named 

by the City Manager. 

5. The Water Utilities Department shall institute and maintain 

a Departmental Instruction for calculation of sewer charge variances 

incorporating variances based on average amount of suspended solids 

returned to the sewer system and the ratio of sewer flow to water 

use. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect and be in 

force on March 1, 1984. 



SHS:rc:455 

1/26/84 

0r.Dept:W.Utils 

R-84-939


Adopted on May 29, 1984 





WHEREAS, said notice has been given by posting the intention to increase 



That pursuant to Section 64.0404 of the San Diego Municipal Code, the 


(I) The domestic sewer service charge for each single family 

dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be seven 

dollars ($7.00) per month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all premises, other 

than single family dwellings serviced by separate water meters shall 

be in accordance with the following Classifications of 

nonsingle-family residence User Groups established for the corresponding 

Average Suspended Solids Concentrations and with corresponding rates 

per hundred cubic feet (HCF) of monthly water usage (assuming a 

normal 50%-70% ratio of sewer flow to water use): 

Average Suspended Percent of Monthly 



A 0 -100 44.4 cents 89.3

"Class K includes all dischargers of wastewater containing average 

suspended solids concentration of more than 1,000 parts per million. 

The percent of the monthly sewer charge will be computed 

individually for each discharger in Class K with 127.8% to be 

increased by 4.27 for each 100 ppm suspended solids above 1,000. 

In no case will the minimum sewer service charge be less than seven 

dollars ($7.00) per month. 





5/1/84 REV. 511 7/84

(R-85-2329) 


ADOPTED ON JUNE 17,1985 

WHEREAS, Section 64.0404 of the San Diego Municipal Code 

provides that sewer service charges may be established by 

resolution of the City Council upon the giving of ten (10) days' 

notice of intention to establish, amend or increase said charges; 

and 

WHEREAS, said notice has been given by posting the intention 

to increase said charges by the City Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as 

follows: 

That pursuant to Section 64.0404 of the San Diego Municipal 

Code, the following sewer service charges are established: 

(1) The domestic sewer service charge for each single 

family dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be 

eight dollars ($8.00) per month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all premises, 

other than single family dwellings serviced by separate water 

meters shall be in accordance with the following Classifications

of nonsingle-family residence User Groups established for the 

corresponding Average Suspended Solids Concentrations and with 

corresponding rates per hundred cubic feet (HCF) of monthly water 

usage (assuming a normal 50%-70% ratio of sewer flow to water 

use): 

Average Suspended Percent of Monthly 



A 0 - 100 50.7 cents 89.3 

*Class K includes all dischargers of 

waste- 

water containing average suspended solids 

concentration of more than 1,000 parts per 

million. The percent of the monthly sewer

charge will be computed individually for each 

discharger in Class K with 127.8% to be 

increased by 4.27 for each 100 ppm suspended 

solids above 1,000. 

In no case will the minimum sewer service charge be less than 

eight dollars ($8.00) per month. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be 

effective and in force on the first day. of July, 1985. 

APPROVED: JOHN W. WITT, City Attorney 

BY 

Stuart H. Swett 

Chief Deputy City Attorney 

SHS:js:427.1 

6/4/85 

0r.Dept:W.Util. 

R-85-2329

(R-87-2414) 


ADOPTED ON JULY 6,1987 


provides that sewer service charges may be established by 

resolution of the City Council upon the giving of ten (10) days 


and 


provides that minimum sewer capacity charges may be established 

by resolution of the City Council upon the giving of ten (10) 

days notice of intention to establish, amend or increase said 

charges; and 

WHEREAS, said notice of intention has been given by posting 

in the office of the City Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, 


follows: 


Code, the following monthly sewer service charges are 

established: 

(1) The domestic sewer service charge for each single family 

dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall 

be a twelve dollars and eighty cents ($12.80) per month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all premises other 

than single family dwellings serviced by separate water 

meters shall be twelve dollars and eighty cents ($12.80) 

per month, or a charge per hundred cubic feet of water 

delivered, computed in accordance with the following 

table: 

Average Suspended Percent of Average 

User Solids Concentration Rate Rate Per 

Class (Parts per Million) Per HCF HCF 

A 0- 100 $ .658 89.3% 

B 101 - 200 .690 93.6 

C 201 - 300 .737 100.0 

D 301 - 400 .737 100.0 

E 401 - 500 .784 106.4 

F 501 - 600 .816 110.7 

G 601 - 700 .847 114.9 

H 701 - 800 .879 119.2

I 801 - 900 .910 123.5 

J 901 - 1,000 .942 127.8 

K 1,001+ * * 

* Class K shall include all dischargers of 

wastewater whose discharge exceeds 1,000 

parts per million (PPM) of suspended solids. 

The rate per HCF will be individually 

computed for dischargers in Class K by first 

increasing 127.8% by 4.27 percentage points 

for each 100 PPM by which the discharge 

exceeds 1,000 PPM, then multiplying the 

result by the average rate per HCF ($.909). 


Code, the following minimum sewer capacity charge is established: 

A minimum capacity charge of one thousand, three hundred 

and sixty-nine dollars ($1,369) per single family 

dwelling or its equivalent shall be paid. This charge 

shall be subject to simple interest of six percent (6%) 

fiom July 1, 1987, to and including that date upon which 

the charge is paid. 

In those areas of the City where a capacity charge in 

the form of area charges as established by Council 

resolution, or taxation of special assessment districts 

(excluding 19 1 1 and 1 9 13 Act assessment districts) 

results in a payment to the City totaling more than the 

aforementioned charges per single family dwelling or its 

equivalent, no new capacity charge shall be imposed by 

this resolution. However, charges imposed due to 

reimbursable agreements entered into by the City shall 

be collected where applicable in every case. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be 

effective and in force on the first day of July, 1987. 


BY 

Ted Bromfield 


TB:js:427.1 

0511 8/87 


R-87-24 14b

(R-90-2004 REV. 1) 



WHEREAS, adoption of a cash management policy which provides 

for both cash and debt financing of the sewer Capital 

Improve-ments Program will mitigate the need for large rate increases 

in the future; and 

WHEREAS, it is desirable that the current flat-rate sewer 

service charge applicable to single-family domestic customers be 

replaced by a rate based on winter months water use to enhance 

equity and foster water conservation; and 

WHEREAS, San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0404 provides 

that sewer service charges may be established by resolution of 

the City Council upon the giving of ten (10) days notice of 

intention to establish, amend or increase said charges; and 

WHEREAS, San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0410 provides 

that minimum sewer capacity charges may be established by 

resolution of the City Council upon the giving of ten (10) days 


and 

WHEREAS, said notice of intention has been given by posting 

in the office of the City Clerk; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to San Diego Municipal Code section 68.05, 

the City Manager has recommended that certain monthly fees 

now charged for the maintenance and replacement of backflow 

prevention devices be increased; and 

WHEREAS, many of the City of San Diego's single-family 

domestic sewer customers are living on low andlor fixed incomes, 

making it difficult for them to cope with rising utility rates; 

NOW, THEREFORE, 


follows: 

1. That pursuant to the Council's desire to mitigate 

against large increases in sewer rates in the future, a cash 

management policy for the water and sewer Capital Improvements 

Program which hrovides for the use of both cash and debt 

financing to fund major construction projects and to levelize 

cash flow requirements is hereby established. 

2. That pursuant to San Diego Municipal Code section 

64.0404, the following monthly sewer service charges are

established: 

(A) Effective July 1, 1990: 

(1) The domestic sewer service charge for each 

single family dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter 

shall be eighteen dollars and Meen cents ($18.15) per 

month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all 

premises other than single family dwellings serviced by separate 

water meters shall be thirty-two cents ($0.32) per month, plus 

a charge per 100 cubic feet of water delivered, computed in 

accordance with the following table: 

Average Suspended Rate Per HCF 

User Solids Concentration at 70-75% 

Re-Class (Parts Per Million) turn to Sewer * 

AIL 0- 100 $ 1.044 

BIM 101 - 200 1.171 

C/N 201 - 300 1.288 

Dl0 301 - 400 1.404 

EIP 401 - 500 1.531 

F/Q 501 - 600 1.648 

GIR 601 - 700 1.768 

WS . 701-800 1.886 

IIT 801 - 900 2.010 

J/U 901 -1,000 2.126 

KN 1,001 + * * 

* Charge for customers whose return to sewer deviates fiom 

70-75% to be determined based on the following formula: 

Rate per HCF = Rate at 70-75% returdclass midpoint 

(72.5% return) x midpoint of appropriate return class. 

Example: Rate for class A, 90% return = $1.044172.5 x 92.0 

= $1.332/HCF 

** Class WV shall include all dischargers of wastewater 

whose discharge exceeds 1,000 parts per million of suspended 

solids. Rate per HCF will be individually computed for 

dischargers in Class KN on the basis of $1.278 per HCF 

of flow, and $0.1653 per 100 parts per million of suspended 

solids, at 100% return. 

(B) Effective July 1, 1991 : 



shall be nineteen dollars and twenty-four cents ($19.24) per 

month. 



water meters shall be thirty-four cents ($0.34) per month, plus

a charge per 100 cubic feet of water delivered, computed in 





A/L 0- 100 $ 1.107 

BIM 101 - 200 1.241 

C/N 201 - 300 1.365 

Dl0 301 - 400 1.488 

E/P 401 - 500 1.623 

F/Q 501 - 600 1.747 

G/R 601 - 700 1.874 

HIS 701 - 800 1.999 

I/T 801 - 900 2.131 

J/U 901 -1,000 2.254 

WV 1,001 + * * 



Rate per HCF = Rate at 70-75% returnlclass midpoint 



= $1.412/HCF 

** Class KIV shall include all dischargers of wastewater 



dischargers in Class KN on the basis of $1.355 per HCF 



(C) Effective July 1, 1992: 



shall be twenty dollars and thirty-nine cents ($20.39) per month. 



water meters shall be thirty-six cents ($0.36) per month, plus a 

charge per 100 cubic feet of water delivered, computed in 





A/L 0- 100 $ 1.173 

B/M 101 - 200 1.315 

C/N 201 - 300 1.447 

Dl0 301 - 400 1.557 

E/P 401 - 500 1.720

F/Q 501 - 600 1.852 

G/R 601 - 700 1.986 

WS 701 - 800 2.119 

I/T 801 - 900 2.259 

Jfu 901 -1,000 2.389 

w 1,001 + * * 



Rate per HCF = Rate at 70-75% returdclass midpoint 



= $1.497/HCF 




dischargers in Class WV on the basis of $1.436 per HCF 



(D) Effective July 1, 1993: 



shall be twenty-one dollars and sixty-one cents ($21.61) per 

month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all premises 


meters shall be thirty-eight cents ($0.38) per month, plus a 

charge per 100 cubic feet of water delivered, computed in 





AIL 0- 100 $ 1.243 

B/M 101 - 200 1.394 

CIN 201 - 300 1.534 

Dl0 301 - 400 1.672 

E/P 401 - 500 1.823 

F/Q 501 - 600 1.963 

G/R 601 - 700 2.105 

WS 701 - 800 2.246 

I/T 801 - 900 2.395 

Jfu 901 -1,000 2.532 

KN 1,001 + ** 



Rate per HCF = Rate at 70-75% returnlclass midpoint



= $1.586/HCF 




dischargers in Class WV on the basis of $1.522 per HCF 



(E) Effective July 1, 1994: 

(1) The domestic sewer service charge for each single 

family dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be 

twenty-two dollars and ninety-one cents ($22.91) per month. 

(2) The monthly sewer service charge for all premises 


meters shall be forty cents ($0.40) per month, plus a charge per 

100 cubic feet of water delivered, computed in accordance with 

the following table: 




AIL 0- 100 $ 1.318 

BIM 101 - 200 ' 1.478 

C/N 201 - 300 1.626 

Dl0 301 - 400 1.772 

EIP 401 - 500 1.932 

F/Q 501 - 600 2.081 

GIR 601 - 700 2.23 1 

WS 701 - 800 2.381 

IIT 801 - 900 2.539 

J/U 901 -1,000 2.684 

WV 1,001 + ** 

* Charge for customers whose return to sewer deviates ii-om 


Rate per HCF = Rate at 70-75% returnlclass midpoint 


Example: Rate for class A, 90% return = $1.3 18172.5 x 92.0 

= $1.682/HCF 




dischargers in Class WV on the basis of $1.61 3 per HCF 



3. That the flat rate sewer service charges established

for and applicable to the single family domestic customer class 

pursuant to San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0404 above shall 

be replaced by a rate based on winter months water use as soon as 

possible, so as to enhance equity and foster water conservation; 

said rate shall be designated by the City Manager in such a 

manner as to be revenue neutral with respect to the flat rate 

which it replaces and shall be revised annually as necessary to 

maintain that neutrality. 

4. That pursuant to San Diego Municipal Code section 

64.0410, the following sewer capacity charges are established: 

(A) Effective July 1, 1990, or 60 days subsequent to 

passage of this resolution, whichever occurs later: 

A capacity charge of three thousand eight hundred 

and sixty-five dollars ($3,865.00) per single family dwelling or 

its equivalent shall be paid. 

(B) Effective July 1, 1991 : 

A capacity charge of four thousand four hundred 

and eighty-four dollars ($4,484.00) per single family dwelling or 


(C) Effective July 1, 1992: 

A capacity charge of five thousand two hundred and 

one dollars ($5,201.00) per single family dwelling or its 

equivalent shall be paid. 

(D) Effective July 1, 1993: 

A capacity charge of six thousand and thirty-three 

dollars ($6,033.00) per single f d y dwelling or its equivalent 

shall be paid. 

(E) Effective July 1, 1994: 

A capacity charge of six thousand nine hundred and 

ninety-eight dollars ($6,998.00) per single fady dwelling or 


In those areas of the City where a capacity charge in 

the form of area charges as established by Council resolution 

or taxation or special assessment districts (excluding 19 1 1 and 

19 13 Act assessment districts) results in a payment to the City 

totaling more than the aforementioned charge per single family 

dwelling or its equivalent, no new capacity charge shall be 

imposed by this resolution. However, charges imposed due to 

reimbursement agreements entered into by The City of San Diego 

shall be collected where applicable in every case. 

5. That a Low Income Discount Program for economically 

disadvantaged single-family domestic waterlsewer customers shall 

be implemented as soon as possible; said program shall provide 

a twenty-five percent (25%) discount on the combined monthly 

waterlsewer billing of single-family domestic customers whose

annual income does not exceed one hundred fifty percent (1 50%) 

of the current Federal Poverty Guideline for family size; 

certification of eligibility for such program shall be in a 

form acceptable to the City Manager and shall be subject to 

periodic review thereby; and the cost of the subsidy represented 

hereby shall be recovered equitably fiom all other utility 

customers. 

6. That this resolution shall be effective and in force on 

the day of its passage. 


BY Ted Bromfield 


TB:mb 

093 1/90 

06/27/90 Rev. 1 


R-90-2004 

Form=r.none

(R-92-625) 


ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 7,1991 

WHEREAS, San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0404 provides that 

sewer service charges may be established by resolution of the City 

Council upon the giving of ten (1 0) days' notice of intention to 

establish, amend or increase said charges; and 

WHEREAS, said notice of intention has been given by post-ing 

in the office of the City Clerk; and 

WHEREAS, it is desirable that the variable rate sewer ser-vice 

charge presently applicable to the single-family domestic customer class 

pursuant to Section 3 of ResolutionNo. R-275941 adopted on June 19, 

1990, be replaced with a flat rate for the purpose of enhancement of 

equity; NOW, THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, 

as follows: 

1. That Section 3 of Resolution No. R-275941 shall be 

rescinded. ' 

2. That the domestic sewer service charge for each 

single family dwelling serviced by a separate water meter shall be 

the amount of nineteen dollars and twenty-four cents ($19.24) per month. 

3. That the remaining provisions of Resolution No. 

R-275941 shall remain in full force and effect until fixther action of 

this Council. 

4. That future sewer rate increases shall be prepared 

by the Water Utilities Department and reviewed by the Citizens' 

Committee to Review the Implementation of the City of San Diego Drought 

Rates. 

5. That this resolution shall be effective and in force 

on the day of its passage. 



Chief Deputy City Attorney

(R-93-629 Rev.) 



WHEREAS, Section 67.55 of the San Diego Municipal Code provides 

that water service charges shall be established by resolution of the 

City Council upon the giving of ten (10) days notice of intention to 

establish, amend or increase said charges; and 


provides that sewer service charges shall be established by resolution 

of the City Council upon the giving of ten (1 0) days notice of intention 

to establish, amend or increase said charges; and 

WHEREAS, the required notices of intention were given by posting 

in the office of the City Clerk on June 30, 1992; and 

WHEREAS, it is desirable that a policy requiring installa-tion 

of separate irrigation meters for single-family dwellings incorporating 

lots of one-half (.5) acre or more as a means of more accurately 

determinjng sewage flow be developed for City Council review; NOW, 

THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, 

as follows: 

1. That pursuant to Section 67.55 of the San Diego 

Municipal Code, a two-tier "lifeline" water rate structure applicable to 

the single-family domestic customer class shall be retained. 

2. That pursuant to Section 64.0404 of the San Diego Municipal 

Code, the currently effective £ixed flat-rate sewer service charge 

applicable to the single-family domestic customer class shall 

be replaced, effective July 1, 1993, with a variable flat rate, 

capped sewer billing structure based on winter months' water 

use (nominally, that water consumption which occurs during the months of 

December through March of each year); said structure shall: 

A. Incorporate a base fee (minimum charge) component of six 

dollars ($6.00) per month plus any approved rate increases, and a unit 

charge component of two dollars and one cent ($2.01) per hundred cubic 

feet of average monthly winter water use, plus any approved rate 

increases; 

B. Incorporate a maximum bill limitation (cap) of base fee 

plus ten hundred cubic feet (10 HCF) of average winter water use times 

the unit charge component per month;

C. Be revenue neutral with respect to the fixed flat rate 

which it replaces; 

D. Be subsequently revised by the City Manager as 

necessary to maintain that neutrality by adjusting both the base fee and 

unit charge by an equal percentage; and 

E. Be subject to adjustment in case of concealed 

water leaks pursuant to Section 64.0407 of the Municipal Code. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby directed 

to develop for the Council's review a policy which would require the 

installation of separate irrigation meters 

for single-family dwellings incorporating lots of one-half (.5) acre or 

more as a means of more accurately determining sewage flow. 




TB:mb 

10/12/92 

10/26/92 Rev. 


R-93-629 

Form=r-t

(R-96-332) 



BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, that 

the Council hereby approves a revenue plan that includes a 0% sewer 

service charge increase in FY 1996 and annually consider rate 

adjustments as required to support the proposed bond issuance and meet 

the capital and operating requirements of the Municipal Sewer System and 

the Metropolitan Wastewater Plan. 


BY Kelly J. Salt 

Deputy City Attorney 

KJS:pev 

09/26/95 

0r.Dept:Fin.Mgmt. 

R-96-332 

Form=r-t



(R-97-3 19) 

WHEREAS, San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0404 provides that sewer 

service charges may be established by resolution of the City Council upon the giving of 

ten (10) days notice of intention to establish said charges; and 

WHEREAS, such notice of intention has been given by posting in the office of the 

City Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, that pursuant to 

San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0404, the City Manager be and he is hereby 

directed to increase sewer service charges by six percent (6%) immediately (FY 1997) 

and by six percent (6%) on July 1, 1997 (FY 1998), consistent with the Sewer Revenue 

Fund Financing Plan previously adopted by City Council on October 19, 1995. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager be and he is hereby 

directed to continue to pursue measures to improve the financial position of the City's 

Sewer Revenue Fund (resolution of disputed Metropolitan Participating Agency billings, 

passage of federal legislation to allow permanent secondary treatment equivalency, 

implementation of further productivity gains via competition, etc.), and to return to 

Council with results, including any impacts to sewer service charges. 

CORRECTED COPY 9120196

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager be and he is hereby 

directed to begin preparations for the next issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds to fund 

the Metropolitan Wastewater Plan. 




KJS:pev:mb 

0911 8/96 

09/20/96 Corr. 

0r.Dept:Fin.Mgt 

R-97-3 19 

Form=r-t.res 

CORRECTED COPY 9120196

RESOLUTION NUMBER R-29 12 10 

ADOPTED ON JANUARY 19,1999 

(R-99-708 Rev.) 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, that, consistent with the 

Sewer Revenue and Financing Plan previously adopted by City Council on October 10,1995, the 

City Manager be and he is hereby directed to increase sewer service charges by 5 percent for 

three years, as noted in Alternative 1, City Manager Report No. 99-1 1, in order to meet public 

health and safety needs, as well as mandated construction schedules. The increase for 1999 shall 

be effective sixty days from January 19, 1999, which is the date of this action, and the remaining 

two increases shall be effective March 1,2000 and March 1,2001, respectively. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is directed not to spend any 

monies on water repurification. In addition, the City Manager is not to spend any monies from 

the Beneficial Reuse Project, 5A of Attachment A and B of City Manager Report No. 99-1 1, on 

water reuse/reclamation until such options are evaluated and City Council direction is given. 

Pending such direction, sewer revenue hnds now in the Beneficial Reuse Project may be used as 

needed for rate stabilization, for debt service coverage, or for infrastructure improvement. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is directed to review and evaluate 

the creation, expansion, or modification of a public advisory group to advise the Mayor and City 

Council on wastewater rates and infrastructure improvements. 


BY 

Ted Bromfield 

Deputy City Attorney

JM:TB:pev:mb 

1211 5/98 

1/7/99 

1/22/99 Revised 

Aud.Cert:N/A 

R-99-708 

Form=r-t.h



RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO TO INCREASE 

SEWER SERVICE CHARGES BY 7.5% IN FISCAL YEARS 

2002,2003,2004, AND 2005; REQUIRING SEMI-ANNUAL CIP 

REPORTS FROM THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER 

DEPARTMENT; DEDICATING 2.5% OF SEWER SERVICE 

CHARGES TO PIPE REPLACEMENT AND 

REHABILITATION; CREATING A SEWER SERVICE PUBLIC 

OVERSIGHT COMMISSION; ENCOURAGING SMALL- 

CONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH IN 

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; ENCOURAGING SMALLER 

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; AND PROVIDING FOR 

ANALYSIS OF RATE INCREASES. 

(R-2002-48 1 Revised) 

WHEREAS, San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0404 provides that sewer service 

charges may be established by resolution of the City Council upon the giving of ten days notice 

of intention to establish such charges; and 

WHEREAS, such notice of intention has been given by posting in the office of the City 

Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Diego, that pursuant to San Diego 

Municipal Code section 64.0404 and consistent with the Sewer Revenue Fund Financing Plan 

adopted by the Council on October 19, 1995, and as set forth in detail in City Manager Report 

No. 01-209, the City Manager is hereby directed to increase the sewer services charges in Fiscal 

Years 2002,2003,2004, and 2005, as follows:

1. By 7.5% in Fiscal Year 2002, effective March 1,2002; 


3. By 7.5% in Fiscal Year 2004, effective March 1,2004; and 


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Wastewater Department is hereby 

directed as follows: 

1. To provide semi-annual reports to the Natural Resources & Culture Committee . 

and the Clean Water Task Force on the status of the municipal capital 

improvement program, beginning in April 2002; 

2. To encourage the increased use of small-contractor participation on MWWD 

projects by 10% above current rates; and 

3. To pursue a strategy for small-contractor outreach on MWWD projects. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the issue of sewer rates is referred to the Rules 

Committee for review of the following matters: 

1. Dedication of a minimum 2.5% of the annual sewer rate increase, above 5% for 

inflation and energy costs, toward sewer and pipe replacement and rehabilitation; 

and 

. 2. Creation of a Sewer Service Public Oversight Commission to assure citizens that 

the rate increases are well spent. The Rules Committee will report to the Natural 

Resources & Culture Committee on its proposal for a such Commission, which 

shall include citizen participation and report at least semi-annually to the Natural 

Resources & Culture Committee and the Clean Water Task Force.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby directed to provide the 

following information to the Council for review prior to the March 2002 sewer rate increase: 

1. An analysis of capacity charges in the Cost of Service Study as they relate to cost 

recovery for new connections; 

2. An analysis of baseline allowance rates in the Cost of Service Study as they affect 

affordable low-income housing; and 

3. - An analysis of Metropolitan Sewer System charges to the Participating Agencies 

as they affect the City's own rates. 


BY 

Ted Bromfield 

Senior Deputy City Attorney 

TB:mb 

10/02/0 1 

10/29/01 Revised 

0r.Dept:MWWD 

MWD-2026 

R-2002-48 1 

Form=r-t.fm 

'



A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE 

CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT A NEW RATE 

STRUCTURE FOR SEWER SERVICE FEES AND INCREASE 

SEWER SERVICE FEES AS APPROPRIATE IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW RATE STRUCTURE 

(R-2004-1293 REV.) 

WHEREAS, San Diego Municipal Code section 64.0404 provides that sewer service fees 

[Fees] may be established by resolution of the City Council upon the giving of ten days notice of 

intention to establish such charges; and 

WHEREAS, article XI11 D, section 6 of the California Constitution provides that prior to 

imposing increases in property-related fees, a public agency shall provide written notice by mail 

of the proposed fee increase to the record owner of each parcel upon which it is proposed for 

imposition; and 

WHEREAS, such notice shall be provided to the affected property owners not less than 

forty-five days prior to the public hearing on the proposed revisions to property-related fees; and 

Fees; and 

WHEREAS, the City proposes to change the rate structure mew Rate Structure] for its 

WHEREAS, the New Rate Structure will result in increases in the Fees for certain sewer 

customers; and 

WHEREAS, the City posted a notice of its intention to adopt the New Rate Structure and 

to increase its Fees for certain sewer customers in compliance with San Diego Municipal Code 

section 64.0404; and

WHEREAS, during the week of April 19,2004, in accordance with the provisions of 

article XI11 D, section 6 of the California Constitution, the City provided written notice by mail 

of the New Rate Structure to affected property owners; and 

WHEREAS, on October 16,2001, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 

R-295587, authorizing the City Manager to increase the Fees by 7.5% for five fiscal years, 

effective March 1, 2002, March 1,2003, March 1,2004, and March 1,2005 [Prior Rate 

Increases]; and 

WHEREAS, the Prior Rate Increases will be applicable to the New Rate Structure; NOW 

THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Diego that the City Council 

finds and determines that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized and directed to 

implement, effective October 1,2004, the New Rate Structure as set forth in Exhibit A, attached 

hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein, and increase Fees as appropriate in accordance 

with the New Rate Structure. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is directed to investigate and 

evaluate programs to improve the efficiency of the sewage system by funding incentives to

significant sewage dischargers of Chemical Oxygen Demand [COD] to reduce the COD load on 

the system and to report back to the City Council no later than September 30, 2004. 




KJS:pev 

05/25/04 

06/14/04 Rev. 

0r.Dept: Wtr. & MWWD 

R-2004- 1293

DATE ISSUED: June 2,2004 REPORT NO. 04-1 12 

ATTENTION: Honorable Mayor and City Council, Docket of June 8,2004 

SUBJECT: Wastewater Fees and Charges 

REFERENCES: Summary of Revised Sewer Rates (Attachment A) 

SUMMARY 

- Issue: Should the City Council adopt a resolution which would revise presently existing 

wastewater fees and charges to bring the City into full compliance with the ratesetting 

requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board? 

Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the resolution. 

Other Recommendations - Public Utilities Advisory Commission Resolution Number 

PUAC-2004-04, adopted April 19,2004 (Attachment B) 

Fiscal Impact - There would be no fiscal impact from the revisions to the wastewater 

fees and charges since they are designed to be revenue neutral in the aggregate. 

BACKGROUND 

Wastewater-Related Proposition 218 Issues 

In November 1996, California voters adopted Proposition 21 8, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, 

which added articles XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution. Article XIII D of the state 

Constitution specifies various restrictions and requirements for assessments, fees, and charges 

that local governments impose on real property or on persons as an incident of property 

ownership. This initiative changed the way the public is notified of proposed fee increases. 

Specifically, it requires that notices be mailed to all property owners of record at least 45 days in 

advance of the date on which a proposed property related fee increase may be adopted. 

Consistent with current Proposition 218 case law, approximately 345,400 notices of today's

hearing were mailed to every affected property owner of record during the week of April 19, 

2004. 

The Wastewater System's user charge system may also have implications with respect to other 

issues under Article XI11 B and Article XI11 D of the Constitution of the State of California. 

Whether the Wastewater System's sewer service charges are property-related fees and charges 

for purposes of Article XI11 D of the California Constitution has been the subject of considerable 

uncertainty. To the extent that the Wastewater System's sewer service charges are property- 

related fees and charges they must meet the requirements of Article XI11 D of the California 

Constitution, including a proportionality requirement. The City's current rate structure allocates 

costs on the basis of total suspended solids and flow. Employing this methodology, the City 

believes its current sewer service charges meet that requirement. 

SWRCB Grant And Loan Compliance Issues 

The City has been an ongoing participant in the Federal Clean Water Grant program since the 

early 1970's, and in the State of California State Revolving Fund low-interest loan program 

("SRF") since its inception, receiving 17 separate federal and state Clean Water Grants and a 

total of eight SRF loans. The value of these grants and loans currently aggregates to 

approximately $266 million. As a condition to receipt of these Clean Water Grants and as a 

covenant in the SRF loan agreements, the City must implement and maintain an approved 

wastewater user charge system that meets certain requirements. Currently, the Wastewater 

System's retail user charge system has not been approved by the State and has been found not to 

be in compliance with these requirements. The City has received two letters, one dated 

November 26, 2003 and another dated March 17,2004, from the State Water Resources Control 

Board (the "SWRCB"), which, collectively, require the City to provide the SWRCB with 

evidence of City Council approval of a SWRCB-approved retail user charge system by July 1, 

2004, and to implement such a system for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. If the City does not bring the 

Wastewater System's user charge system into compliance, the City could be forced to repay the 

aggregate amount of the Clean Water Grants and repay the outstanding principal amount of the 

SRF loans. 

The possibility that the City may fail to adopt a SWRCB-approved sewer rate structure by July 1, 

2004 and may, as a result, be forced to return $266 million in grant and loan funds which have 

already been spent, represents a major risk to the investment community. This risk, which was 

disclosed as a part of the City's annual financial market disclosures in March of 2004, adversely 

affects the credit quality of the Sewer Enterprise Fund, which is the source for repayment of 

bond debt used for wastewater system capital construction. 

DISCUSSION 

Revisions To Sewer Fees And Char~es Pursuant To Requirements of the SWRCB 

As a condition of eligibility to receive and retain both federal and state Clean Water Grants and 

State of California SRF loans, the City must implement and maintain an approved user charge 

system that conforms to the requirements of Clean Water Grant regulations for the useful life of 

the grant funded facilities and until such time as all SRF loans are discharged. These regulations 

generally require that, to receive approval, user charge systems must recover all costs of

operation and maintenance fiom system users on a basis proportionate to use. That is, users must 

pay for their use of the Wastewater System based on their relative contributions to overall system 

handling and processing requirements, measured in terms of factors such as flow volumes and 

solids and organics loadings. The SWRCB administers these regulations and must approve the 

Wastewater System's user charge system. Failure to implement and maintain an approved user 

charge system may result in a demand that Clean Water Grant monies received be repaid, 

accelerated repayment of SRF loans including the imposition of market-rate interest, and 

ineligibility for further participation in the program. 

Currently, the City's municipal user charge system does not include any specific cost recovery 

component for organics. Pursuant to the general regulations and permits under which the 

Wastewater System operates, the Wastewater System must ensure that the wastewater discharged 

into the Pacific Ocean does not contain organic materials in excess of a certain level, which 

requires the Wastewater System to incur certain costs to comply with that limit. Since certain 

commercial and industrial customers of the Wastewater System discharge wastewater with 

relatively high concentrations of organic matter, it is the view of the SWRCB that, absent an 

organics component in the billing structure, residential customers and other commercial and 

industrial customers of the Wastewater System discharging lower levels of organics and other 

materials pay a disproportionately higher percentage of the overall costs of the Wastewater 

System than is appropriate. 

Pursuant to the requirements of the SWRCB as outlined in its letter of March 17, 2004 (See 

Attachment C), the City must adopt a compliant, proportionate-to-use user charge system by July 

1, 2004. In prior recognition of that obligation, the City initiated a cost-of-service study to 

develop a wastewater user charge system that would be acceptable to the SWRCB. In October 

2003, the consulting engineering firm of Black & Veatch completed an update of a cost-of- 

service study (the "Study") initially prepared in 2001. Such studies are the vehicle by which 

system-wide costs are identified, allocated and apportioned to user classes and individual system 

users consistent with SWRCB approval guidelines. The Study, which detailed the proposed 

compliant wastewater user charge system, was transmitted by the Mayor and City Council to the 

City's Public Utilities Advisory Committee (the "PUAC") for review, public input and 

recommendations on October 20,2003. 

The Study contained several suggestions, including: 1.) that the City employ the SWRCB- 

approved functional-design cost allocation methodology, including the chemical oxygen demand 

(COD) organics parameter, to allocate costs to all City of San Diego user classes; 2.) that the 

City establish a uniform fixed monthly fee for all user classes; and 3.) that the City increase the 

single family residential billing cap from 10 to 14 HCF of winter months water use since this 

class generates higher flow volumes than previously assumed. It was determined that 

incorporating the COD parameter would result in a cost shift among some user classes. 

Specifically, costs would shift fiom the single family residential user class to 

cornrnerciaYindustria1 user classes which discharge larger amounts of organic material to the 

wastewater system.

Listed in Table 2 below, are the current and revised fees and charges: 

TABLE 2: SEWER FEES AND CHARGES 

CURRENT REVISED 

Single-Family Residential 

Base Fee 

Rate per HCF * 

$10.90 

$3.625 

$10.53 

$2.563 

Multi-Family Residential 

Base Fee $0.63 $10.53 

Rate per HCF $3.366 $3.46 1 

CommerciaVIndustrial* * 

Base Fee $0.63 $10.53 

Unit Rates 

Flow ($/HCF) $2.6 1 $2.5613 

TSS ($/lb) $.54 $0.3994 

COD ($/lb) n/a $0.1436 

* I HCF (Hundred Cubic Feet) = 748 gallons. These rates may change due to the Winter 

Months Water Usage Adjustment effective July 1, 2004. 

** Commercial/IndustriaI customers with average flow < 25,000 gallons per day would be 

billed via a rate matrix based upon the unit rates shown. 

The actual implementation of the revised fees and charges would occur in October 2004. 

Future Cost Of Service Studies - Frequencv and Rationale 

Wastewater Cost of Service studies should be conducted periodically or when there are physical 

changes in the system or its operation that materially impact the allocation of operation, 

maintenance and replacement costs between each utility's applicable cost centers. For example, 

the City is currently conducting a pilot test of a new secondary treatment technology (biological 

aerated filtration) at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility which should be completed 

in approximately one year. If the results of this test are positive, leading to a change in the 

treatment process at Point Loma, the Wastewater Cost of Service study should be updated to 

reflect the changes in costs and their allocation to the flow, total suspended solids and chemical 

oxygen demand parameters that would result. 

CONCLUSION 

Adoption of the revisions to the existing sewer fees and charges will bring the City into full 

compliance with the ratesetting requirements of the SWRCB. This action would also eliminate 

the significant financial risk of possibly having to repay $266 million in grants and low interest 

loans, which will improve the credit quality of the Sewer Enterprise Fund.

ALTERNATIVE 

Do not approve the requested actions. This is not recommended due to the possibility that the 

City could be forced to repay the aggregate amount of the Clean Water Grants and the 

outstanding principal amount of the SRF loans. Moreover, failure to implement a system of 

wastewater fees and charges that is acceptable to the SWRCB will result in the City having to 

continue to disclose to the bond market that $266 million in grants and loans are at risk until the 

matter is resolved. 

Respectfilly submitted, 

RICHARD MENDES 

Deputy City Manager 

Attachments: A. Summary of Revised Sewer Rates 

B. Public Utilities Advisory Commission Resolution Number PUAC-2004-04 

C. State Water Resources Control Board letter dated Marc11 17,2004

Footnote No. 89

DATE ISSUED: June 2,2004 REPORT NO. 04- 1 12 

ATTENTION: Honorable Mayor and City Council, Docket of June 8,2004 

SUBJECT: Wastewater Fees and Charges 

REFERENCES: Summary of Revised Sewer Rates (Attachment A) 

SUMMARY 

- Issue: Should the City Council adopt a resolution which would revise presently existing 

wastewater fees and charges to bring the City into full compliance with the ratesetting 

requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board? 

Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the resolution. 

Other Recommendations - Public Utilities Advisory Commission Resolution Number 

PUAC-2004-04, adopted April 19,2004 (Attachment B) 

Fiscal Impact - There would be no fiscal impact from the revisions to the wastewater 

fees and charges since they are designed to be revenue neutral in the aggregate. 

BACKGROUND 

Wastewater-Related Proposition 218 Issues 

In November 1996, California voters adopted Proposition 2 18, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, 

which added articles XI11 C and XI11 D to the California Constitution. Article XI11 D of the state 

Constitution specifies various restrictions and requirements for assessments, fees, and charges 

that local governments impose on real property or on persons as an incident of property 

ownership. This initiative changed the way the public is notified of proposed fee increases. 

Specifically, it requires that notices be mailed to all property owners of record at least 45 days in 

advance of the date on which a proposed property related fee increase may be adopted. 

Consistent with current Proposition 218 case law, approximately 345,400 notices of today's

hearing were mailed to every affected property owner of record during the week of April 19, 

2004. 

The Wastewater System's user charge system may also have implications with respect to other 

issues under Article XI11 B and Article XI11 D of the Constitution of the State of California. 

Whether the Wastewater System's sewer service charges are property-related fees and charges 

for purposes of Article XI11 D of the California Constitution has been the subject of considerable 

uncertainty. To the extent that the Wastewater System's sewer service charges are property- 

related fees and charges they must meet the requirements of Article XI11 D of the California 

Constitution, including a proportionality requirement. The City's current rate structure allocates 

costs on the basis of total suspended solids and flow. Employing this methodology, the City 

believes its current sewer service charges meet that requirement. 

SWRCB Grant And Loan Compliance Issues 

The City has been an ongoing participant in the Federal Clean Water Grant program since the 

early 1970's, and in the State of California State Revolving Fund low-interest loan program 

("SRF") since its inception, receiving 17 separate federal and state Clean Water Grants and a 

total of eight SRF loans. The value of these grants and loans currently aggregates to 

approximately $266 million. As a condition to receipt of these Clean Water Grants and as a 

covenant in the SRF loan agreements, the City must implement and maintain an approved 

wastewater user charge system that meets certain requirements. Currently, the Wastewater 

System's retail user charge system has not been approved by the State and has been found not to 

be in compliance with these requirements. The City has received two letters, one dated 

November 26,2003 and another dated March 17,2004, from the State Water Resources Control 

Board (the "SWRCB"), which, collectively, require the City to provide the SWRCB with 

evidence of City Council approval of a SWRCB-approved retail user charge system by July 1, 

2004, and to implement such a system for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. If the City does not bring the 

Wastewater System's user charge system into compliance, the City could be forced to repay the 

aggregate amount of the Clean Water Grants and repay the outstanding principal amount of the 

SRF loans. 

The possibility that the City may fail to adopt a SWRCB-approved sewer rate structure by July 1, 

2004 and may, as a result, be forced to return $266 million in grant and loan funds which have 

already been spent, represents a major risk to the investment community. This risk, which was 

disclosed as a part of the City's annual financial market disclosures in March of 2004, adversely 

affects the credit quality of the Sewer Enterprise Fund, which is the source for repayment of 

bond debt used for wastewater-system capital construction. 

DISCUSSION 

Revisions To Sewer Fees And Charges Pursuant To Requirements of the SWRCB 

As a condition of eligibility to receive and retain both federal and state Clean Water Grants and 

State of California SRF loans, the City must implement and maintain an approved user charge 

system that conforms to the requirements of Clean Water Grant regulations for the useful life of 

the grant fbnded facilities and until such time as all SRJ? loans are discharged. These regulations 

generally require that, to receive approval, user charge systems must recover all costs of

operation and maintenance from system users on a basis proportionate to use. That is, users must 

pay for their use of the Wastewater System based on their relative contributions to overall system 

handling and processing requirements, measured in terms of factors such as flow volumes and 

solids and organics loadings. The SWRCB administers these regulations and must approve the 

Wastewater System's user charge system. Failure to implement and maintain an approved user 

charge system may result in a demand that Clean Water Grant monies received be repaid, 

accelerated repayment of SRF loans including the imposition of market-rate interest, and 

ineligibility for further participation in the program. 

Currently, the City's municipal user charge system does not include any specific cost recovery 

component for organics. Pursuant to the general regulations and permits under which the 

Wastewater System operates, the Wastewater System must ensure that the wastewater discharged 

into the Pacific Ocean does not contain organic materials in excess of a certain level, which 

requires the Wastewater System to incur certain costs to comply with that limit. Since certain 

cohnercial and industrial customers of the Wastewater System discharge wastewater with 

relatively high concentrations of organic matter, it is the view of the SWRCB that, absent an 

organics component in the billing structure, residential customers and other commercial and 

industrial customers of the Wastewater System discharging lower levels of organics and other 

materials pay a disproportionately higher percentage of the overall costs of the Wastewater 

System than is appropriate. 

Pursuant to the requirements of the SWRCB as outlined in its letter of March 17, 2004 (See 

Attachment C), the City must adopt a compliant, proportionate-to-use user charge system by July 

1, 2004. In prior recognition of that obligation, the City initiated a cost-of-service study to 

develop a wastewater user charge system that would be acceptable to the SWRCB. In October 

2003, the consulting engineering firm of Black & Veatch completed an update of a cost-of- 

service study (the "Study") initially prepared in 2001. Such studies are the vehicle by which 

system-wide costs are identified, allocated and apportioned to user classes and individual system 

users consistent with SWRCB approval guidelines. The Study, which detailed the proposed 

compliant wastewater user charge system, was transmitted by the Mayor and City Council to the 

City's Public Utilities Advisory Committee (the "PUAC") for review, public input and 

recommendations on October 20,2003. 

The Study contained several suggestions, including: 1.) that the City employ the SWRCB- 

approved functional-design cost allocation methodology, including the chemical oxygen demand 

(COD) organics parameter, to allocate costs to all City of San Diego user classes; 2.) that the 

City establish a uniform fixed monthly fee for all user classes; and 3.) that the City increase the 

single family residential billing cap from 10 to 14 HCF of winter months water use since this 

class generates higher flow volumes than previously assumed. It was determined that 

incorporating the COD parameter would result in a cost shift among some user classes. 

Specifically, costs would shift from the single family residential user class to 

comrnerciaVindustrial user classes which discharge larger amounts of organic material to the 

wastewater system.

Listed in Table 2 below, are the current and revised fees and charges: 

TABLE 2: SEWER FEES d~ CHARGES 

CURRENT REVISED 

Single-Family Residential 

Base Fee 

Rate per HCF * 

$10.90 

$3.625 

$10.53 

$2.563 

Multi-Family Residential 

Base Fee $0.63 $10.53 

Rate per HCF $3.366 $3.46 1 

CornmerciaVIndustrial* * 

Base Fee $0.63 $10.53 

Unit Rates 

Flow ($/HCF) $2.61 $2.5613 

TSS ($/lb) $.54 $0.3994 

COD ($/lb) n/a $0.1436 

* 1 HCF (Hundred Cubic Feet) = 748 gallons. These rates may change due to the Winter 

Months Water Usage Adjustment effective July 1, 2004. 

** Commercial/Industrial customers with average jlow < 25,000 gallons per day would be 

billed via a rate matrix based upon the unit rates shown. 

The actual implementation of the revised fees and charges would occur in October 2004. 

Future Cost Of Service Studies - Frequencv and Rationale 

Wastewater Cost of Service studies should be conducted periodically or when there are physical 

changes in the system or its operation that materially impact the allocation of operation, 

maintenance and replacement costs between each utility's applicable cost centers. For example, 

the City is currently conducting a pilot test of a new secondary treatment technology (biological 

aerated filtration) at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility which should be completed 

in approximately one year. If the results of this test are positive, leading to a change in the 

treatment process at Point Loma, the Wastewater Cost of Service study should be updated to 

reflect the changes in costs and their allocation to the flow, total suspended solids and chemical 

oxygen demand parameters that would result. 

CONCLUSION 

Adoption of the revisions to the existing sewer fees and charges will bring the City into full 

compliance with the ratesetting requirements of the SWRCB. This action would also eliminate 

the significant financial risk of having to repay $266 million in grants and low interest 

loans, which will improve the credit quality of the Sewer Enterprise Fund.

ALTERNATIVE 

Do not approve the requested actions. This is not recommended due to the possibility that the 

City could be forced to repay the aggregate amount of the Clean Water Grants and the 

outstanding principal amount of the SW loans. Moreover, failure to implement a system of 

wastewater fees and charges that is acceptable to the SWRCB will result in the City having to 

continue to disclose to the bond market that $266 million in grants and loans are at risk until the 

matter is resolved. 


RICHARD MENDES 

Deputy City Manager 

Attachments: A. Summary of Revised Sewer Rates 

B. Public Utilities Advisory Commission Resolution Number PUAC-2004-04 

C. State Water Resources Control Board letter dated March 17,2004








(R-2004-1293 REV.) 










Fees; and 

WHEREAS, the City proposes to change the rate structure [New Rate Structure] for its 











effective March 1,2002, March 1,2003, March 1,2004, and March 1,2005 [Prior Rate 



THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San ~iego-that the City Council 









the system and to report back to the City Council no later than September 30,2004. 




KJS:pev 

05/25/04 

061 14/04 Rev. 


R-2004-1293

Footnote No. 90

~hston H. Hickox 

Secretary for 

Environmental 

Protection 


Division of Administrative'semces 

1001 I Street Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 341-5082 FAX (916) 341-5060 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, California 95812-0100 

Internet Address: httD://www.swrcb.ca.gov 

The energy challenge facing California is reaL Every ,Calqornian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. ' , 

For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our website at htp://k.ww.swrcb~ccrgov. ' 


Attn: George I. Loveld 

City Manager 

9192 Topaz Way 


-. 

. . ' 

I MAR 0 6 2003 1 

RE: AGREEMENT NO. 01-809-550-0 

* 

Enclosed for your records is a hlly executed copy of the above referenced agreement. Please 

take a few minutes to thoroughly read through it to be sure you understand all the terms and 

conditions. 

Request for payment of services completed outside the term of this contract WlLL NOT BE 

PAID. It is imperative that you notify your State Water Resources Control Board Contract 

Manager immediately, in writing, of any changes or delays that may impact the scope of work or 

term of this agreement. 

If you have any questions about 'this agreement, please contact the State Water Resources Control 

Board Manager responsible for this agreement. 

Contracts Section 

Division of Administrative Services 

SWRCB (Rev. 1/99) 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

%f Recycled Paper

I 

. STATE OG CALIFORNIA 

STANDARD AGREEMENT 

STD. 213 (Rev 09/01) 

1. This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below: 

STATE AGENCY'S NAME 


CONTRACTOR'S NAME 


2. The term of this 

Agreement is: June 14,2001 through June 13,2021 

3. The maximum amount $ 12,111,202.00 - Twelve million one hundred eleven thousand 

of this Agreement is: two hundred two dollars. 

4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits which are by this reference made 

a part of the Agreement: 

Exhibit A - Scope Of Work 

Exhibit B - Budget Detail And Payment Provisions 

Exhibit C - General Terms And Conditions 

Exhibit D - Local Match Installment Sale Agreement Special Conditions 

Exhibit E - Approval To Award Letter 

Exhibit F - Approved Plans And Specifications 

Exhibit G - Plans And Specifications Approval Letter 

Exhibit H - Facilities Plan Approval Letter 

Exhibit I - SRF Loan Preliminary Installment Payment Schedule 

Exhibit J - Schedule Of System Obligations 

Exhibit K - Tax Covenants 

Exhibit L - NIA 

Exhibit M - SWRCB Special Terms And Condtions 

CONTRACTOR 

Bill Brown, Chief, Division of Administrative Services 

ADDRESS

SECTION 1.. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 


SWRCB Agre,ement No.: 01-809-550-0 

Loan No: C-06-4703-110 

Page 1 of 8 

EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK 

The Project, commonly known as the San Diego Environmental Lab Project generally consists of the 

construction of a two-story, approximately 37,000 square foot building on a seven-acre site and a 

pierlboat dock within the adjacent boat channel, as more particularly described in the Local Match 

financing application of the Agency and the approved plans and specifications (see Exhibits F and G) for 

the Project. 

SECTION 2. OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES 

(1) 

(2) 

- . , . . .- . A - -. . . , . .- -- .- 

(3) 

(4) 

The SWRCB Local Match Assistance Coordinator shall be the Division Chief of the Division of 

Clean Water Programs. 

The SWRCB Local Match Assistance Coordinator shall be the SWRCB's representative for 

administration of the Agreement and shall have authority to make determinations and findings 

with respect to any controversy arising under or in connection with interpretation of the 

Agreement ---- - - -- 

The Agency's Authorized Representative shall be Mr. George I. Loveland, Senior Deputy City 

Manager or histher designee, who shall administer the Agreement and who shall have full 

authority to act on behalf of the Agency, including authority to execute disbursement requests. 

All communications given to the Agency representative shall be as binding as if given to the , 

Agency. 

Either party may change its Official Representative upon written notice to the other party. 

SECTION 3. GENERAL AGENCY COMMITMENTS. 

The Agency accepts and agrees to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions, and commitments of 

this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, and to fulfill all assurances, declarations, 

representations, and commitments made by the Agency in its application, accompanying documents, 

and communications filed in support of its request for financing assistance. 

SECTION 4. STATE MATCH ACCOUNT. 

The Agency will establish a local state match account. The Agency will deposit sufficient funds in the 

account to make payments to its contractor(s) in an amount equal to the percentage of federal 

contributions required by the Federal Clean Water Act to be matched with state funds (currently 

16.667%) and will include the required state match amount in all payments made to the contractor(s). 

SECTION 5. COMPLETION OF PROJECT. 

. . 

The Agency agrees to expeditiously proceed with and complete construction of the Project in substaqtial 

accordance with Project plans and specifications ap,proved by the SWRCB. 

SECTION 6. PROJECT CERTIFICATION. 

One year after initiation of operations, the Agency shall certify to the SWRCB whether or not the Project, 

as of that date, meets applicable design specifications and effluent limitations. If the Agency cannot 

certify that the Project meets such specifications and limitations at that time, the Agency will, at its own 

expense and in'a timely manner, expeditiously make all needed corrections and perform all additional 

work necessary to allow affirmative certification for the Project. 

-. -- - - ---

-- - 


SWRCB Agreement No.: 01-809-550-0 

Loan No: C-06-4703-110 

Page 2 of 8 


Failure to submit an affirmative certification within 15 months, or a corrective action report that meets the 

above requirements and is satisfactory to the Division within 15 months, of the Project Completion date 

will result in an interest penalty of the lesser of 12% per annum or the highest rate permitted under law 

being assessed on the outstanding balance due. 

SECTION 7. FEDERAL OR STATE ASSISTANCE. 

If federal or state funding for Project Costs is made available to the Agency from sources other than the. 

CWSRF, the Agency may retain such funding up to an amount which equals the Agency's local share of 

Project Costs. To the extent allowed by requirements of other funding sources, any funding received in 

excess of the Agency's local share, not to exceed the total amount of the CWSRF financing assistance, 

shall be remitted to the SWRCB to be applied to Installment Payments due hereunder. 

SECTION 8. REVENUE PROGRAM. 

The Agency agrees to prepare and provide an acceptable final Revenue Program to the Division at the 

time of 90 percent disbursement of Project Costs. Further disbursements-may-be-withheI-d-until-an--- - - --- 

- - 8c~epatil~fEiGl~*g?i% iF&bmitted.TheA~y further agrees to periodically review and 

modify the Revenue Program as necessary to assure reasonable adequacy of the Revenue Program. 

The final Revenue Program and all modifications thereof shall be consistent with applicable guidelines 

and shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the Division. The Division may review the Agency's records 

to assure compliance with the approved Revenue Program at any time during the useful life of the 

Project. 

SECTION 9. USER CHARGE SYSTEM. 

The Agency shall adopt and maintain in effect a user charge system which at all times complies with the 

requirements of Section 204(b)(l) of the federal Clean Water Act and applicable federal and state rules, 

regulations and guidelines. 

SECTION 10. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE; INSURANCE. 

The Agency agrees to properly staff, operate and maintain all portions of the Project during its useful life 

in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 

The Agency will procure and maintain or cause to be maintained insurance on the System with 

responsible insurers, or as part of a reasonable system of self-insurance, in such amounts and against 

such risks (including damage to or destruction of the System) as are usually covered in connection with 

systems similar to the System. Such insurance may be maintained by the maintenance of a self- 

insurance plan so long as any such plan provides for (i) the establishment by the Agency of a separate 

segregated self-insurance fund funded in an amount determined (initially and on at least an annual basis) 

by an independent insurance consultant experienced in the field of risk management employing accepted 

actuarial techniques and (ii) the establishment and maintenance of a claims processing and risk 

management program. 

In the event of any damage to or destruction of the System caused by the perils covered by such 

insurance, the net proceeds thereof shall be applied to the reconstruction, repair or replacement of the 

damaged or destroyed portion of the System. The Agency shall begin such reconstruction, repair or 

replacement as expeditiously as possible, and shall pay out of such net proceeds all costs and expenses 

in connection with such reconstruction, repair or replacement so that the same shall be completed and 

the System shall be free and clear of all claims and liens. If such net proceeds are insufficient to enable



Loan No: C-06-4703-110 

Page 3 of 8 


the Agency to pay all remaining unpaid principal portions of the Installment Payments,.the Agency shall 

provide additional funds to restore or replace the damaged portions of the System. 

SECTION 11. USEFUL LIFE OF'PROJECT. 

For purposes of this Agreement, the parties agree that the useful life of the project is at least 20 yeas 

from and after Project Completion. 

SECTION 12. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS; NOTIFICATION OF AWARD AND 

INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 

(A) 

The Agency agrees to award the prime construction contract within 180 days (six months) after 

issuance of the Agreement. An extension may be granted by the Division. 

The Agency agrees to promptly notify the Division .in writing both of the award of the prime 

construction contract'for the Project and of Initiation of Construction of the Project. The Agency 

has established November 7, 2003 as the estimated Completion of Construction date. The 

Agency agrees to make all reasonable efforts to complete construction in substantial 

conformance with the terms of the contract by this date. Such date shall be binding upon the 

Agency unless modified in writing by the Division upon a showing of good cause by the Agency. 

Extension of the Completion of Construction date by the Division shall not be unreasonably 

withheld. 

SECTION 13. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES; NOTIFICATIONS; PROTECTION OF 

ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES. 

(A) 

The Agency agrees to promptly notify the Division in writing of: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Any substantial change in scope of the Project. The Agency agrees that no substantial 

change in the scope of the Project will be undertaken until written notice of the proposed 

change has been provided to the Division and the Division has given written approval for 

such change; 

Cessation of all major construction work on the Project where such cessation of work is 

expected to or does extend for a period of 30 days or more; 

Any circumstance, combination of circumstances, or condition, which is expected to or 

does delay Completion of Construction for a period of 90 days or more beyond the 

estimated date of Completion of Construction previously provided to the Division; 

Discovery of any potential archeological or'historical resource. Should a potential 

archeological or historical resource be discovered during construction of the Project, the 

~gency agrees that all work in the area of the find will cease until a qualified archeologist 

has evaluated the situation and made recommendations regarding preservation of the 

resource, and the Division has determined what actions should be taken to protect and 

preserve the resource. The Agency agrees to implement appropriate actions as directed 

by the Division; and 

Completion of Construction of the Project, and actual Project Completion.

SECTION 1.4. PROJECT ACCESS. 



Loan No: C-06-4703-110 

Page 4 of 8 


The Agency agrees to insure that the SWRCB, or any authorized representative thereof, will have 

suitable access to the Project site at all reasonable times during Project construction and thereafter for 

the term of the Obligation. 

SECTION 15. PROJECT COMPLETION; INITIATION OF OPERATIONS. 

Upon Completion of Construction of the Project, the' Agency agrees to expeditiously initiate Project 

operations. The Agency has established November 7, 2003 as the estimated Project Completion date. 

The Agency agrees to make all reasonable efforts to meet the date so established. Such date shall be 

binding upon the Agency unless modified in writing by the Division upon a showing of good cause by the 

Agency. Extension of the Project Completion date.by the Division shall not be unreasonably withheld. 

SECTION 16. WASTEWATER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND. 

The Agency agrees to establish and maintain a Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund (WCRF) for 

expansion, major repair, or replacement of the wastewater facilities and to maintain the WCRF for the 

term of the Agreement. The WCRF shall be maintained in compliance with the "Policy For Implementing 

The State Revolving Fund For Construction Of Wastewater Treatment Facilities" in effect at the time the 

Agreement is signed by the Authorized Representative of the Agency. The Agency agrees to submit a 

report on WCRF activities and status five (5) years after the date of the final revenue program approval 

. by the Division. Updated WCRF reports will be submitted every five (5) years thereafter until all 

Installment Payments and Additional Payments hereunder has been fully discharged. Thereafter, the 

WCRF will no longer be subject to the requirements of this Agreement or the above referenced policy. 

Certification by legal counsel of unused bonding capability for the wastewater enterprise may be used to 

offset required cash deposits to the WCRF. 

SECTION 17. CONTINUOUS USE OF PROJECT: LEASE OR DISPOSAL OF PROJECT. 

The Agency agrees that, except as provided in the Agreement, it will not abandon, substantially 

discontinue use of, lease, or dispose of the Project or any significant part or portion thereof during the 

useful life of the Project without prior written approval of the Division. Such approval may be conditioned 

as determined to be appropriate by the Division, including a condition requiring repayment of all or any 

portion of all remaining Local Match funds covered by this Agreement together with accrued interest and 

any penalty assessments which may be due. 

SECTION 18. REPORTS. 

The Agency agrees to expeditiously provide, during construction of the Project and thereafter during the 

useful life of the Project, such reports, data, and information as may be reasonably required by the 

Division, including but not limited to material necessary or appropriate for evaluation of the CWSRF 

Program or to fulfill any reporting requirements of the federal government. 

SECTION 19. RECORDS. 

(A) 

Without limitation of the requirement to maintain Project accounts in accordance with generally 

accepted accounting principles, the Agency agrees to: 

(1) 

Establish an official file for the Project which shall adequately document all significant 

actions relative to the Project;

(B) 

(C) 

(D) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

. . 



Loan No: C-06-4703-110 


Page 5 of 8 

Establish separate accounts which will adequately and accurately depict all amounts 

received and expended on the Project, including all assistance funds received under this 

Agreement; 

Establish separate accounts which will adequately depict all income received which is 

attributable to the Project, specifically including any income attributable to assistance 

funds disbursed under this Agreement; 

Establish an accounting system which will accurately depict final total costs of the 

Project, including both direct and indirect costs; 

Establish a Local State Match account prior to issuance of the Local Match Project 

Funds, from which the state match portion of the project shall be paid. The Agency must 

deposit sufficient funds in the account as necessary to make payments to the contractor. 

Establish such accounts and maintain such records as may be necessary for the state to 

fulfill federal reporting requirements, including any and all reporting requirements under 

federal tax statutes or regulations; and 

If Force Account is used by the Agency for any phase of the Project, other than for 

planning, design and construction engineering, and administration provided for by 

allowance, accounts will be established which reasonably document all employee hours 

charged to the Project and the associated tasks performed by each employee. Indirect 

Force Account costs may be paid with prior written approval by the Division of the 

Agency's indirect cost proposal. 

Notwithstanding Section 40f Exhibit C, the Agency agrees to require Project contractors and 

subcontractors to maintain books, records, and other material relative to the Project in 

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and to require such contractors and 

subcontractors to retain such books, records, and other material for a minimum of thirty-six years 

from the date of Project Completion. 

The Agency further agrees to require that such books, records, and other material shall be 

subject at all reasonable times to inspection, copying, and audit by the SWRCB and by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, or any authorized representatives thereof. 

Notwithstanding Section 4 of Exhibit C, the Agency agrees to retain its Project records for a 

minimum of thirty-six years from the date of Project Completion, and for such longer period as 

may be required for the state to fulfill federal reporting requirements under federal tax statutes 

and regulations. All Agency records relative to the Project shall be subject at all reasonable times 

to inspection, copying and audit by the SWRCB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

or any authorized representatives thereof. 

The Agency agrees to furnish the SWRCB with copies of cancelled checks paid to its contractors 

at least each quarter documenting payment of the State match amount. 

SECTION 20. FINAL PROJECT REPORTS; AUDIT. 

(A) 

Within 120 days after Project Completion, the Agency agrees to provide to the Division a final 

cost summary report on the Project. The summary shall include at a minimum, a statement of:

(B) 

(1) . Total Project Costs; 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 



Loan No: C-06-4703-110 

Page 6 of 8 


Total Project Costs which are eligible for Local Match assistance under this Agreement; 

The total amount of assistance funds received; 

The amount of interest earned, if any, on Local Match funds before disbursement on 

account of incurred Project costs. If no interest has been earned, this fact shall be 

expressly stated. 

The report shall be accompanied by such other financial information as may be 

reasonably required by the Division to verify Agency entitlement to Local Match 

assistance, to assure program integrity of the CWSRF Program, and to comply with any 

federal requirements. The report shall be certified as correct by a duly Authorized 

Representative of the Agency. 

The Division, at its option, may call for an audit of financial information relative to the Project, 

where the Division determines that an audit is desirable to assure pro.gram integrity or where 

such an audit becomes necessaty because of federal requirements. Where such an audit is 

called for, the audit shall be performed by a Certified Public Accountant independent of the 

Agency and at the cost of the Agency. The audit shall be in the form required by the Division. 

SECTION 21. NO OBLIGATION OF THE STATE. 

Any obligation of the SWRCB herein contained shall not be an obligation, debt or liability of the State 

and any such obligation shall be payable solely out of the moneys in the CWSRF made available 

pursuant to this Agreement. 

SECTION 22. DEFINITIONS. 

"Additional Payments" means the Additional Payments described in ~xhibit B Section 2.3(C) of this 

Agreement. 

"Allowance" means an amount based on a percentage of the accepted bid for an e~i~ible'~roject to help 

defray the planning, design, and construction engineering and administration costs of the Project. 

"Authorized Representative" means the Mayor of a City, the Chairperson of the County Board of 

Supervisors, the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Agency, or another-duly appointed 

representative. For all authorized representatives, a certified original copy of the authorizing resolution 

that designates the authorized representative, by title, must accompany any contract, the first payment 

request, and any other documents or requests required or allowed under this Agreement. 

"Bank" means the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, an entity within the 

California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency, a State agency organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of California. 

"Bonds" mean any series of bonds issued by the Bank all or a portion of the proceeds of which may be 

applied to fund the Project in whole or in part or that are secured in whole or in part by Installment 

Payments paid hereunder. 

"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and any successor provisions and the 

regulations of the U.S. Department of the Tre.asury promulgated thereunder.



Loan No: C-06-4703-110 

Page 7 of 8 


"Completion of Construction" means the date, as determined by the Division after consultation with the 

Agency, that the work of.building and erection of the Project is substantially complete. 

"CWSRF" means Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

"Division" means the Division of Clean Water Programs of the SWRCB, or any other segment of the 

. 

SWRCB authorized to administer the CWSRF. 

"Fiscal Year" means the period of twelve months terminating on June 30 of any year, or any other annual 

period hereafter selected and designated by the Agency as its Fiscal Year in accordance with applicable 

law. 

"Force Account" means the use of the Agency's own employees or equipment for construction of the 

Project. 

"Initiation of Construction" means the date that notice to proceed with work is issued for the Project, or, if 

notice to proceed is not required, the date of commencement of building and erection of the Project. 

"Installment Payments" means Installment Payments due and payable by the Agency to the Board under 

this Agreement to repay the Project Costs, the amounts of which are set.forth as Exhibit 1 hereto. 

"Net Revenues". means, for any Fiscal Year, so long as there may be outstanding System Obligations, as 

such term is defined under the authorizing instruments foresuch System Obligations, and thereafter all 

Revenues received by the Agency less the Operations and Maintenance Costs.for such Fiscal Year. 

"Obligation" means the obligation owed by the Agency to make Installment Payments and Additional 

Payments as provided herein, as evidenced by the execution of this Agreement, to be used to fund the 

Project as specified in'the Project Description attached hereto as Exhibits F and G. 

"Operations and Maintenance Costs" means, so long as outstanding System Obligations are outstanding, 

the definition of such term as defined therein, and thereafter, the reasonable and necessary costs paid or 

incurred by the Agency for maintaining and operating the System, determined in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting principles, including all reasonable expenses of management and repair 

and all other expenses necessary to maintain and preserve the System in good repair and working order, 

and including all reasonable and necessary administrative costs of the Agency that are charged directly 

or apportioned to the operation of the System, such as salaries and wages of employees, overhead, 

taxes (if any), the cost of permits, licenses and charges to operate the System and insurance premiums; 

but excluding, in all cases depreciation, replacement and obsolescence charges or reserves therefor and 

amortization of intangibles. 

"Pledged Revenues" mean and include special assessments, general taxes, general obligation bonds, 

revenue bonds, user charges, or other sources of income which are consistent with federal requirements. 

"Policy" means the Board's "~olicy for Implementing the State Revolving Fund for Construction of 

Wastewater Treatment Facilities," adopted on June 18, 1998, as amended. 

"Project Completion" means the date, as determined by the Division after consultation with the Agency. 

that operation of the Project is initiated or is capable of being initiated, whichever comes first. 

"Project Costs" means the incurred costs of the Agency which are eligible for financial assistance from 

the CWSRF under the Statute, which are allowable costs as defined under the Policy and which are

' 


SWRCB Agreement No.: 01 -809-550-0 

Loan No: C-06-4703-110 

Page 8 of 8 


reasonable, necessary and allocable by the Agency to the Project under generally accepted accounting 

principles plus capitalized interest. 

"Project Funds" mean the proceeds provided to the Agency by the SWRCB from the CWSRF for the 

purposes set forth in this Agreement. 

"Revenue Program" means a system of charges, fees, or other meansof income production adopted by 

the Agency which provides for recovery of appropriate capital costs of the Project, generates adequate 

income to reasonably assure repayment of the Local Match Obligation under this Agreement, generates 

adequate income to provide for reasonable operation and maintenance of the Project, and provides 

adequate income for reasonable future expansion and improvement of the Project. 

"Revenues" means, for each Fiscal Year, all gross income and revenue received or receivable by the 

Agency from the ownership or operation of the System, determined in accordance with generally 

accepted accounting principles, including all rates, fees and charges (including connection fees and 

charges) as received by the Agency for the services of the System, and all other income and revenue 

howsoever derived by the Agency from the ownership or operation of the System or arising from the 

System, and also including all income from the deposit or investment of any money in the Enterprise 

Fund established and maintained by the SWRCB or any rate stabilization fund, and any refundable 

deposits made to establish credit, and advances or contributions in aid of construction. 

"System" means all wastewater collection, transport, treatment, storage and disposal facilities, including 

land and easements thereof, owned by the Agency, including the Project, and all other properties, 

structures or works hereafter acquired and constructed by the Agency and determined to be a part of the 

System, together with all additions, betterments, extensions or improvements to such facilities, 

properties, structures or works or any part thereof hereafter acquired and constructed. 

"System Obligations" means all senior, parity andsubordinate obligations of the Agency payable from 

Revenues as identified as of the date of this Agreement in Exhibit J and such additional obligations as 

may hereafter be issued in accordance with the provisions of such obligations

Footnote No. 9 1

REVENUE PROGRAM 

GUIDELINES 

(Appendix G) 

March 1998 EDITION 

from the 

POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STATE 

REVOLVING FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION 

OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Table of Contents 

Revenue Program Guidelines 

GUIDELINES Page 

SECTION 1 - General 

General Requirements G- 1 

Annual Revenue Requirements G- 3 

Identification of Users G- 4 

Allocation of Annual Revenue Requirements and Rate Determination G - 5 

Implementation and Maintenance G- 7 

SECTION 2 - Special Considerations 

Regional Treatment Systems 

Individual Systems 

Connection Fees 

Standby Charges 

Minimum Charges 

SECTION 3 - Sewer Use Ordinance G- 10 

SECTION 4 - Dedicated Source of Revenue G- 11 

MISCELLANEOUS AND DATA TABLES 

Definitions G- 13 

Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund, sample resolution G- 15 

Sewer Use Ordinance, certification of compliance G- 16 

Sewer Use Ordinance requirements G- 17 

Letter of Intent G- 18 

Useful lives and allocation parameters G- 19 

Commercial user strength characteristics G-21 

Typical flows from various sources and devices (Tables G-1 through G-6) G - 23 

Notice of proposed change in wastewater rates G - 26 

REVENUE PROGRAM FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS 

Form 1 "Summary of Users and Wastewater Characteristics" 

Form 2 "Annual 0. M. & R. and Nonoperating Costs" 

Form 3 "Capital Cost Allocation" 

Form 4 "Unit Cost Determination" 

Form 5v "Summary of Variable Portion of 0. M. & R. Costs" 

Form 5f "Summary of Fixed Portion of 0. M. & R. Costs" 

Form 5c "Summary of Capital Replacement Fund Costs" 

Form 5d "Summary of Debt Service Fund Costs" 

Form 5w "Summary of Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund Costs" 

Form 6 "Summary of Total Annual Revenue Required" 

Form 7 "Rate Determination and Revenue Program Summary" 

INDEX G-51

INTRODUCTION 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 

DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS 

REVENUE PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

(March 1998 Revision) 

The Revenue Program Guidelines (Guidelines) are intended to provide assistance to all cities, counties, 

special districts and public agencies in developing, implementing, and maintaining revenue programs and 

implementing ordinances to comply with Section 204(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act, Federal and State 

Regulations, and Policies of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). In these Guidelines all 

cities, counties, special districts, and public agencies are referred to by the term "municipalities". These 

Guidelines apply to all recipients of State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans. Some municipalities may desire to 

deviate from specific provisions. Deviations should be discussed with the revenue program specialist. His 

phone number is (916) 227-4489. 

The revenue program specialist of the Division of Clean Water Programs (Division) isavailable to answer 

inquiries relating to the preparation of revenue programs, these Guidelines, and implementing ordinances. 

SECTION 1 - GENERAL 

Section 1-1 - General Requirements 

A. Revenue Drogram - 

The revenue program is a formally documented determination of auser charge system developed by the 

municipality. It is designed to provide a source of revenue for operation, maintenance, and replacement 

(0. M. & R.) costs of the wastewater system that satisfies Federal and State requirements. In addition, 

debt service and revenue for establishing a capital reserve fund and an operating reserve fund may be 

collected by the system of charges based on actual use, or, if approved, by ad valorem taxes. 

B. System of service char~es - 

A system of service charges is developed first by estimating the municipality's annual revenue 

requirements for the total wastewater system 0. M. & R., including those portions which were not grant 

or loan funded. Rates are then set based on the identification of the users and their respective 

contribution to the wastewater loading of the treatment works. This process is described in detail in 

these Guidelines. 

C. Revenue program submittals 

Revenue programs must be submitted to the Division by the municipality. Programs submitted by a 

consultant will not be reviewed unless accompanied by a cover letter fiom the municipality. All 

correspondence must include the following information and be signed by the authorized representative: 

1. Municipality's name, address and phone number; 

2. Loan number(s); and 

3. Purpose of revenue program (draft, final or update).

D. Facilities plan submittals 

A draft (proposed) revenue program and a draft of an ordinance or resolution dedicating a source of 

funds for repayment of the SRF loan (see Section 4 on Page G-11 of these Guidelines) must be 

submitted to the Division as part of the facilities plan during the planning process. The draft revenue 

program will be reviewed by the Division and the municipality will be informed of any deficiency in 

the proposed user charge system. The draft revenue program must be approved by the Division prior 

to Division approval of the facilities plan. The final ordinance or resolution dedicating a source of 

funds for repayment of the SRF loan must be adopted by the municipality before issuance of a loan 

contract. 

E. Final submittal requirements 

A final revenue program and adopted sewer use ordinance (see Section 3 on Page G - IF of thest 

Guidelines), must be submitted to, and approved by, the Division prior to pay out of funds beyond 

90 percent of the loan amount. The sewer use ordinance must be enforced upon completion of 

construction. 

F. Rate ordinance or resolution 

A draft of the proposed rate ordinance or resolution must be submitted with the final revenue program. 

An enacted rate ordinance or resolution must be submitted prior to completion of construction. The 

rates in the ordinance or resolution must agree with those shown in an approved revenue program. A 

new revenue program will be required when 0. M. & R. costs change substantially. The enacted rate 

ordinance or resolution must be enforced upon completion of construction. 

G. Draft and final revenue program format 

The draft revenue program may be either separately bound and labeled or included with the facilities 

plan. If the revenue program is included with the facilities plan, it is the municipality's responsibility 

to insure that the Division's revenue program specialist receives a copy. The final revenue program 

must be separately bound and labeled. Only one copy needs to be submitted to the Division for 

approval. 

H. Revenue Dropram forms 

The revenue program forms contained in these Guidelines, beginning on Page G - 29, if utilized, will 

facilitate Division review and approval. In most cases, the forms indicate all the information that is 

necessary for a revenue program. 

I. Pre-existing agreements 

The user charge system shall take precedence over any terms or conditions of agreements or contracts 

that the municipality may be party to that are inconsistent with the requirements of these Guidelines. 

(See also Section 1-4 B.4. on Page G - 6) If there are any pre-existing agreements or contracts that are 

inconsistent with the requirements of these Guidelines the municipality must notify the Division's 

revenue program specialist at the time a revenue program is submitted for review. 

J. Letter of intent 

A letter of intent executed by any industrial user which will contribute more than ten (10) percent of 

the treatment works design flow or design loading must be submitted with the draft revenue program. 

A sample letter of intent is provided on Page G - 18. Letters documenting commitments by industrial

users intending to increase flows or loadings or to locate in the municipality's service area in the future must 

also be submitted with the draft revenue program. 

K. Public notice reauirement 

The charges developed in the revenue program and capital costs which are collected via amedium other 

than the user charge must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipalityls 

service area. The notice must substantially follow the format shown on Page G - 15. 

Section 1-2 - Annual Revenue Reauirements 

A. Operation and maintenance, including replacement (0. M. & R) 

1. Municipalities need funds to pay the annual costs of 0. M. & R. of the treatment works. These 

costs include the costs of labor, power, chemicals, supplies, laboratory control and monitoring, 

general administration, billing, and incidental items incurred during normal operation. Also 

included are those expenditures termed ordinary repairs necessary to keep the treatment works in 

proper operating condition, replacement (as defined below) and other administrative costs, such 

as overhead and accounting which are directly related to the 0. M. & R. of the treatment works. 

2. An estimate of 0. M. & R. costs should be made by adjusting the municipality's latest operating 

cost data to reflect operational changes, wage escalation, and staffing changes. In the case of 

newly constructed facilities, estimated 0. M. & R. costs must be listed in the facilities plan by the 

engineer. 

B. Reulacement costs 

1. A separate line item for replacement must be shown in the calculation of the annual revenue 

requirements. Replacement costs include all expenditures required for a facility to operate for its 

design life. Replacement costs do not include the following capital costs: 

a. Major rehabilitations which may be needed as individual unit processes near the end of their 

useful life; 

b. Structural rehabilitations; or 

c. Facility expansions or upgrades to meet future user demands or upgrade treatment. 

2. Replacement costs include such items as: pumps, motors, telemetry and electrical controls, air 

scrubbing equipment, chlorination and dechlorination equipment, vehicles, radios, etc. 

3. Replacement costs should be based, at a minimum, on a five (5) year planning cycle. For example, 

assume that a municipality estimates it will have to replace $85,000 worth of equipment over the 

next five (5) years and it has $10,000 in the replacement account. The annual replacement cost to 

be included in the user charge would be: 

$85'000 - $107000 = $15,000 per year 

5 years 

This cost must be recalculated each year. 

4. The municipality may, in lieu of the five (5) year replacement plan, deposit an amount in the 

replacement fund equal to the sum of the straight line depreciation (based on current costs) of the 

assets (excluding structural facilities such as buildings, ponds, pipes, etc).

C. Debt service 

1. Debt service is the annual sum of the principal and interest payments on proposed or outstanding 

obligations secured by bonds or loan contracts. A SRF loan received from the SWRCB must be 

repaid via a dedicated source of revenue (see Section 4 on Page G - 11 of these Guidelines). A - 

separate account must be maintained within either the debt service fund or the enterprise fund for 

repayment of the SRF loan. . 

D. Wastewater capital reserve fund 

1. Municipalities participating in the SRF program are required to establish a wastewater capital 

reserve fund (WCRF), prior to receiving a loan contract. The WCRF is required to help pay for 

future expansion, improvements, and rehabilitation. Payments to the WCRF usually appear as a 

separate line item within the annual budget. The Municipality, must also-give assurances that the 

WCRF will be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the SRF program Guidelines 

until the loan is fully discharged. Sample ordinance/resolution language is provided on Page G-15. 

E. Operating reserve fund (optional) 

1. Municipalities are encouraged to establish an operating reserve fund to insure the proper operation 

of the treatment works. This fund is intended to satisfy costs associated with unanticipated price 

increases, additional chemical usage, etc. It does not include costs for replacement of equipment. 

Wastewater agencies in California normally operate with reserves of between 10 and 50 percent 

of annual revenue requirements.- 

Section 1-3 - Identification Of Users 

A. After the annual revenue requirements are determined, the users of the treatment works and their 

associated wastewater flows and loadings (BOD,, SS, or other appropriate constituents) must be 

identified. Flows and loadings must be documented for the user groups listed below, in order that 

proportional costs can be calculated. All users of the treatment works must be included in the revenue 

program. 

1. Residential users Individual cost allocations need not be made for various types of residential 

users. However, municipalities may wish to divide residential users into single family, multiple 

family, or mobile home subgroups to allow for more refined cost allocations. 

2. Commercial users Because of great variability in wastewater flow rates, the commercial group 

should be divided into appropriate subgroups defined in the Commercial User Strength 

Characteristics table on Page G - 21 ofthese Guidelines. The strengths given on Page G - 21 need 

not be used if the municipality has supportable data relating to other specific loadings. Large 

commercial users discharging more than 25,000 gallons per day must have their costs allocated- 

individually: 

3. Institutional users Costs must be allocated to individual users or to user groups, such as public 

or private hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, colleges, correctional facilities, etc. 

4. Industrial users Because of great variability in wastewater flow rates, the industrial group may 

need to be divided into appropriate subgroups. Ihdustrial users contributing more than 25,000 

gallons per day or using five (5) percent, or more, of plant design capacity must have costs 

allocated individually.

5. Outside munici~alities Any outside municipality discharging to the treatment works must be 

listed as a separate user group? 

6. Se~ta~e If septage is received by the treatment works, this category must be listed as a user group 

with the corresponding flows and loadings. The charges established for septage must be based on 

its contributing loadings. Generally, a 1,000 gallon dumping contains 45 lbs (5,400 mg.1) of BOD, 

and 100 lbs (12,000 mgtl) of SS. These loadings should be used for septage fromresidential septic 

tanks only. Other types of septage from commercial or industrial sources must be sampled at the 

discharger's expense to allow a proper charge and prevent unacceptable discharges. 

Section 1-4 - Allocation Of Annual Revenue Re~uirements And Rate Determination 

A. Rate determination 

1. Allocation of annual costs is done in two steps. First, the cost is allocated among the treatment 

parameters (flow, BOD,, SS, and other appropriate constituents) in proportion to the percentage 

of costs that these parameters represent. Second, these amounts are divided by either total annual 

plant loadings or total design loadings to produce unit costs for each parameter. When these unit 

costs are multiplied by the loadings or design quantities of each user, an annual rate in proportion 

to the user's demand on the system is established. 

B. Policies affecting rate determination 

1. Users Day costs of 0. M. & R. 

The portion of the annual revenue requirements which constitute the cost of 0. M. & R. of the 

treatment works must be recovered from users of the system by means of a user charge system 

based either on actual use or through a pre-approved ad valorem tax system. User charges must 

recover the cost of 0. M. & R. from users based on their proportionate contribution to the total 

wastewater loading from all users. The total 0. M. & R. budget may, however, be offset by income 

derived from the operation of the treatment works; such as sale of used equipment, sludge, sludge 

gas, residues, reclaimed wastewater, farm crops, power created by the effluent or other by- 

products. Investment income from assets of the wastewater enterprise is also considered operating 

income if the assets were originally funded with income generated from user charges. 

2. Low income discount allowed 

Municipalities may (at their option) adopt reduced (less than proportionate share) rates for low 

income residential users. Low income users are defined as any user whose income is below the 

poverty rate established within the municipality's service area. These reduced service charges, if 

used, must be based on an economic consideration only. The discount may be applied only to 

a subgroup under the poverty level (i.e., only to senior citizens). 

3. Rules for low income discount 

If the municipality decides to adopt a low income discount rate the following rules apply: 

a. The discount rate selected will apply to all users who qualify for the discount; 

b. Eligibility for the discount must be verified at least annually; and 

c. All revenues which are lost because of the discount must be recovered from other users of the 

system through increased service charges. The provisions of Section 1-1 K. (Public Notice) 

of these Guidelines apply to the granting of discounted rates.

4. Pre-existing agreements 

Any pre-existing agreements which levy 0. M. & R. charges for more or less than the rates 

calculated through the revenue program based on actual (or estimated) use will not be allowed to 

continue, and the charges must be revised to reflect the approved rates. (refer to Section 1-1 I. on 

Page G - 2) 

5. Recovering - non 0. M. & R costs 

a. The Division recommends that funds for the cost of debt service, capital improvements, etc. 

be collected with the 0. M. & R. service charge in proportion to the cost of the service 

rendered. However, the municipality may charge for these other revenue requirements 

through service charges, ad valorem taxes, or standby charges or assessments. If they are 

collected through servicecharges, and the municipality does not wish to recover these other 

costs in proportion to system use, public notice describing the impacts of the proposed rate 

structure is required. An opportunity for public comment within a reasonable period of time 

prior to final adoption of the rate ordinance by the municipality must be given. Notice shall 

be given by direct mailing to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested 

such notice and to all users of the system who will be adversely affected by the change in 

rates. 

b. The notice must substantially follow the format of the Public Notice Format on Page G - 26 

of these Guidelines. The municipality may wish to include in the notice, a discussion of the 

facts which prompted the proposed rate ordinance, and the pros and cons of the enactment. 

C. Allocation of costs based on flow only 

1. Allocation of 0. M. & R. costs based on flow only may be made if either one of the following 

conditions are met: 

a. The municipality's service area (or the service area of a municipality participating in a 

regional system) contains less than 10,000 current population, no industrial users, and does 

not receive septage flows; or 

b. The residential design flow exceeds 95 percent oftotal design flow of the treatment works and 

there are no industrial or septage flows. 

D. Allocation of costs based on ad valorem (AN) taxes 

1. A municipality's user charge system based on ad valorem (AN) taxes may be approved if: 

a. On December 27, 1977, the municipality had in existence a system of dedicated A/V taxes 

which collected revenues to pay the cost of 0. M. & R. of wastewater treatment works within 

its service area, and it has continued to use that system; 

b. The AN user charge system distributes the 0. M. & R. costs for all treatment works within 

the municipality's service area to the residential and small non-residential user class 

(including, at the municipality's option, nonresidential, commercial and industrial users that 

are not required to have their costs allocated individually per Section 1-3 A.2 and A.4. of 

these Guidelines); 

c. Each industrial and commercial user which discharges more than 25,000 gallons per day (or 

more than five (5) percent of the design flow) must pay its share of 0. M. & R. costs of the 

treatment works based on charges for actual use; and 

G-6

d. A system of surcharges and rebates is instituted to insure that all users (or user groups) pay 

their proportionate share of the 0. M. & R. costs. 

2. The user charge for tax exemption organizations may not be adjusted to recoup lost taxes (1 60 Cal 

Rptr 925; 100 CA 3d547). 

1. The user charge system shall provide that costs of 0. M. & R. for all infiltration and inflow (I 1 I) 

flows not directly attributable to users be distributed among all users based upon either of the 

following: 

a. In the same manner that it distributes the costs for their actual use; or 

b. Under a system which uses one or any combination of the following factors on a reasonable 

basis: 

F. Administrative costs 

(i) Flow volume of the users; 

(ii) Land area of the users; 

(iii) Number of hookups or discharges of the users; 

(iv) Property valuation of the users (if A/V taxes are used). 

1. Administrative costs may be included in the 0. M. & R. cost allocation, or they may be separated 

and allocated on another equitable basis, such as number of accounts. 

Section 1-5 - Implementation And Maintenance 

A. Implementing ordinances 

1. A municipality's user charge system, as described in the final revenue program, must be 

incorporated in one or more municipal legislative ordinances or other legally bindingrequirements. 

2. If the treatment works accepts wastewater from other municipalities, the other municipalities 

receiving waste treatment services must also adopt user charge systems in accordance with these 

Guidelines. 

B. Accounting svstems 

1. All special districts including county water, community service and public utility districts must use 

the uniform system of accounts prescribed for wastewater disposal districts under Title 2, Division 

2, Chapter 2, Sections 1101.1 through 1103.4 of the California Administrative Code. Those 

municipalities not subject to the uniform system of accounts must establish accounting systems for 

wastewater treatment conveyance, treatment, and disposal which will provide essentially the same 

level of detail as the uniform system. 

a. Wastewater activities will be accounted for in an enterprise fund. An enterprise fund is a fund 

established to account for operations; (a) that are financed and operated in a manner similar 

to private business enterprises - where the intent of the governing body is that the costs 

(expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a 

continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the

governing body has decided that periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses 

incurred, andlor net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management 

control, accountability, or other purposes. 

2. The enterprise fund will consist of at least two revenue and three expense accounts as follows: 

a. Revenue accounts 

(i) Service charge revenue Only service charges, dedicated AIV taxes and income 

generated from the operation of the wastewater facility (see Section 1-4 B. 1. of these 

Guidelines) will be deposited to this account. Funds from this account may be used for 

any wastewater related activity. 

(ii) Ca~ital revenue All other sources of revenue (i.e., connection fees, augmentation 

funds, standby charges, non-dedicated AIV, etc.) will be deposited in this account. 

Funds from this account may only be used for facility expansion, facility upgrade and 

major rehabilitation projects. 0. M. & R. costs may not be funded from this account (see 

Section 1-2 B. of these Guidelines for discussion of replacement costs). 

b. Ex~ense accounts 

(i) Operation and maintenance Designated for the specific purpose of defraying the 

operation and maintenance costs of wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal. 

These costs must be funded from the service charge revenue account. 

(ii) Replacement Designated for the specific purpose of ensuring that replacement funds 

are available to maintain the capacity and performance of the treatment works over its 

useful life. This fund does not include money set aside for unexpected price increases 

which should be accumulated in an operating reserve fund. Replacement costs must be 

funded from the service charge revenue account. 

(iii) Capital expenditures Designated for any other wastewater related activity not properly 

included in either the Operations and Maintenance Account or Replacement Account. 

Either of the above mentioned Revenue Accounts (see 2.a.(i) and 2.a.(ii) above) may be 

used to fund expenditures charged to this account. 

C. Temporaw loaning - of funds 

1. The aforementioned requirements do not preclude the loaning of funds from the wastewater 

enterprise accounts (including capital reserves) for other authorized uses provided the following 

conditions are met: 

a. It has been established that these funds will not be needed for wastewater activities for the 

period of the loan; 

b. The loan is recorded in the appropriate wastewater fund account with the loan period 

specifically shown; 

c. The fund borrowing the money repays the loan with at least as much interest as the money 

would have earned if the money had not been loaned; and 

d. There are no other regulations, bond covenants, etc. limiting the loaning of the funds.

D. Requirements for review and approval 

1. Implementation and maintenance of an approved revenue program is required as a condition of 

every loan contract. Each municipality must maintain all records which are necessary to document 

compliance with appropriate State and Federal requirements. 

2. The financial documents, audits, budgets, user charge system, etc. of the municipality's wastewater 

enterprise are subject to review by the staff of the SWRCB to insure compliance with these 

Guidelines during the life of the SRF loan. 

3. The municipality shall review and revise its system of service charges and rate ordinances or 

resolutions as necessary to reflect actual funding needs of the treatment works. 

4. Any time that rates are changed, a copy of the review work papers and rate ordinance or resolution 

modification, if any, shall be forwarded to the Division's revenue program specialist for review and 

approval. 

SECTION 2 - SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 

Section 2-1 - Regional Treatment Systems 

A. When treatment works serving more than one municipality are consolidated into a regional system, the 

following requirements for institutional and financial arrangements apply: 

1. Institutional arrangement 

Any number of institutional arrangements between agencies participating in a regional system are 

acceptable. Special districts or joint powers authorities may be formed or service agreements 

entered into which designate a municipality as "lead agency" to apply for and receive a loari. 

Regardless of which institutional arrangement is chosen, the user charge system outlined in the 

revenue program must cover all wastewater treatment services provided and each participating 

municipality must adopt its own user charge system and rate ordinance or resolution. 

2. Submission of a revenue program for a regional system 

a. If the regional municipality is authorized to bill all of the individual users of the system, only 

one revenue program and rate ordinance or resolution is required. 

b. If the regional municipality bills a subscribing municipality, which in turn bills the individual 

users, separate revenue programs and rate ordinances or resolutions are required for the 

regional municipality and each subscribing municipality. The regional municipality's charges 

to a subscribing municipality must be based on actual use and include the fixed cost of 

reserved capacity if capacity is reserved for specific subscribing municipalities. 

3. Interapencv agreements 

All interagency agreements for wastewater services and/or charges must be submitted to the 

Division for review. These agreements should address the issue of how the costs of future plant 

expansions will be allocated.

Section 2-2 - Individual Systems 

A. The user charge system requirements apply to SRF loan funded alternative wastewater treatment 

systems (including dual waterlesslgray water systems), even if privately owned, which are neither 

connected to nor are part of any conventional treatment system. 

Section 2-3 - Connection Fees 

A. Normally, a portion of the capital costs of a project are recovered from future users through connection 

fees. If connection fees are not collected because anticipated growth does not occur, the capital costs 

of the plant must be recovered from the existing users. Because anticipated growth does not always 

occur, existing users should be informed of these potential costs before commitments are made to fund 

the project. Accordingly, for treatment works with more than 25 percent of the total treatment plant . 

capacity reserved for future users, an analysis is required of the charges which would be assessed to 

existing users if anticipated growth does not occur. This analysis must be included in the proposed 

revenue program. 

B. Connection fees may be used to recover debt service costs which would have been recovered on an 

annual basis, if the user had been connected when the treatment works began operation. This fee may 

not be used to recover excessive cost from future users of treatment works in order to reduce charges 

to current users. Connection fees may not be used to fund replacement costs. 

Section 2-4 - Standby Charges 

A. Standby charges may be used to recover debt service from potential users prior to connection, if service 

is available and the standby charge is proportionate to the available service. Standby charges shall not 

be charged to properties for which no capacity or insufficient capacity is available. 

Section 2-5 - Minimum Char~es 

A. If a municipality charges flat rate for some users and a variable rate (such as water consumption), for 

others, a minimum charge may be established for the variable rate users to collect the fixed costs of 

providing service. This charge must not be more than the minimum charged to any user group which 

is charged a flat rate. For example, if apartments are charged a flat rate which is less than the single 

family rate, the minimum charge to customers paying on water consumption would be the rate charged 

to apartments, not single family residences. The same minimum charge must be applied to all user 

groups which have a minimum charge, unless it can be shown that fixed costs vary significantly. 

SECTION 3 - SEWER USE ORDINANCE 

A. (A sewer use ordinance or other legally binding document shall prohibit any new connections from 

inflow sources into the treatment works and require that new sewers and connections to the treatment 

works are properly designed and constructed.' The ordinance or other legally binding document shall 

also require that 'all wastewater introduced into the treatment works not contain toxics or other, 

pollutants in amounts or concentrations that endanger public safety and physical integrity of the 

treatment works; cause violation of effluent of water quality limitations; or preclude the selection ofthe 

most cost-effective alternative for wastewater treatment and sludge disposal. Refer to Pages G - 16 and 

G - 17 of these Guidelines.

SECTION 4 - DEDICATED SOURCE OF REVENUE 

A. Section 603(d)(l)(C) of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments require each loan recipient to 

establish one or more dedicated sources of revenue for repayment of the loan. A dedicated source can 

be a special assessment, general taxes, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, user charges, or other 

sources. 

B. Revenue will be considered dedicated when the municipality passes an ordinance or resolution 

committing a source of funds for repayment. The ordinance or resolution dedicating a source of funding 

for repayment of the loan must be adopted before issuance of the loan contract. 

C. Ordinance or resolution language equivalent to the following would be acceptable: 

1. The (municipality) hereby dedicates the following source of revenue. (user 

charge. proceeds of revenue bonds, etc.) to repayment of any and all State 

Revolving Fund loans on Project No. C-06- - - . This dedicated source of 

revenue shall remain in effect until such loan or loans are fully discharged unless 

modification or change of such dedication is approved in writing by the State Water 

Resources Control Board.

BLANK PAGE

DEFINITIONS 

As used in these Guidelines, the following words and terms shall have the meaning as set forth below: 

Ad Valorem Tax (AN): A tax based upon the value of real property. 

Applicant: A municipality that has (or will) applied for a SRF loan. 

CAC: California Administrative Code. 

Capital Costs: Costs of facility expansion, facility upgrades, major rehabilitation or construction or 

replacement to extend the useful life of the facility. 

Combined Sewer: Sewage - storm or industrial - storm drain combination. 

Commercial User: All retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, laundries, and other private business 

and service establishments, including churches and lodges. 

Connection Fee: A fee paid by a new system user for the capital costs of capacity made available for its 

use. 

Construction: The planning, designing, and construction of any treatment works. 

Division: The Division of Clean Water Programs of the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Financial Plan: A description of the proposed institutional arrangements that will be used to manage the 

project, and of the amount and sources of funds necessary to finance the municipality's share of the project 

cost and to provide for cash flow during the design and construction periods. 

Future Cauacitv: Available treatment works capacity which is not needed to serve existing users. 

Industrial User: Any nongovernmental nonresidential user of publicly owned treatment works which is 

identified in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972, Office of Management and Budget, as 

amended and supplemented, under the following divisions: 

a. Division A - Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishing; 

b. Division B - Mining; 

c. Division D - Manufacturing; 

d. Division E - Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary; and 

e. Division I - Services. 

A user in the divisions listed may be excluded if it is determined that the user will introduce primarily 

segregated domestic waste or wastes from sanitary conveniences. 

Infiltration: Water other than wastewater that enters a sewer system (including sewer service connections 

and foundation drains) from the ground through such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or 

manholes. Infiltration does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.

Inflow: Water other than wastewater that enters a sewer system (including sewer service connections) from 

sources such as, but not limited to, roof leaders, cellar drains, yard drains, area drains, drains from springs 

and swampy areas, manhole covers, cross connections between storm sewers and sanitary sewers, catch 

basins, cooling towers, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters, or drainage. Inflow does not 

include, and is distinguished from infiltration. 

Municipalitv: Any political subdivision of the state such as a county, city, special district or public agency 

formed under the laws of the state. 

0. M. & R.: Operation, maintenance and replacement. 

Proiect: The scope of work for which assistance is awarded by a loan contract. 

Rehabilitation: Extraordinary expenditures for obtaining and installing equipment, accessories, or 

appurtenances which extend the useful life andlor improve the capacity or efficiency of the treatment works 

as originally designed. Rehabilitation costs are considered capital outlays. 

Replacement: Expenditures for obtaining and installing equipment, accessories, or appurtenances which 

are necessary during the useful life of the treatment works to maintain the capacity and performance for 

which such works were designed and constructed. 

Revenue Program: - A formal documentation of charges designed to provide revenues for 0. M. & R., and 

local debt service for treatment works, and which demonstrates compliance with SRF policies on user 

charges. 

Service Char~e: A charge levied on a user of the treatment works which includes a user charge to recover 

the costs of 0. M. & R. and which may include a charge for capital reserve and debt service. 

Treatment Works: Any devices and systems used in collection, transport, storage, treatment, disposal, 

recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of liquid nature, or necessary to recycle 

or reuse water at the most economical cost over the useful life of such works. 

User: A recipient of wastewater collection andlor treatment services as described in the definition of 

"Treatment Works". 

User Charge: A charge levied on users of a treatment works for the cost of 0. M. & R.

RESOLUTION NO. 

RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE 

ESTABLISHING A WASTEWATER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD'S REQUIREMENTS 

OF THE STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM 

WHEREAS, the of the authorized the 

manager to apply for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan to fund all or a portion of the cost of 

expansion and improvement of the wastewater treatment facilities; and 

WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board requires, as a condition of approval of the 

loan, the establishment of a Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund for future expansion, major repair or 

replacement costs: 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the of the that: 

1. A dedicated Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund shall be created, and, 

2. Said Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund shall be administered, by the , as required by the 

"Policy For Implementing The State Revolving Fund For Construction Of Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities" adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on June 18, 1998. 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the of the at its 

meeting held on the day of 9-9 by the following vote: 

AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSTAIN: 

ABSENT: 

ATTEST; APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

Name Name 

Title Title

SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE 

SEWER USE ORDINANCE 

1, (Name) certify, as duly authorized representative of (municipality) , that the 

Jmunicipali~) will have, in each jurisdiction served by the treatment works, an enacted sewer 

use ordinance or other legally binding requirement which will: 

1. Prohibit any new connections from inflow sources to the sanitary sewer portions of the 

sewer system; 

2. Require new sewers and connections to the sewer system to be properly designed and 

constructed; and 

3. Prohibit the introduction into the treatment works of any toxics or other pollutants in 

amounts or concentrations that endanger public safely and physical integrity of the 

treatment works; or cause violation of effluent or water quality limitation; or preclude 

the selection of the most cost effective alternative for wastewater treatment and sludge 

disposal. 

This ordinance will be enacted prior to ninety percent (90%) of construction and enforced upon 

completion of construction. 

Date (tvped) Name (sirmature) 

Telephone Title

SAMPLE PARAGRAPHS TO SATISFY 

THE SEWER USE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 

1. The ordinance shall prohibit any new connections from inflow sources into the sanitary sewer 

portions of the sewer system. 

Example: Prohibited Waste Discharges 

No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any rainwater, storm water, 

groundwater, street drainage, subsurface drainage, yard drainage, including evaporative 

type air cooler discharge water, to any public or private sewer which directly or indirectly 

connects to the wastewater treatment works of the (municipality) . 

2. The ordinance shall insure that new sewers and connections to the sewer system are properly 

designed and constructed. 

Example: Construction Standards 

Plans for sewer construction shall meet all designrequirements ofthe public corporation having 

area jurisdiction and shall also meet the design requirements as established from time to time 

by the Engineer; 

and 

Inspection of all sewer construction shall be made by personnel of the (municivality) 

in the manner described in the following sections: 

3. The ordinance shall prohibit the introduction of toxics and certain pollutants. 

Example: Prohibited Discharges 

No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged to any public or private sewer which 

directly or indirectly connects to the (municipality's) wastewater treatment works any 

toxic or other waste, if in the opinion of the (manager) such wastes may have an adverse or 

harmful effect on sewers, maintenance personnel, wastewater treatment plant personnel or 

equipment, treatment plant effluent quality, public or private property, or may otherwise 

endanger the public, the local environment or create a public nuisance. The (manager) in 

determining the acceptability of specific wastes, shall consider the nature of the waste and the 

adequacy and nature of the collection, treatment and disposal system available to accept the 

waste.

Mr. Craig Hagen 

Board of Directors 

Greater Franklin Sanitary District 

Franklin, CA 98765 

Dear Mr. Hagen: 

GOURMET SOUP COMPANY 

Administration Building, Suite 9 

Franklin, CA 98765-4321 

LETTER OF INTENT, ALLOCATED COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT 

It is the intent of the Gourmet Soup Company (Company) to utilize the wastewater treatment 

facilities of the Greater Franklin Sanitary District (District) to treat approximately 100,000 

gallons per day of process wastewater from our facility. This wastewater is expected to have 

an average strength of 1,200 mgll of BOD, and 3,000 mgll of SS. 

It is understood by the Company that the wastewater treatment facilities were funded, at least 

in part, by a loan from the State of California. It is further understood that as a condition of 

this loan, the Company must pay to the District the full cost of operation, maintenance and 

replacement costs attributable to treating the Company's wastewater. 

It is the Company's understanding that if there is a substantial change in the strength, 

volume, or delivery flow rate characteristics of the waste introduced into the treatment works 

by the Company, the charges will be adjusted accordingly, and that if there is an expansion 

or upgrading of the treatment works, charges to the Company will be adjusted accordingly. 

Although this letter represents a good faith estimate of period of use and capacity needed by 

the Company, it is not to be construed as binding the Company to continue discharging any 

quantity or quality of wastewater to the District's treatment works, to pay for capacity of 

treatment that it does not use, or to use the facilities for any definite length of time. The 

information given is provided only to assist the District in sizing the treatment works and to 

evidence awareness by the Company that it will be required to participate in payment of 

certain costs, including those described above. 

Sincerely, 

Mr. Charles Ellison, 

Chairman of the Board

LIST OF USEFUL LIVES AND ALLOCATION PARAMETERS 

To reasonably allocate costs among the various users of wastewater treatment works. a "useful life" 

must be determined for each major component . Also. the cost of each component must be attributed 

to its major function . Following is a list of acceptable useful lives and loading parameters . These are 

satisfactory for general applications . If other parameters or useful lives are used they must be 

substantiated by documentation or reference and approved by the Division . 

TREATMENT UNITS LOADING USEFUL 

COMPONENT PARAMETER LIFEIYRS 

Activated Sludge: 

Structure ................. 25% BOD.. 75% Flow ......... 40 

Equipment .................... BOD. .................. 25 

Chlorination Facilities: 

Structure ..................... Flow ................... 30 

Equipment .................... Flow ................... 12 

Digester: 

Structure ................. 50% BOD.. 50% SS ........... 30 

Equipment ................ 50% BOD.. 50% SS ........... 12 

Grit Chamber: 


Equipment .................... SS ..................... 15 

Influent Pump Station: 

Structure ............... : ..... Flow ................... 40 

Equipment .................. ., . Flow ................... 15 

Miscellaneous: 

Buildings ..................... Flow ................... 40 

Carbon Adsorption ............. BOD. .................. 25 

Interceptor .................... Flow ................... 50 

Outfall ....................... Flow ................... 75 

Ponds: 

Embankment .................. Flow .................. 50 

Equipment .................... BOD. .................. 20 

Primary Clarifier: 


........... 

Equipment ................ 35% BOD.. 65% SS 25 

Pumping Stations: 


Equipment .................... Flow ................... 20 

Screen or Comminutor: 


Equipment .................... SS ..................... 15 

Secondary Clarifier: 


Equipment .................... BOD. .................. 25 

Sludge Thickening: 

Structure ................. 50% BOD.. 50% SS ........... 40 

Equipment ................ 50% BOD.. 50% SS ........... 15 

Trickling Filter: 

Structure ................. 25% BOD.. 75% Flow ......... 40 

Equipment .................... BOD. .................. 20

BLANK PAGE

COMMERCIAL USER STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS 

STANDARD CLASSIFICATIONS BOD (Dpm) 

5 

Residential (average varies 

depending on average water usage 

per capita) 

Auto Steam Cleaning 

Bakery, wholesale 

Bars without dining facilities 

Car Wash 

Department and Retail Store 

Hospital and Convalescent 

Hotel with dining facilities 

HotelMotel without dining 

Industrial Laundry 

Laundromat 

Laundry, commercial 

Market with garbage grinders 

Mortuary 

Professional Office 

Repair Shop and Service Station 

Restaurant 

School and College 

Septage 

Soft Water Service

NOTES ON COMMERCIAL USER STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS 

The list of commercial strengths listed on Page G - 2 1 was derived from data made available to 

the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) staff by East Bay Municipal Utility 

District, City of San Jose, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, and the Sacramento 

Regional County Sanitation District. The results generally represent the mean of the values 

used by the agencies which collected the data with extreme values eliminated in some cases. 

The SWRCB staff feels that the data on strength is representative of most cities in California. 

The data is provided for your information. The values in the table will be accepted by SWRCB 

staff. If you feel that the data provided in the table is not representative of your service area, 

please feel free to utilize more representative data. If strength values for commercial users other 

than those provided on this list are utilized, supporting data should be submitted to verify values 

used.

TABLE G-1 

Estimated water consumption at different types of establishments. 

FLOW in GPD per 

TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT PERSON or 

-- 

Dwelling units, residential: 

Private dwellings on individual wells or metered supply 

Private dwellings on public water supply, unmetered 

Subdivision dwelling on individual ~ l l or , metered supply, per bedroom 

Subdivision dwelling on public water supply, unmetered, per bedroom 

Dwelling units, multiple: 

A~artment houses on individual wells 

Apartment houses on public water supply, unmetered 

Hotels: 

Boarding houses: 

Lodging houses and tourist homes: 

Motels, without kitchens, per unit: 

, ' 

Camps: 

Pioneer type 

Children's, central toilet and bath 

Day camp, no meals 

Luxury, private bath 

Labor 

Trailer with private toilet and bath, per unit 

Restaurants (including toilet): 

Average 

Kitchen wastes only 

Short order 

Short order, paper service 

Bars and cocktail lounges: 

Average type, per seat 

Average type, 24 hour, per seat 

Tavern, per seat 

Service area, per counter seat (highway) 

Service area, per table seat (highway) 

Institutions: 

Average type 

Hospitals 

Schools: 

Day 

Day, with cafeteria or lunch room 

Day, with cafeteria and showers 

Boarding 

Theaters: 

Indoor, per seat, two showings per day 

Outdoor, including food stand, per car 

Automobile service station: 

Per vehicle served 

Per set of pumps 

Stores: 

First 25 feet of frontage 

Each additional 25 feet of frontage 

Country clubs: 

Resident type 

Transient type, serving meals 

Off~ces: 

Factories, sanitary wastes, per shift: 

Self service laundry: 

Bowling alleys, per alley: 

Swimming pools and beaches, toilet and shower: 

Picnic parks, with flush toilets: 

Fairgrounds (based on daily attendance): 

Assembly halrls, per seat: 

Airport, per passenger: 

* Add 125 gal. per space for lawn sprinkling, car washing, leakage, etc. NOTE: Water under pressure, flush toilets, and wash basins 

are assumed unless othenvise noted. Figures are flows per capita per day unless otherwise stated.

(Yellowtone National Park) 

TABLE G-2 

Design unit sewage flows for recreational facilities 

Establishment Unit Flow in gpd 

Cafeteria Table seat 150 

Campground (developed) Person 25 

Cocktail lounge Seat 20 

Coffee shop Counter seat 250 

Dining room Table seat 150 

Dormitory, bunkhouse Person 50 

Fish cleaning station Station 7,500 

Gas station Station 2,000-5,000 

Hospital Bed 200 

Hotel Person 75 

Laundromat Washing machine 500 

Lodge or cabins Person 50 

Mess hall Person 15 

Ofices and stores Employee 25 

Residence homes, apartments Person 75 

Trailer village Person 35 

Visitor centers Visitor 5 

TABLE G-3 

Sewage flows from commercial districts 


Airport Passenger 5 

Hotel Person 100 

Motel Person 50 

Restaurant Meal 7 

Shopping Center Employee 60 

Small business Employee 20 

Theater Seat 5 

TABLE G-4 

Average sewerage flows from institutional facilities 


Elementary schools Student & Staff 10 

High schools Student & Staff 20 

Medical Hospital Patient & Staff 175 

Mental hospital Patient & Staff 125 

Prisons Inmate & Staff 175

TABLE G-5 

Miscellaneous water usage estimates 

Item Unit Avg. gal. used 

Air conditioner, home type, water cooled gpd 2,880 

Automatic home laundry machine Load 30-50 

I, It 

Person 6%-9 

Bathtub Per Use 30 

Dishwashing machine, home type Load 4-8 

3, I, I, 

Person 6 

Dishwashing machine, commercial type, stationary rack gpm 6-9 

" ,Conveyor type gpm 4-6 

Drinking fountain, continuous flowing gph 75 

Garbage disposal, home type Person 1-4 

Shower head Per Use 25-30 

Wash basin Per Use 1 % 

Water closet, tank Per Use 4-5 

Water closet, flush valve gpm 30 

TABLE G-6 

Typical composition of domestic waste 

Constituent Strong Medium Weak 

Alkalinity (as CaC03)* 200 100 50 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5-day, 20°C (BOD,) 300 200 100 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 1000 500 250 

Chlorides* 100 50 30 

Grease 150 100 50 

Nitrogen, (total as N) 85 40 20 

Organic 35 15 8 

Free ammonia50 50 25 12 

Nitrites 0 0 0 

Nitrates 0 0 0 

Phosphorus, (total as P) 20 10 6 

Organic 5 3 2 

Inorganic 15 7 4 

Settleable solids, (mVliter) 20 10 5 

Solids, total 1200 700 350 

Dissolved, total 850 500 250 

Fixed 525 300 145 

Volatile 325 200 105 

Suspended, total 350 200 100 

Fixed 75 50 30 

Volatile 275 150 70 

Total organic carbon (TOC) 300 200 100 

NOTE: All values except settleable solids are expressed in rnglliter. * Values should be increased by amount in carriage water.

PUBLIC NOTICE FORMAT 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE IN WASTEWATER 

RATES 

The City Council of the City of Hagenville is 

considering a rate ordinance for wastewater treatment 

which provides that capital costs will not be recovered 

in proportion to system use. The effect of the 

ordinance is to reduce costs to industrial and 

commercial users with a corresponding increase in the 

rates to residential users. 

The following table shows the rates proposed to be 

charged typical users in the industrial, commercial, 

and residential categories using the proposed rate 

structure. The table compares these rates with what 

they would be if they were calculated in proportion to 

system use. 

PROPOSED MONTHLY CHARGES 

Type of Proposed Proportion 

User Rates to Use Difference 

Industrial 

User $1,500 $2,000 -$500 

Typical 

Industrial 

User 

Typical 

Commercial 

User 

Typical 

Residential 

User 

The City Council invites you to attend and participate 

in a public discussion of this proposed ordinance. It 

will be held: 

Date: 

Time: 

Place: 

Any comments which are received by the City Council 

prior to the date of the meeting will also be considered. 

(A discussion of the facts which prompted the proposed rate ordinance and the pros and cons of its enactment 

may be inserted at the end of the notice or included on a separate sheet of paper.)

REVENUE PROGRAM FORMS 

AND 

INSTRUCTIONS

BLANK PAGE

0 

I 

h, 

\D 

FORM I Summary of Users and Wastewater Characteristics 

(INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK OF PAGE.) 

(A) 

Number 

of 

Accounts 

SubTotals 

lnfiltrationlinflow 

Future Capac~ty 

TOTALS 

(B) 

users (user G ~OU~) 

Municipality Date 

WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

(C) (D) 

(E) 

ADWF 

MGD 

BOD 

PPM 

SS 

PPM 

(F) 

DESIGN 

FLOW 

MGD 

DESIGN CAPACITY TOTAL ANNUAL CAPACITY 

6) 

BOD 

(D)x(F)x8.34 

LbslDay 

(H) 

SS 

(E)x(F)x8.34 

LbslDay 

(1) 

VOLUME 

(C)x365 

MG 

(J) 

BOD 

(D)x(I)x8.34 

LbsNear 

(K) 

SS 

(E)x(I)x8.34 

LbsNear

FORM 1 - SUMMARY OF USERS AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS (STRENGTH) 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To identify groups of residential, commercial and industrial users. 

b. To show wastewater characteristics, design capacity provided, and estimated annual volumes and quantities of pollutants for these 

groups, and for any special classifications. 

2. TO COMPLETE THE FORM: 

a. Column (A): Enter the number of users (connections) in each group. 

b. Column (B): Enter names of users (user groups). See Commercial User Strength Characteristics on Page G - 2 1 of the Revenue 

Program Guidelines (Guidelines) for a list of typical user groups.. 

c. Columns (C)-(E): Show wastewater characteristics for each parameter for each user (user group): Average dry weather flow (ADWF) 

Q 

in million gallons per day (MGD), biological oxygen demand (BOD,) in parts per million (ppm) and suspended solids (SS) in parts 

I per million (ppm). See Page G - 2 1 of these Guidelines for average strengths for typical users. 

W 

0 

d. Columns (F)-(H): Show facility design capacity for each user (user group). Design capacity is in MGD, BOD, and SS are in Ibslday. 

e. Columns (I)-(K): Enter annual contributions for each user for each parameter. VOLUME (I) is ADWF (C) times the number of days 

in a year (365). Some users (schools, canneries, etc.) may only operate for a portion of a year. Therefore, the number of days of 

operation may be less than 365. Total annual BOD, (J) is BOD, in ppm (D) times total annual volume (I) times 8.34. Total annual 

SS (K) is SS in ppm (E) times total annual volume (I) times 8.34. 

3. NOTES: 

a. Other relevant parameters besides BOD, and SS may be used if they are consistent with the design basis of the treatment facility. 

b. Infiltrationlinflow must be separately identified. The difference between ADWF (C) and design flow (F) is that design flow is the peak 

flow for seasonal users. 

c. DAILY AND ANNUAL TOTALS OF FLOW AND POUNDS OF BOD AND SS SHOULD CORRESPOND CLOSELY TO ACTUAL 

FLOW AND LOADINGS MONITORED AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

FORM 2 Annual 0. M. & R. and Nonoperating Costs 

I 4. 



COST CATEGORY 

I1 . TREATMENT FACILITIES: 

(a) Fixed 0. & M. Costs 

(b) Variable 0. & M. Costs 

(c) Replacement Cost 

(d) Subtotal Treatment [(a)+(b)+(c)] 

2. COLLECTION SYSTEM: 

(e) Fixed 0. & M. Costs 

(f) Variable 0.8 M. Costs 

(g) Replacement Cost 

(h) Subbtal Collection [(e)+(f)+(g)] 

3. MSCELLANEOUS: 

(j) OveheadAndirect 

(k) Operating Reserve 

(m) Other 

(n) Subtotal miscellaneous [(j)+(k)+(m)] 

TOTAL VARIABLE COST [(b)+(f)] 

5. TOTAL FIXED COST [(a)+(c)+(e)+(g)+(n)] 

-- 

6. TOTAL 0. M. & R. COST [(4)+(5)] 

I 

7. CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND 

I 

8. EBT SERVICE ( Principal & Interest) 

1 9. WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FUND 

CURRENT YEAR FIRST YEAR OF 

COSTS FULL OPERATION

FORM 2: ANNUAL 0. M. & R. AND NONOPERATING COSTS 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To show current year O.M.& R. costs and estimated "first year" O.M.& R. costs in 

accordance with Section 1-2 A. (Page G - 3) of these Guidelines. 

b. To show current year administration costs and estimated administration costs in accordance 

with Section 1-4 F. (Page G - 7) of these Guidelines. See also notes for Form 5. 

c. To establish an operating reserve fund as discussed in Section 1-2 E. (Page G - 4) of these 

Guidelines. Operating reserves are strongly recommended, but not required, by these 

Guidelines. 

d. To establish a wastewater capital reserve fund (WCRF) as required by Section 1-2, D (Page 

G - 4) of these Guidelines. 


a. Each municipality should enter cost data as required. For regional facilities, the lead agency 

and each subscribingmunicipality should enter on this form only the cost incurred on its own 

facilities. For example, the lead municipality may operate and maintain the treatment plant 

and interceptor and each subscribing municipality may operate and maintain its own 

collection system. 

b. Fixed costs* are those costs which do not vary directly with flow (i.e. labor, testing, debt 

service, etc.). Replacement costs, which are normally fixed costs, must be separately 

identified. 

c. Variable costs* are costs which vary directly with flow (i.e. chemicals, utility costs, etc.). 

d. Methods for estimating the amount of reserves to be established in the operating reserve fund 

are set forth in Section 1-2 E. (Page G-4) of these Guidelines. 

e. Show current and "first year" debt service (principal and interest) on line 8. 

3. NOTES: 

a. Replacement costs will be calculated in accordance with Section 1-2 B. (Page G - 3) of these 

Guidelines. Records showing computations will be retained by the municipality and are 

subject to review. 

b. Minimum annual payment to the WCRF will be calculated in accordance with SRF Loan 

Policy. 

* Separating costs into fixedlvariable components is optional. All costs, except replacement may be 

combined if desired.

FORM 3 Capital Cost Allocation 


Municipality Date

FORM 3: CAPITAL COST ALLOCATION 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. This form is used only if the municipality does not have a history of the annual cost of 

operation and maintenance (including replacement) of their wastewater facilities. 

b. To show computation of capital cost percentages, to be allocated among users, for flow, 

BOD, and SS. Other parameters must be shown if applicable. 

c. To compute local cost if construction costs are reimbursed by grants from others. 


a. Enter total costs of collection system, treatment facilities, and disposal facility, etc., in 

Column (B). 

b. Allocate cost for flow, BOD,, and SS for treatment facilities according to parameters 

developed for each component based on actual experience and records or use percentages 

shown in the List Of Useful Lives And Allocation Parameters on Page G - 19 of these 

Guidelines. Enter totals only, but retain work papers for subsequent review. Collection 

system and disposal facility costs will be allocated 100 percent to flow. 

c. Enter any outside funding on Line 15. Outside funding for treatment facilities must be 

allocated on the same basis as the costs on Line 3. 

3. NOTES: 

a. Administration costs may be allocated among flow, BOD,, and SS based on any 

reasonable formula supported by the municipality's experience. [see also Note 3.a. on 

Form 4 Instructions] 

b. Form 3 is optional. It may be used if the municipality has no other means to determine the 

division of the 0. M. & R. expenses between flow, BOD, removal costs and SS removal 

costs.

FORM 4 Unit Cost Determination 

(Instructions on back of page) 

(a) Flow 

(b) BOD 

(c) SS 

(d) In 

(9 Flow 

(g) BOD 

(h) SS 

(i) I11 

(k) Flow 

(I) BOD 

(m) SS 

(n) l/l 

(p) Flow 

(q) BOD 

(r) SS 

(s) In 

(u) Flow 

(v) BOD 

(w) SS 

(x) Ill 

(y) Other 


(A) 

COST CATEGORY 

(B) 

Parameter 

Allocation 

Percentage 

(C) 

Annual Cost 

Allocated to 

Parameter 

(D) 

Total 

Annual 

Quantities 

(E) 

Unit Cost 

For Each 

Parameter

FORM 4: UNIT COST DETERMINATION 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To calculate the unit cost for each parameter. 


a. In Column (B) list the parameter allocation percentages determined from Form 3 or from 

prior municipality experience. For infiltrationlinflow (I / I), the allocation will be based 

on percentage of flow parameter only. This is calculated from Form 1 by dividing annual 

I/ I volume in Column (I) by total annual volume in Column (I). 

b. In Column (C) allocate annual costs to each parameter. Annual fixed and variable 0. M. & 

R., operating reserve fund, and debt service costs are obtained from Form 2. Capital 

replacement fund and wastewater capital recovery fund costs must be determined by the 

requirements of these Guidelines. 

c. Total quantities for Column (D) are obtained from Form 1. Modify total flow for I / I. 

(See Note 3 .d. below) 

d. Unit costs in Column (E) are obtained by dividing total cost for each parameter in Column 

(C) by the corresponding total quantity in Column (D). 

3. NOTES: 

a. 0. M. & R. costs are normally allocated to the cost of: [I] the collection, transport, 

treatment and disposal of the wastewater flow, [2] the cost of removal of BOD, or COD 

from the wastewater, and [3] the cost of removal of SS from the wastewater. Additional 

parameters may be used if the municipality has specific processes or costs attributable to 

the additional parameter (such as nitrogen removal). The basis for the 0. M. & R. cost 

allocation is the accounting of the actual costs of the municipality's wastewater system and 

the allocation of the actual costs based on the input from the wastewater plant operators. If 

a municipality does not have the data to determine the actual percentage of 0. M. & R. 

costs to allocate to each parameter the municipality may use the capital cost allocations 

from Form 3 or any other allocation formula which can be justified by the municipality 

(see Section 1-4 A. 1. of these Guidelines). 

b. A participating or subscribing municipality should have separatewnit cost determinations 

which show those costs incurred prior to discharging wastewater into facilities controlled 

and operated by the regional municipality. 

c. Operating reserves can be shown in 0. M. & R., Item 4, Column (C). However, if 

separate, show on separate Form 4. 

d. Total design quantities may be used for debt service and capital replacement. Total 

annual quantities will be used for variable and fixed 0. M. & R.

FORM 5v Summary of Variable Portion of 0. M. & R. Costs 


(A) 

Number 

of 

Accounts 

(B) 

users (user Group) 


FLOW 

Unit cost=$ 

(c) 

IMG 

(D) 

Mti 

v 

BOD 

Unit cost=$ IKlb 

(E) 

(F) 

Klb 

5 

SS 


(GI 

(H) 

Klb 

5 

(1) 

ANNUAL COST 

OF VARIABLE 

0. M. 8 R. 

[(D)+(F)+(H)I

FORM 5v: SUMMARY OF VARIABLE PORTION OF 0. M. & R. COSTS 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To calculate the total costs for each user (user group) based on the variable portion of the 0. M. & R. costs. A separate Form 5 

will be used for each fimd utilized. 


a. Columns (A) & (B) are the same as Form I Columns (A) & (B). 

b. For Columns (C), (E) & (G) fill in the corresponding parameters from the respective Column (I), (J) or (K) on Form 1 for each user 

(user group) listed. Annual capacity and quantities must be used for variable portion of the 0. M. & R. costs. 

0 c. For Columns (D), (F) & (H) (Unit Cost) place the unit cost developed on Form 4, Column (E), at the top of each column. The 

I appropriate dollar amount on each line is calculated by multiplying the amount in Column (C), (E) or (G) by the appropriate unit 

W 

03 cost at the top of the column. 

d. Column (I) is a summation of costs from Columns (D), (F) and (H) for each user (user group). 

3. NOTES: 

a. If the operating reserve fund is not included in either the variable or the fixed portions of the 0. M. & R. costs a separate Form 5 

will be required for the operating reserve fund. The applicable unit parameters for the operating reserve fund may be the same as 

for either the variable or the fixed portions of the 0. M. & R. costs. 

b. Administration costs can be either included with the variable or the fixed portions of the 0. M. & R. costs or calculated separately 

as a separate fund. One method of allocation is to divide the total administrative cost by the total number of users (connections) 

and then multiply this unit cost by the number of users in each user group for the cost in Column (I).

FORM 5f Summary of Fixed Portion of 0. M. & R. Costs 


(A) 

Number 

of 

Accounts 

(6) 

users (user ~roup) 


FLOW 

Unit cost=$ IMG 

(c) 

(D) 

MCi 

3 

BOD 


(E) 

(F) 

Klb 

3 

SS 

Unit cost=$ lKlb 

(GI 

(HI 

Klb 

3 

(1) 

ANNUAL COST 

OF FIXED 

O. M. & R. 

[(D)+(F)+(H)I

FORM Sf: SUMMARY OF FIXED PORTION OF 0 . M. & R. COSTS 

PURPOSE: 

a. To calculate the total costs for each user (user group) based on the fixed portion of the 0. M. & R. costs. A separate Form 5 will 

be used for each fund utilized. 

TO COMPLETE THE FORM: 

a. Columns (A) & (B) are the same as Form 1 Columns (A) & (B). 


listed. Annual capacity and quantities must be used for the fixed portion of the 0. M. & R. costs. 

c. For Columns (D), (F) & (H) (Unit Cost) place the unit cost developed on Form 4, Column (E), at the top of each column. The 

appropriate dollar amount on each line is calculated by multiplying the amount in Column (C), (E) or (G) by the appropriate unit 

cost at the top of the column. 


NOTES : 

a. If the operating reserve fund is not included in either the variable or the fixed portions of the 0. M. & R. costs a separate Form 5 

will be required for the operating reserve fund. The applicable unit parameters for the operating reserve fund may be the same as 

for either the variable or the fixed portions of the 0. M. & R. costs. 

b. Administration costs can be either included with the variable or the fixed portions of the 0. M. & R. costs or calculated separately 

as a separate fi~nd. One method of allocation is to divide the total administrative cost by the total number of users (connections) 

and then multiply this unit cost by the number of users in each user group for the cost in Column (I).

FORM 5c Summary of Capital Replacement Fund Costs 



Municipality Date

FORM 5c: SUMMARY OF CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND COSTS 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To calculate the total costs for each user (user group) based on the capital replacement fund costs. 




listed. The municipality should decide if annual or design capacity and quantities will be used for the capital replacement fund. 

[See Note 3.a. below] 

c. For Columns (D), (F) & (H) (Unit Cost) place the unit cost developed on Form 4, Column (E), at the top of each column. The 

0 

I 

P 

h) 




3. NOTES: 

a. If the municipality uses design capacity and quantities in the capital replacement fund calculations the revenue from user fees 

alone will not generate sufficient revenue for full funding of this expense. Other revenue from standby charges, connection fees, 

etc. must be used to fully fund this cost.

FORM 5d Summary of Debt Service Fund Costs 

(Inslructions on back of page) 


Municipality Date

FORM 5d: SUMMARY OF DEBT SERVICE FUND COSTS 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To calculate the total costs for each user (user group) based on the debt service fund costs. 




listed. The municipality should decide if annual or design capacity and quantities will be used for the debt service fund. [See Note 

3 .a. below] 

0 

I c. For Columns (D), (F) & (H) (Unit Cost) place the unit cost developed on Form 4, Column (E), at the top of each column. The 

P 




3. NOTES: 

a. If the municipality uses design capacity and quantities in the debt service fund calculations the revenue from user fees alone will 

not generate sufficient revenue for full fhnding of the required debt service needed. Other revenue from standby charges, 

connection fees, etc. must be used to fully fund this cost.

FORM 5w: SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND COSTS 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To calculate the total costs for each user (user group) based on the wastewater capital reserve fund costs. 




listed. The municipality should decide if annual or design capacity and quantities will be used for the wastewater capital reserve 

fund. [See Note 3.a. below] 

0 

I c. For Columns (D), (F) & (H) (Unit Cost) place the unit cost developed on Form 4, Column (E), at the top of each column. The 

P 

0\ 




3. NOTES: 

a. If the municipality uses design capacity and quantities in the wastewater capital reserve fund calculations the revenue from user 

fees alone will not generate sufficient revenue for full funding of the fund. Other revenue from standby charges, connection fees, 

etc. must be used to fully fund this expense.

FORM 6 Summary of Total Annual Revenue Required 


(A) 

Number 

of 

Accounts 

(B) 


Su bTotals 

lnfiltrationlinflow 

Future Capacity 

TOTALS 

(C) 

Variable 

0. M. & R. 

Costs 

(Form 5v) 

(Dl 

Fixed 

0. M. & R. 

Costs 

(Form 59 

(E) 

Capital 

Replacement 

Fund Costs 

(Form 5c) 

(F) 

Debt 

Service 

Fund Costs 

(Form 5d) 

(GI 

Wastewater 

(H) 

Total Annual 

Capital Reserve Revenue 

Fund Costs Required 

(Form 5w) 

Sum (C) thru (G) 

(1) 

Average 

Annual 

Revenue 

(H) I (A) 

(J) 

Average 

Monthly 

Revenue 

(1) 1 12

FORM 6: SUMMARY OF TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To sum up individual fund costs from Forms 5v through 5w. 

2. TO COMPLETE THIS FORM: 

a. Columns (A) & (B) are the same as Form 1, Columns (A) & (B). 

b. Columns (C) through (G) -transfer appropriate fund costs from the appropriate Form 5, Column (I). 

c. Column (H) is a summatjon of Columns (C) through (G). 

d. Column (I) is the amount in Column (H) divided by the number of users in Column (A). 

e. Column (J) is the average payment required in each user group and is determined by dividing average annual revenue required in 

Column (I) by the number of billing periods in a year. 

3. NOTES: 

a. Use only those columns (C) through (G) applicable to your revenue program and the appropriate Form 5(s) used.

FORM 7 Rate Determination and Revenue Program Summary 

(mtructlons on DacK 01 page) 

Municipality Date

FORM 7 RATE DETERMINATION AND REVENUE PROGRAM SUMMARY 

1. PURPOSE: 

a. To show the proposed method for collecting the total annual revenue shown on Form 6, 

Column (I). The municipality must develop a user charge system that results in a 

distribution of costs which are reasonably proportional to each user's (user group) 

contribution to the costs of the wastewater treatment works. 

b. To show a summary of total revenues and total disbursements. 


a. Charge systems may include a combination of one or more of the following: 

1. Flat rates. 

2. Rates based on water consumption. 

3. Rates based on monitoring. 

4. Connection fees. 

5. Standby charges. 

6. Ad valorem taxes. [see 40 CFR 35.2140(b) for limitations] 

b,. The summary of total revenues and disbursements should include a complete breakdown 

of revenue sources and disbursements into the various fund structures. 

3. NOTES: 

a. SWRCB staff will review the wastewater user charge system to determine if the 

municipality will collect sufficient revenue to support adequate 0. M. & R. of the 

wastewater treatment works and if the users of the wastewater treatment works are 

charged in proportion to their actual use as required by 40 CFR 35.2140.

INDEX TO REVENUE PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

.................................. 

....................................... 

.................................... 

............................................ 

........................................ 

........................................ 

Wastewater capital reserve fund G . 4 

Accounting systems G . 8. G . 9 

Advalorem taxes G . 1. G .6. G- 7 

Administrative costs G . 7 

Allocation of costs G . 5. G . 6 

Ad valorem G . 6. G . 7 

Flowonly .............................................. G-6 

Annualrevenue ........................................ G-4 

Annual revenue requirements .................................... G . 3 

O.M.&R. ............................................. G-3 

Capital expenditures ............................................ G . 8 

Capital improvements .......................................... G . 6 

Capital reserve hnd ............................................ G . 1 

Capital revenue ......................................... G . 8, G . 10 

Changes ..................................................... G-9 

CleanWaterAct ............................................... G-1 

Commerziiil Eusers .............................................. G . 4 

Connection fees .............................................. G . 10 

Debt service ....................................... G .4, G .6. G . 10 

Dedicated source of revenue .................................... G . I I 

Deviations ................................................... G-1 

Discount ..................................................... G-5 

Enterprise fund ................................................ G . 8 

Expansion .................................................... G-3 

Expenseaccounts .............................................. G-8 

Flows and loadings ............................................ G . 4 

Implementation .......................................... G . 7. G . 9 

Individual systems ............................................ G . 10 

Industrial users ................................................ G . 5 

Infiltration ................................................... G-7 

Inflow ....................................................... G-7 

Institutional arrangement .................................. G . 9, G . 10 

Institutional users .............................................. G . 4 

Letterofintent ................................................ G-3 

Loaningoffunds ........................................ G-9 

Low income discount ...................................... G . 5, G . 6 

Low income users ............................................. G . 5 

Major rehabilitations ........................................... G . 3 

Minimum charge ............................................. G . 11 

NonO.M.&R. ............................................... G-6 

O.M.&R. .................................... G- lYG.2,G.5. G.7

Annualcosts ............................................ G-5 

Treatment parameters ..................................... G . 5 

Unit costs .............................................. G . 5 

User charge ............................................ G . 5 

Operating reserve .............................................. G . 4 

Operating reserve fund .......................................... G . 1 

Operation, maintenance, and replacement .......................... G . 1 

Outside municipalities ..................................... G . 5, G . 7 

Pre-existing agreements .................................... G . 2, G . 6 

Public notice ............................................. G . 3, G . 6 

Rebates ...................................................... G-7 

Regional treatment systems ...................................... G - 9 

Replacement .................................................. G-8 

Replacement costs ............................................. G - 3 

Residential users .............................................. G - 4 

Revenueprogram .............................................. G-1 

Revenue program forms ......................................... G - 2 

Reviewandapproval ........................................... G-9 

Section 204(b)(l) .............................................. G - 1 

Senior citizens ................................................ G -5 

Septage ...................................................... G-5 

Service charge revenue ......................................... G -8 

Sewer use ordinance ........................................... G - 11 

Standbycharges .............................................. G-10 

Submittals ............................................. G-1, G-10 

............................... 

.................................... 

.......................................... 

.................................. 

...................................... 

Dedicated source of revenuet G . 2 

Final revenue program G . 2 

Rate ordinance G . 2 

Revenue programs G . 1, G . 2 

Sewer use ordinance G . 2 

Surcharges ................................................... G-7 

System of charges ............................................. G . 1 

Taxexempt .................................................. G-7 

Toxics ...................................................... G-11 

Uniform system of accounts ..................................... G . 8 

Unitcosts .................................................... G-5 

User charge system .................................. G . 1, G . 8. G . 9 

Minimum charge ........................................ G . 1 

Users ....................................................... G-4 

WCRF ...................................................... G-4

Footnote No. 92

Footnote No. 94








(R-2004- 1293 REV.) 










Fees; and 

WHEREAS, the City proposes to change the rate structure [New Rate Structure] for its 











effective March 1,2002, March 1,2003, March 1,2004, and March 1,2005 [Prior Rate 



THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Diego that the City Council 









the system and to report back to the City Council no later than September 30,2004. 




KJS:pev 

05/25/04 

06/14/04 Rev. 


R-2004-1293

Footnote No. 100

Project Title: MBC Centrate Collection Upgrades 

CIP #: 45-982.0 

Council District: 7 

Budget: $2,929,489 (Project Total) 

Description: The project on the initial phase replaces the Foul Air Duct from FRP to 

Ductile Iron to handle the centrate during the final construction phase to 

upsize the centrate collection piping system. 

Justification: Per the MBC Capacity, Condition and Operation assessment Report and 

Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report - there is insufficient capacity 

of the centrate collection system. 

Schedule Milestones: 

Planning- Complete 

Design- From 0711 1 to 1211 2 

Construction- From 0911 3 to 0711 5

Project Title: 

CIP #: 

Council District: 

Budget: 

Description: 

Justification: 

Planning 

Design 

Construction 

Annual Allocation - Accelerated Projects 

46-206.0 

Citywide 

$2,224,973 (FY2008-2011) Rate Case 

$2,224,973 (FY2008-2017) 

This annual allocation provides for emergency and accelerated 

construction on the Municipal Sewer System. 

This annual allocation is necessary for emergency failures of the 

Municipal Sewer System and for replacement of sewer mains that 

are in imminent danger of failing. 

Schedule Milestones: Upon approval of the Sewer rate case in 

January 2007. The funding will be available for emergency and 

accelerated projects 

Start Date 

FY 2007 

FY 2007 

FY 2007 

Finish Date 

FY 2008 

FY 2008 

FY 2009

Project Title: Annual Allocation,- Sewer Main Replacements 

CIP #: 44-00 1 .O 

Council District: Citywide 

Budget: $140,85 1,400 (FY 2008-201 1) Rate Case 

$393,255,259 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: This annual allocation provides for replacing sewer mains at 

various locations within the City. 

Justification: Sewer main replacement due to deteriorated condition or 

insufficient capacity. 

Schedule Milestones: Upon approval of the Sewer rate case in January 2007. Sewer 

mains will be replaced in accordance with the Environmental 

Protection Act and the consent decree requirements. The goal is to 

replace 10 miles in FY 2009,20 miles annually FY 201 0-2012, 

and 10 miles in FY 2013-2017. 

Start Date 

Planning FY 2005 

Design FY 2005 

Construction FY 2008 

Finish Date 

FY 2017 

FY 2017 

FY 2017

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Sewer Pump Station Restorations 

CIP #: 46-106.0 


Budget: $7,997,374 (FY 2008-201 1) Rate Case 

$7,997,374 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: This annual allocation provides for replacing deteriorated pumping 

equipment and /or appurtenances. Project currently includes Pump 

Stations 1 8 Phase II,4 1, and 63. 

Justification: Upgrades to these pump stations are Consent Decree requirement. 

Schedule Milestones: Upon approval of the Sewer rate case in January 2007. We will 

complete the remaining pump stations in the City. 

Start Date 




Finish Date 

FY 2008 

FY 2008 

FY 2009

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Trunk Sewer Rehabilitations 

CIP #: 46-194.0 



$188,561,801 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: This annual allocation provides for replacing trunk sewer portions 

at various locations within the City. Project currently includes 

Penasquitos Views, Crown Point, Palm City, and Sunset Cliffs 

Trunk Sewers. 

Justification: Trunk Sewers requiring action are constructed based upon priority 

following assessment. 

Schedule Milestones: Upon approval of the Sewer rate case in January 2007. 

Numerous Trunk Sewers will be replaced in accordance with the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the consent decree dates. 

Start Date 




Finish Date 

FY 2017 

FY 2017 

FY 2017 

. .

Project Title: East Point Lorna Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 46-1 95.6 



Description: Replacement of existing 27" and 30" VC Trunk Sewer with 36", 

39", 8", lo", and 15" Pipe, in Cushing Road, between Barnett and 

Nimitz, (Former NTC property, now McMillan Development, 

"Liberty Station"). 

Justification: Replacement is capacity related and a Consent Decree 

requirement. 

Schedule Milestones: Start Date Finish Date 

Planning 02/00 10103 

Design 04/03 07/08 

Construction 07/08 0411 0

Project Title: Harbor Drive Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 46-205.0 



Description: Upgrade of portions of the Trunk Sewer with 15, 18,48 & 54 inch 

diameter pipe. Rehabilitation of approximately 4,600 ft and 

replacing in place of approximately 5,200 ft using open trench and 

tunneling. Construction of two siphons, Manholes and curb ramps. 

The scope also includes: Resurfacing, dewatering, traffic control, 

storm water pollution program, and disposal of contaminated soil. 

Justification: Segments of the pipeline are "Techite" a material that has a history 

of premature deterioration and failure and is a Consent Decree 

requirement. 

Schedule Milestones: Start Date 

Planning: 08/00 

Design: 02/02 

Construction: 02/12 

Finish Date 

12/02 

01/12 

11/13

Project Title: South Mission Valley Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 40-93 1 .O 

Council District: 2, 3,6,7 


Description: South Mission Valley Trunk Sewer Phase I includes installation of 

approximately 3,895 If of new trunk sewer and sewer mains in 

Taylor Street, Hotel Circle Place and two crossings under freeway 

1-8, ranging in size from 8-42 inches. The project also includes 

abandonment of approximately 21 00 If of trunk sewer and sewer 

mains in the San Diego River Valley, under freeway 1-8 and along 

Hotel Circle Place. 

Justification: Replacement is capacity related and a Consent Decree 

requirement. 


Planning 3/00 - 3/02 

Design 3/02 - 6/05,2/08 - 11/08 

Construction 1 1/08 - 511 0

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Developer Projects 

CIP #: 45-975.0 



$6,492,903 (FY 2008-20 17) 

Description: This project consists of coordinated pipeline replacements and upgrades in 

conjunction with private developers where required upgrades have already 

been identified. 

Justification: To reduce impacts to newly constructed facilities Participation 

Agreements are entered into with developers where the city pays its fair 

share of an identified and required upgrade. This is done as the most 

expedient and cost effective method to accomplish the work. 


Planning: Ongoing 

Design: Ongoing 

Construction: Ongoing

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Muni Facilities Control System Upgrade 

CIP #: New 

Council District: 1, 5 

Budget: $749,858 (FY 2008-201 1) Rate Case 

$1,529,709 (FY 2008-201 7) 

Description: In 1994, Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) contracted with 

Emerson Process Management Power and Water Solutions, Inc. 

("Emerson Process Management, Inc." or "Emerson") to provide a 

Distributed Control System (DCS) that automates wastewater treatment 

plant processes throughout Metropolitan Wastewater facilities. The DCS 

system is a microprocessor and computer based industrial control system 

with controlling units spread throughout the facilities. These control units 

are linked with electronic data highways for communication with the 

control room and with the central operations and management center 

(COMC). The COMC is located at the Metropolitan Operations Center I1 

(MOCII). The total cost of this complete system for all Metropolitan 

Wastewater facilities was $120 Millions. In the later phase of this project, 

Metro facilities such as Southbay, Pump Station 1, Pump Station 2 were 

installed with the latest and more capacity oriented DCS system or the 

latest version from Emerson. However the Muni facilities such as 

Penesquitos pump station (PPS), Pump station 64 (PS64) had the original 

WDPF DCS system installed from Emerson. This project accommodates 

the installation of the latest version of the DCS system from Emerson at 

these later facilities. 

Justification: The DCS system installed at Muni Facilities ( PS64, PPS ) is a 

Westinghouse Distributed Processing Family I1 (WDPFII) system with a 

ten to twelve year life cycle. The system and the network at these facilities 

are at almost full capacity. There are some existing localized control 

systems that are old and in need of replacement. These are planned to be 

brought into the plant DCS system. The existing system cannot handle 

these additions. This upgrade will extend the life of the system for another 

ten to twelve years, and will be able to accommodate all of the existing 

loads and the new loads as discussed above 


Planning: Start 07/20 1 0 

Design: Start 10120 10 

Construction: Start 12/20 10 Completion: 06/20 12

Project Title: Annual Allocation - MWWD Trunk Sewers 

CIP #: 40-933.0 



$36,669,320 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: This project consists of the ongoing replacement or relocation of various 

pipelines many identified as accelerated projects: 

1) 7th & BROOKS 

CIP #: 40-934.2 


Description: This project will replace approximately 400 linear feet of 6-inch 

and 8-inch sewer located in an ephemeral stream bed in a canyon. 

Justification: Due to sewer overflows at this project location, this work is 

necessary to prevent future sewer overflows. 


Planning: Completed 

Design: Completed 

Construction: Start 512007 

2) Dakota Canyon Emergency Project 

CIP #: 46-6 1 1 .O 


Description: This project consists of replacement and rehabilitation of 

approximately 1,100 feet of 8-inch vitrified clay sewer pipe 

damaged by erosion at the bottom of Dakota canyon. 

Justification: Due to sewer overflows at this project location, this work is 

necessary to prevent future sewer overflows. 





3) Middletown Emergency Sewer Project 

CIP #: 46-6 1 1.4 


Description: This project will replace 450 feet of sewer main at the airport.

Justification: This work is necessary because the sewer is not accessible for 

maintenance. 





4) Sumac Drive & Juniper Street 

CIP #: 40-934.0 


Description: This project will replace approximately 2,200 ft at Sumac Drive 

and Juniper Street. 

Justification: This is a perpetual high frequency maintenance site with high 

potential for overflow. 




Construction: Start 812007

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Pipeline Rehabilitation 

CIP #: 46-050.0 


Budget: $1 05,184,822 (FY2008-2011) Rate Case 

$226,548,788 (FY2008-2017) 

Description: This project consists of the trenchless rehabilitation of deteriorating sewer 

pipelines and manholes; 20 miles in FY07,30 miles in FY08,35 miles in 

FY09,25 miles annually FY 10-1 3. This is an on-going program. 

Justification: Consent Decree requirement. 





PROJECT TITLE: Annual Allocation - Pump Station 64,65, Penasquitos and 

East Mission Gorge 

CIP #: 41-927.0 



$4,344,020 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: The Annual Allocation provides for comprehensive upgrades, design 

modifications and major/minor renovation or replacement of facilities due 

to increases in wastewater flow, regulatory changes, or asset depletion. 

The following is a list of known projects: 

1) MUNI BS SECURITY / CAMERA / LIGHTING / FENCING I 

CIP # 41-935.8 


Description: This project will upgrade the existing CCTV security systems at 

PS 64, PS 65, Penasquitos PS and East Mission Gorge as well as 

adding additional lighting and improving the perimeter fencing. 

Justification: Improve the security of the pump stations 



Design: Completed for PS-64 

Construction: FY 2007, PS-64 only 

2) PS 65 CAPACITY 

CIP # To Be Determined 


3) 

Description: This project will add an additional 600 hp pump and motor 

Justification: This project will increase the capacity and reliability of the pump 

station. BCE currently in progress. 


Planning: FY 2007 

Design: FY 2008 

Construction: FY 2008 

PENASQUITOS REPLACE IMPELLERS WITH 2 VANE IMPELLER 

CIP # To Be Determined 

Council District: 5

Description: Replace existing 3 vane impellers with 2 vane impeller. 

Justification: Resolve a serious construction flow that allowed the pump station 

pump to continuously vibrate well above acceptable range. 

Reference: Penasquitos Pump Station Master Plan and 2 Vain Impeller Study. 

Successful test results now being documented. 


Planning: June 2007 

Design: Complete 

Construction: FY 2007-FY 2008

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Unscheduled Projects 

CIP #: 46-505.0 



$12,985,806 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: This annual allocation provides for repair and replacement of sewers in 

need of emergency or unscheduled repairs. 

Justification: This project will provide for emergency repairs and replacement of sewer 

pipeline by City forces, to avoid failures of the Municipal Sewer System. 





Project Title: Balboa Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 46-196.6 


Budget: $1 1,942,780 (Project Total) 

Description: This project consists of replacing 1,600 ft of existing 15-in pipe with new 

24-in pipe, constructing 5,000 ft of new 18-in pipe, and replacing 800 ft of 

existing 12-in pipe with new 8-in pipe due to flow capacity issues. 



Planning: 


Construction: Start 4/09 Complete 1011 0

Project Title: East Mission Gorge Force Main Rehabilitations 

CIP # 46-169.0 



Description: This project will line sections of the Force main that are exposed to 

corrosive gases. CCTV inspection has determined that these sections are 

substantially deteriorated due to corrosion. 

Justification: To prevent a catastrophic failure of the force main due to 

corrosion. Pre-Design Report for the Rehabilitation of the East Mission 

Gorge Force Main, HDR February 2004 


Design Completed 

Construction FY 201 1 - 2012 (This project is being reviewed to see if project funding 

could be moved up to FY 2008.)

Project Title: Lake Murray in Canyon Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 46-197.9 



Description: This project consists of replacing the existing 3.0-mile long 12-inch to 18- 

inch vitrified clay trunk sewer with a new larger 18-inch to 27-inch trunk 

sewer due to capacity related issues. 



Planning: 


Construction: Start 8/09, Complete 411 0

Project Title: Miramar Road Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 46-195.8 

Council District: 1,7 


Description: This project consists of replacing 5,500 feet of existing 15-inch pipeline 

with new 21 -inch pipeline in Rose Canyon. The sewer replacement will 

be completed within the same alignment, and begins from approximately 

1,500 feet east of 1-805 and ends near Genesee Avenue. 



Planning: 

Design: 

Construction: Start 4/07, Complete 1 1/07

Project Title: Montezuma Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 46-196.9 



Description: This project consists of replacing 7,740 feet of existing varying diameters 

of 12, 15,21, and 27 inches with pipes of 15, 18, and 21 inches in 

diameter. Portions are also a relocation out of an environmentally 

sensitive area. 



Planning: 


Construction: Start 811 0 Complete 811 1

Project Title: Otay Mesa Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 40-930.0 



Description: This project will provide service to future wastewater flows generated 

within the Otay Mesa area. This project consists of approx. 3.7 miles 

gravity trunk sewer to service the Otay Mesa area. 

Justification: In order to provide adequate sewage conveyance capacity and 

accommodate further growth in the Otay Mesa community, the City 

Council approved a participation agreement with Pardee to provide design 

services for the Otay Mesa Trunk Sewer (OMTS), Phase 11, on December 

3,2001, Resolution No. 2958 16. To avoid excavating newly constructed 

road improvements at a new subdivision construction was accelerated for 

a portion of a OMTS Phase 11, designated as 2A1 and 2A2, along with the 

design of 2B1. This action was authorized by Council Resolution No. RR- 

298803 on January 20,2004. In addition, the City entered into an 

agreement with Caltrans to construct the portions of the trunk sewer that 

cross under the SR-905 freeway. The construction of 2A1 and 2A2 has 

been completed. The construction of 2B 1 is scheduled pending continued 

development. Caltrans has scheduled SR-905 construction to begin in 

2007. 


Planning: 


Construction: Start 7/08 Complete 12/09

Project Title: PS 64 Electrical Upgrades 

CIP # 41-936.0 


Budget: $239,200 (Project Total) 

Description: This project will replace the automatic transfer switch and distribution 

switchboard A with a more reliable and EPA code compliant double- 

ended (two-electrical supplies) switchgear bus. 

Justification: This project will improve station code compliance and reliability 



I Design: Ongoing 

Construction: FY 2007 - 2008

Project Title: Pump Station 84 Upgrade & Pump Station 62 Abandonment 

CIP #: 41-939.0 



Description: A pre-design report has been prepared and submitted by HDR 

recommending to upgrade the SPS 84 plus the gravity sewer and 

sewer mains improvements. HDR has recommended that it is 

economically advantageous to abandon SPS 62 and upgrade 84. 

BCE will be performed to evaluate SPS 62 abandonment vs. 

upgrade. 

Justification: Consent Decree requirement. . ~. . 7 . , . 


Planning: March, 2005 

Design: To be determined 

Construction: To be determined

Project Title: Sewer Pump Station 79 

CIP #: 46-602.6 



Description: This project consists of the construction of 8,400 feet of 12-inch forcemain 

and upgrade of the existing pump station pumps and electrical equipment. 

The pump station is currently under capacity for the existing flows. 



Planning: 

Design: Start 3/07 Complete 7/07 

Construction: Start 10107 Complete 6/08

Project Title: USIU Trunk Sewer 

CIP #: 46-197.6 



Description: This project consists of replacing the 2.2-mile long, 12-inch to 15-inch 

diameter existing trunk sewer with a new, larger 18-inch to 24-inch trunk 

sewer. 1,450 feet have already been installed in conjunction with school 

district construction. 



Planning: 


Construction: Start 811 0 Complete 811 1

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Pt. Lorna Treatment Plant & Related Facilities 

CIP #: 46-1 19.0 



$12,638,935 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: The Annual Allocation provides for minor renovation and upgrades of 

equipment at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and its related 

facilities. The following is a list of known projects: 

1) PT. LOMA 84-INCH PENSTOCK SEISMIC RETROFIT AND 

INTERIOR LINING 

CIP# 46-193.0 

Description: Phase 1 will install steel bracing along with concrete anchors to 

structurally secure the onshore outfall penstock piping and 

protect it against seismic events. Phase 2 will install additional 

lining inside the penstock piping to protect it against corrosion. 

Justification: The penstock is located in north effluent conveyance system at 

the plant. It was installed in 1963 under older seismic design 

standards. These improvements are needed to more safely secure 

the penstock and protect it again corrosion. 


Planning: Completed in February 2004 

Design: Completed in July 2004 

Construction: Start in June 2007 

2) PT. LOMA SOUTH USE AREAS 

CIP# 46-199.2 

Description: This project will provide for the improvements from the plant 

entrance to Digester 8. The improvements will provide a staging 

area for digester cleaning operations and install erosion 

protection landscaping. 

Justification: Contracted digester cleaning is staged in the project area 

bi-annually and requires the installation of a temporary pavement 

each time. The project area also is not protected against erosion 

and requires the installation of temporary erosion control 

facilities. This project will provide future cost savings with the 

installation of permanent facilities for the cleaning operation and 

erosion protection. 

Schedule Milestones:

Planning: Completed in 2005 

Design: Completed in November 2006 

Construction: Start in May 2007

Project Title: Point Lorna - Grit Processing Improvements 

CIP #: 45-943.0 



Description: The Grit Processing Improvements project will include reconstruction of the 

old south grit tanks and their adjacent pump gallery, replacement of the 

headworks building that was constructed in 1962 with a new drive-through 

facility, expansion of an existing odor removal system and replacement of 

auxiliary equipment. 

Justification: Only four of six aerated grit basins are in operation at the treatment plant 

and existing grit removal equipment does not remove the finer non-organic 

materials. The material that is not removed leads to wear of equipment 

downstream and additional costs to remove that material from those 

facilities. This project will provide for more efficient removal of the grit 

material. 


Planning: 

Design: May 2003 

Construction: Postponed due to potential conflicts with the potential Biological Aerated 

Filters (BAF) project. The delay in the GIP project is to prevent having to 

demolish the new grit building if a certain BAF alternative is determined 

to be the best alternative.

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Metro Biosolids Center 

CIP #: 42-9 13 .O 



$8,183,581 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: The Annual Allocation provides for minor renovation or replacement of 

facilities due to increases in wastewater flow, regulatory changes, or asset 

depletion. The following is a list of known projects: 

1) LIME MIXER BYPASSIEMERGENCY TRUCK LOADOUT STATION 

CIP #: 42-9 16.2 

Description: This project has 2 phases. Phase 1 consists of the Emergency 

Truck Load-out Station which provides manually- operated 

emergency load-out capability by extending existing pipelines 

directly from the biosolid storage silos to the truck load-out area. 

Phase 2 consists of the Lime Mixer By-pass which will construct 

by-pass piping around each lime mixer. 

Justification: Per the MBC Capacity, Condition and Operation assessment 

Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report: Phase 1 

during maintenance or outage of the existing loadout system (one 

or both) short landfill operating hours, combined with odor control 

issue related to on-site storage of loaded truck, have reduced 

loadout capacity to the point that operating just one of the two 

loadouts will not meet production demands. Phase 2 Lime mixers 

plug frequently and limit cake feed to loadout bins. 


Planning: Complete 


Construction: From 11/06 to 09/07 

2) CHEMICAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE I) 

CIP #: 42-91 6.9 

Description: This project is to relocate motorized valves and electrical conduits 

and wirings in the spill containment areas of the Caustic Soda and 

Sodium Hypochlorite storage and feed piping systems to avoid 

submergence. Congested piping valves and electrical conduits in 

the spill areas are in also violation of OSHA safety requirements. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, motorized 

pump isolation and routing valves subject to damage by chemical 

flooding. Valves are inaccessible for repair.


Planning: From 10106 to 02/07 

Design: From 01/07 to 06/07 


3) BLENDING TANKS BYPASS - This project is to install bypass piping around 

screens and blending tanks and install new pumps to allow direct pumping from 

the thickened sludge wet wells to the Digesters. 

CIP #: 42-916.6 

Description: This project is to install bypass piping around screens and blending , 

tanks and install new pumps to allow direct pumping from the , . 

thickened sludge wet wells to the Digesters. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, the existing 

sludge screens are not in service. Intermittent operation of the 

thickened sludge transfer pumps configuration caused operational 

problems and would result in high wear and damage to screens. 

Digested biosolids feed pumps are under capacity. Digested 

biosolids reverse flows cause spills at the blending tanks. 




Construction: From 01/08 to 10108 

4) ACCESS ROAD SURFACE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 

CIP #: 42-91 7.0 

Description: This project is to construct drainage improvements to intercept and 

re-direct the storm water away from the access road. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, there is 

erosion in the existing access road caused by poor CALTRANS 

drainage. 




Construction: From 05/07 to 12/07

5) PROCESS WATER ISOLATION VALVES 

CIP #: 42-91 6.7 

Description: This project is to install isolation valves on the process water 

piping system to allow the system to stay on-line during repairs. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, the existing 

process water system is missing general isolation valves 

throughout water systems to isolate piping sections for 

repairlmaintenance. 

_ Schedule Milestones: 

Planning: Complete ,I# 


Construction: From 0 1/07 to 09/07 

6) CENTRATE PIPE ACCESS PORTS 

CIP #: 42-916.8 

Description: This project is to install access ports to provide access for 

inspection, flushing and draining of the 36-inch centrate pipeline 

and will prevent potential centrate backups at the dewatering and 

thickening centrifuges. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, in the 

existing 36-inch diameter main centrate (CN) collection header in 

the pipe gallery scale build-up due to the centrate's high pH is 

suspected. With no access means into this 36-inch pipe, its 

condition has not been verified nor can it be addressed. In addition, 

the 36-inch CN header has very minimal slope which limits flow 

capacity and is conducive to solids settling. There is no provision 

for flushingldraining this CN main. 





7) CENTRATE FORCEMAIN UPGRADE 

CIP #: 42-9 13 .O 

Description: This project provides the installation of a descaling chemical 

system and a bypass connection to the raw sludge forcemain at 

NCWRP to allow flushing of the centrate forcemain.


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, the high 

pressures due to scale buildup in the pipe result in low capacity of 

centrate pumps. 


Planning: From 12/06 to 05/07 



8) DIGESTER INFLOW SURGES 

CIP #: 42-913.0 

Description: This project will investigate the cause of unstable flows from the 

PLWTP which has caused biogas to be vented from the digested 

biosolids storage tanks. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, PLWTP 

inflow surges cause Biosolids Storage Tanks to vent gas causing 

APCD violation and damage electrical equipment. 





9) CAKE BINS LEVEL SENSOR FLUSHING SYSTEM 

CIP #: 42-91 3 .O 

Description: The installation of a water spray system to clean the level sensors 

will provide accurate hopper level readings and eliminate irregular 

cake pumping operations. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report the cake 

pump has erratic operation due to short cake bins resulting in 

increased pump maintenance. 





10) RAW SOLIDS TANKS ISOLATION VALVES 

CIP #: 42-913.0 

Description: The installation of isolation valves will prevent the emptying of a 

tank in the event that the connector ruptures during a seismic or 

abnormal hydraulic event. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report the lack of 

tank isolation valves can result in spill. 





11) WASTEWATER PUMP STATION BACK-UP POWER - This project will 

install a small emergency generator to provide back-up power to two of three 15- 

hp pumps of the Wastewater Pump Station. 

CIP #: 42-913.0 

Description: This project will install a small emergency generator to provide 

back-up power to the two existing 15-hp pumps of the Wastewater 

Pump Station. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, there is no 

back-up power to any pumps in Area 94. Power outages, either 

planned or unplanned, can result in on-site sewage spills and can 

flood the dry well andlor overflow into the centrate wet well. 



Design: From 07/07 to 0 1/08 

Construction: From 05/08 to 1 1/08 

12) DEWATERED BIOSOLIDS STORAGE & LOADING AHU PIPING 

MODIFICATIONS 

CIP #: 42-91 3 .O 

Description: This project will reroute the piping, relocate valves, and will 

provide condensate drain pans to existing air handling unit. 


Report and Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, the existing

chilled water piping and/or valves leak which can damage MCC 

room equipment. 





Project Title: Annual Allocation - Metro Operations Center 

CIP #: 45-956.0 



$1,535,036 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: This annual allocation provides for minor renovations or upgrades to the 

Metropolitan Operations Center (MOC) facilities. The MOC facilities are 

used to house Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) 

employees, as well as to provide warehouse and storage space for MWWD 

assets and vehicles. Projects are identified and scheduled on a priority 

basis. An upgrade to the air conditioning system serving the computer 

room is anticipated to be installed in the near future (CIP #45-956.2). 

Justification: To allow for renovationlupgrade to the various facilities that comprise the 

MOC. 


Planning: On going 

Design: As needed 

Construction: As needed

Project Title: Annual Allocation - Metropolitan System Pump Stations 

CIP #: 41-926.0 



$4,466,275 (FY 2008-20 17) 

Description: The Annual Allocation provides for comprehensive upgrades, design 

modifications and majorlminor renovation or replacement of facilities due to increases in 

wastewater flow, regulatory changes, or asset depletion. The following is a list of known 

projects: 

1) 

2) 

PS2 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 

CIP # 41-929.2 


Description: This project will replace the 4.16kV switchgear, starters and cable 

due to age, condition, obsolescent. It will also replace the existing 

generator with one large enough to handle all identified emergency 

auxiliary loads ( 500 kVA). 

Justification: The project will provide sufficient redundancy of power to the . 

pumps and will provide for a future additional 4" power feed to the 

station to comply with EPA requirements of two sources of 

electrical power and provides new, safer and more automatic 

transfers of the loads to the emergency distribution bus. 



Design: 7107- 10107 

Construction: 4108-1 0108 

PSI ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 

CIP # 41-929.2 


Description: Installing an automatic transfer system to automatically switch the 

available active electrical feed to the motor control centers. 

Justification: An automatic transfer switch provides additional safety for the 

plant operating staff by avoiding personal contact with the medium 

voltage switchgear systems, and by reducing the probability of 

human error in the switching process. A direct connection between 

MCC-1 and MCC-2 will be added, thereby removing potential 

single points of failure between the MCC's and the 4.1 6-kVl480-V 

transformers and improving code compliance.

3) 

4) 

5) 



Design: 7107- 10107 

Construction: 4108- 10/08 

PUMP STATION 1 SCREENING CHAMBER IMPROVEMENTS 

CIP # 41-929.9 


Description: This project will replace the existing fire damaged and spaulling 

liner in the PS 1 Screening room channel areas and wet wells. 

Justification: The new liner will protect the concrete from deterioration and 

provide protection to the pumps from the spaulled lining. 




Construction: 4107- 10107 * 

METRO PS SECURITY / CAMERA / LIGHTING / FENCING 

CIP # 41-931.1 


Description: This project will upgrade the existing CCTV security systems at 

the large Metro Pump stations. Otay River Pump Station upgrades 

were completed in FY 06. PS 1 and 2 are currently being upgraded 

and will be completed in FY 07. Grove Avenue Pump Station 

upgrades are planned for FY 08. Additional lighting and improving 

of perimeter fencing might be required at all pump stations. 

Justification: Improve the security of the pump stations. 



Design: On going 

Construction: On going 

PS 1 FORCE MAIN VENT REPLACEMENT PROJECT 

CIP #: 41 -926.0 


Description: Replace the exiting 6" APCO air release valve on the top of the 

force main with a combination air releaselvacuum relief valves 

(CARVRV) to be installed at the spring line or center line on both 

station headers to protect against transient pressures. Dual 6-inch

CARVRV type RGX manufactured by Vent-0-Mat should be 

provided on each station header. These valves will provide more 

reliable and redundant force main protection. The two valves will 

provide protection for the pipeline, allowing one valve to be out of 

service due to either malfunction or for maintenance 

Justification: Provide better transient pressures protection for the pipeline. 

Reference: Brown Caldwell July 29,2002 surge analysis for PS 1 



Design: To Be Determined 

Construction: To Be Determined , 

6) PS 1 SCREENS REPLACEMENT 

CIP #:41-926.0 


7) 

Description: Replace the screens at PSI with more reliable climber rake type 

screens. Part of the screening project,. the conveyor belt carrying 

screenings to a trash bin and the trash bin itself will be enclosed 

and ventilated to the odor control system. 

Justification: A screening study was completed by B&C in June 2003 for all 

major MWWD pump stations. It recommends a consistent plan for 

the use of screens in system pump stations and to minimize 

maintenance needs. 

Reference: Preliminary Design Report for Large Pump Station Screen 

Modification Projects, Brown Caldwell October, 2003 




Construction FY 20 1 9 

PS 1 & 2 SPILL CONTAINMENT 

CIP # 41-930.8 

Council District: 2 and 8 

Description: 

PS 1 - Install 30 feet of asphalt berm along the East end of the North edge of the 

site. This will assure larger spills can be contained on site and directed into the 

wet well. To avoid ponding minor resurfacing is also recommended.

PS 2 - Install paving in the most northeast comer of the station to minimize or 

prevent the discharge of chemicals to the ground surface. Also construct a 

removable swale dam two feet in front of the catch basin at the southwest corner 

of the site and replace 25 feet of 1 0-inch drain pipe with an 18-inch pipe 

Justification: Provide protection against minor spills and prevent discharge to 

the storm drain system. 

Reference: Business Case Evaluation Project: for the Spill Containment at the 

Large Pump Stations dated September 2006. 



Design To Be Determined 

Construction To Be Determined

Project Title: Annual Allocation - North City Water Reclamation Plant 

CIP #: 42-926.0 



$1,859,888 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: The Annual Allocation provides for minor renovation or replacement of 

facilities due to increases in wastewater flow, regulatory changes, or asset 

depletion. The following is a list of known projects: 

1) Grit Piping Y-access Ports 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will entail the installation of Y-access ports (cleaning . 

ports) to improve pipe cleaning. 

Justification: Due to the adhesive nature of grit, it tends to plug and obstruct the 

existing 4-inch discharge piping of the grit pumps. Currently there 

are no access ports on the grit piping to allow flushing to take 

place. 


Planning: 04108-07108 

Design: 08108-03109 

Construction: 03109-06/09 

2) Butterfly Valve Upgrade 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project is to upgrade the 24-inch butterfly valve to 48-inch. 

Justification: The existing 24-inch is incapable of carrying the projected 2010 

reclaimed water flow of 15 mgd. 


Planning: 0611 0-0711 0 

Design: 8110-12110 

Construction: 0311 1-64 1 

3) IPS Bridge Crane Modifications 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will entail modifications to the existing bridge crane 

system to allow servicing of equipment without disassembling the 

motor and the pump shaft.

Justification: Servicing of valves and other equipment is very labor intensive due 

to the fact that the shaft and motor assembly would need to be 

disassembled every time other equipment fail. 


Planning: 07108-09108 

Design: 09108-12/08 


4) Primary Sedimentation Tank Foul Air Modifications 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will entail ducting modifications so that the foul air 

from the equalization tanks will by-pass the influent channel and 

discharge directly into the front end of the Primary sedimentation 

tank. The foul air will be routed through 24-inch foul air duct 

installed directly above the PST. 

Justification: Currently, due to small opening at the influent channel most of the 

foul air is not conveyed from equalization tanks to the primary 

sedimentation tanks as intended. Instead it remains stagnant at the 

influent channel and causes odorous air to be released out to the 

atmosphere through the gaps of the channel covers. 


Planning: 5/06-6106 

Design: 6106- 12/06 

Construction: 03/07-7107 

5) Headworks Influent Channel Modifications 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will investigate alternative methods to increase 

velocity through the influent channel to prevent the accumulation 

of grit. 

Justification: Due to the large channels, the velocity of the flow is very low 

which results in grit settlement in the channels before and after the 

screens. The maintenance staff has observed that an average 2-3 

feet of grit accumulates and must be manually removed on a 

regular basis. 



Design: 8107- 1 0107 

Construction: 10107-6/08

6) Headworks Scum Concentrators 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will evaluate different methods to prevent scum from 

adhering to the scum storage tanks. 

Justification: Due the adhesion of the, scum to the storage tanks, scum pumping 

process is hampered, requiring the operation staff to manually 

flush the scum tanks. 


Planning: 0711 0-0811 0 

Design: 8110-12110 


7) Primary Sedimentation Tank Odor Control System 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will entail a study to determine the improved capacity 

needed of the odor control system. 

Justification: Field data shows that Hydrogen Sulfide concentration in the 

collected foul air has been much higher than the design capacity. 

Therefore, a study is needed to determine the new capacity 

required. 


Planning: 08108-010108 

Design: 10108-4109 


8) Primary Influent Channel Scum Removal 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will address the restrictive openings between the 

Primary Sedimentation Tank and the Primary Influent Channel. 

Justification: Due to the restrictive openings, a significant amount of scum has 

been accumulating and solidifying in the primary influent channel. 

With the current accessibility problems, it is very difficult for the 

operation staff to maintain and clean the channel. 


Planning: 07108-0 12108 

Design: 12108-3/09 

Construction: 06109-1 0109

9) Scum Spray Valve replacement 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project is to remove corroded and hard-to access motorized 

scum spray valves from inside the tanks, reroute spray water 

piping and install new motorized valves on top of the tanks for 

easy OIM access. 

Justification: The current location of the scum spray valves inside the PST 

makes difficult to maintain. Also due to the harsh environment 

equipment seems to corrode faster thus requiring more frequent 

replacement or maintenance. 



Design: 6106- 12/06 

Construction: 0 1/07-7107 

10) IPS Wetwell Stop hgs 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will investigate methods to isolate the influent draft 

tube channel so maintenance on the stop log channels can be performed. 

Justification: Since the current stop logs do not seat properly it is very difficult 

to perform "dry" servicing of a pump check valves. 


Planning: 07107- 1 0107 

Design: 1 0107- 12107 

Construction: 12107-06108 

1 1) IPS Draft Tube Sump Pump 

CIP #: 42-926.0 

Description: This project will entail upgrade of the Draft Tube Sump Pumps on 

the North City Influent Pump Station. 

Justification: The Sump pumps fail on regular basis, thus requiring 

maintenancelreplacement . 


Planning: 07108- 10108 

Design: 10108-1 1108 

Construction: 12108-06109

Project Title: Annual Allocation - South Bay Water Reclamation Plant 

CIP #: 45-932.0 



$2,73 1,228 (FY 2008-20 17) 

Description: The Annual Allocation provides for minor renovation and upgrades of 

equipment at the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The following is a list of known 

projects: 

1) Third Reclaimed Water Pump, Motor and VPD 

CIP #: 42-932.7 

Description: The project will install a third 600 MP pump, motor and electrical 

variable frequency drive. 

Justification: A third pump is needed to provide full redundancy for the 

committed supply of reclaimed water. 


Planning: May 2006 

Design: November 2006 

Construction: May 2007 

2) Telemetry Work 

CIP #: 42-932.0 

Description: This project includes the installation of telemetry equipment at the 

Otay Water District 12 MG reclaimed water tank and the SBWRP. 

The automated controls at the SBWRP reclaimed water pump 

station will be modified as part of this project. 

Justification: The project is needed to receive water level information from the 

Otay Water District tank and incorporate that information into the 

control strategies for the pump station controls. 


Planning: March 2006 

Design: June 2006 

Construction: December 2006 

3) Reclaimed Water Drain Line 

CIP #: 42-192.7 

Description: This project is in preliminary design. A possible project would 

construct 8-inch pipeline from the existing reclaimed water line to

the International Boundary and Water Commission Treatment 

Plant (IBWC) and connect it to the South Bay Outfall system. 

Justification: During times when the reclaimed water stored in the 750,000 

gallon reclaimed water tank does not meet the full permit 

requirements, the drain line is needed to quickly drain the tank and 

allow for the resumption of reclaimed water supply to the IBWC 

plant. 


Planning: January 2007 

Design: March 2007 

Construction: November 2007 

4 .

Project Title: Environmental Monitoring & Tech. Services Lab Boat Dock 

CIP #: 45-965.0 



Description: Boat dock to provide mooring for two ocean monitoring vessels in support 

of the Environmental Monitoring and Technical Services Laboratory 

Justification: A new 40,000 square foot ocean monitoring laboratory was recently 

constructed and is now in operation. As a condition of our NPDES 

Permit, MWWD is required to conduct daily ocean monitory activities 

associated with the two outfalls. MWWD has two vessels used for this 

purpose that need to be docked adjacent to the facility to transport samples 

and equipment. Design of this facility was completed during the design of 

the laboratory facility, but will require updating as a result of new vessels 

and coordination with the San Diego State University Foundation 

laboratory. Bathometric surveys in the adjacent channel have been 

completed to assist in the final design of the dock, but will require 

updating as well. 



Design: 90% complete; final design to be completed before end of FY06 

Construction: Anticipated in FY07

Project Title: Metro Facilities Control System Upgrade 

CIP #: 45-966.0 

Council District: 1, 2, 5, 7 

Budget: $1 1,129,150 (FY 2008-20 1 1) Rate Case 

$13,205,547 (FY 2008-2017) 

Description: In 1994, Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) contracted with 

Emerson Process Management Power and Water Solutions, Inc. 

(('Emerson Process Management, Inc." or "Emerson") to provide a 

Distributed Control System (DCS) that automates wastewater treatment 

plant processes throughout Metropolitan Wastewater facilities. The DCS 

system is a microprocessor and computer based industrial control system 

with controlling units spread throughout the facilities. These control units . I 

are linked with electronic data highways for communication with the 

control room and with the central operations and management center 

(COMC). The COMC is located at the Metropolitan Operations Center I1 

(MOCII). The total cost of this complete system for all Metropolitan 

Wastewater facilities was $120 Millions. In the later phase of this project, 

Metro facilities such as South Bay, Pump Station 1, Pump Station 2 were 

installed with the latest and more capacity oriented DCS system or the 

latest version from Emerson. However the Metro facilities such as MBC, 

NC, Pt. Loma had the original WDPF DCS system installed from 

Emerson. This project accommodates the installation of the latest version 

of the DCS system fi-om Emerson at these later facilities. 

Justification: The DCS system installed at Metro Facilities (MBC, NC, Pt. Loma) is a 

Westinghouse Distributed Processing Family I1 (WDPFII) system with a 

ten to twelve year life cycle. The system and the network at these facilities 

are at almost full capacity. There are some existing localized control 

systems that are old and in need of replacement. These are planned to be 

brought into the plant DCS system. There are new CIP projects in the 

current budget that also need to be implemented into the DCS system. The 

existing system cannot handle these additions. This upgrade will extend 

the life of the system for another ten to twelve years, and will be able to 

accommodate all of the existing loads and the new projects discussed 

above 


Planning: Start 11/06 

Design: Start 03/07 

Construction: Start 07/07 Completion: 06/20 10 

, _

Project Title: MBC Biosolids Storage Silos 

CIP #: 45-984.0 



Description: The project will add two more storage silos and will also evaluate 

alternatives for additional truck loadout stations. 


Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report there is insufficient storage 

capacity particularly during peak conditions. 


,Planning: From 10106 to 09/07 

Design: From 10107 to 12/08 

construction: From 09/09 to 0111 1

Project Title: MBC Dewatering Centrifuges Replacement 

CIP #: 45-983.0 


Budget: $5,084,8 15 (Project Total) 

Description: The project will replace 4 of the 8 existing centrifuges with 4 new and 

larger capacity centrifuge units. 


Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report there is capacity limitations 

due to designloperational constraints. 


Planning: From 10106 to 09/07 


Construction: From 0911 0 to 0211 3

Project Title: MBC Odor Control Facility Upgrades 

CIP #: 45-989.0 



Description: This project will upgrade the existing Odor Control System. 


Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report the equipment is 

underperformance, not enough capacities, inadequate exhaust capture, 

safety and permit issues, and potential APCD violations. 




Construction: From 02/09 to 0211 0

Project Title: MBC Standby Centrifuge Feed Facilities 

CIP #: 45-98 1 .O 



Description: This project will provide for the addition of two standby centrifuge feed 

pumps and two standby polymer feed pumps. One set (consisting of a 

sludge pump and a polymer pump) will be dedicated to each of the two 

sets of 4-unit dewatering centrifuges to provide redundancy capability. 


Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report the equipment is 

underperformance, redundancy problem as the stand by centrifuge feed 

pump and polymer feed pump are not always available. 



Design: From 09/07 to 1 1/08 


Project Title: MBC Storm Drainage Upgrades 

CIP #: 45-990.0 



Description: 

1) This project will eliminate the west discharge structure by re-routing flow to the 

east discharge structure. 

2) Provide a new holding tank just prior to east discharge structure to catch the 

first flush and any chemical spills. Return the capture flow to the plant's sewer 

system. 

. Justification: Per the MBC Capacity, Condition and Operation assessment Report and 

I Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report: 

1) Erosion downstream of the west discharge structure. 

2) Several process areas, including sludge and chemicals, flow directly into the 

plant's storm drain system. 




Construction: 0611 3 to 10114

Project Title: MBC Switchgear Reconfiguration 

CIP #: 45-991 .O 



Description: This project will reconfigure the MBC Main Plant Switchgear so that 

COGEN would have a more stable and direct interface with the utility 

power grid. 


Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, when a fault is detected on the 

Utility side the Utility breaker trips and the COGEN goes down resulting 

in Plant power outage. When the Utility power goes down the COGEN 

tries to feed the grid and trips.oE due to overload. 



Design: From 10107 to 09/08 


Project Title: MBC Wastewater Forcemain Extention 

CIP #: 45-988.0 



Description: This will upgrade the wastewater pumps to by-pass the capacity-limited 

Muni-SPS86 and extend MBC's discharge pipeline past SPS86 and 

discharge directly to a gravity trunk sewer. 


Master Plan for 2005-2030 (Camp) Report, the discharge flow rate from 

the MBC wastewater pumps is restricted because of capacity issues at the 

downstream pump station, Muni PS86. Restricting MBC's discharge flow , , 

causes wastewater to overflow to centrate pump station which impacts 

OPRA emissions. 



Design: From 0 1 107 to 10107 


Project Title: North City Raw SludgePoint Lorna Cathodic Protection 

CIP #: 45-964.0 



Description: This project involves the design and construction of new cathodic 

protection system for the North City Raw Sludge pipeline to prevent 

possible future corrosion. 

Justification: In 2004, the MWWD in cooperation with its As-Needed Engineer (Brown 

& Caldwell) conducted a pre-cathodic protection design study to look at 

the existing cathodic protection on the three pipelines, the 16-inch Raw 

Sludge Pipeline, 20-rinc*h Centrate Pipeline, and the reclaimed water 

pipeline. As a result of the study it was determined that the existing , .>> 

sacrificial anode cathodic protection system is ineffective and does not 

provide adequate protection against corrosion. 


Planning: April 2004 

Design: 0 1107-03107 

Construction 08108-0 1 108

Project Title: NCWRP-Sludge Pump Station Upgrade 

CIP #: 41-942.0 



Description: The current North City Water Reclamation Sludge Pump Station is 

experiencing extreme vibration that is preventing the pumps from being 

operated at full capacity, and reducing equipment life. This project will 

entail a study to determine the source of the vibration and to implement a 

remediation plan to eliminate the vibration and thus reduce maintenance, 

and increase equipment life. 

Justification: Due to the vibration the existing sludge pump station can not be operated 

at its hll capacity, also equipment life is being reduced dramatically due - A S 4 

to the vibration. 


Planning: 02/08-5108 

Design: 07108-09108 

Construction 07109-07120 10

Project Title: NCWRP-Effluent Pump Station Upgrade 

CIP #: 41-944.0 


Budget: $865,15 1 (Project Total) 

Description: This project will entail coating of equipment and venting of the wetwell 

and dry well to prevent chlorine laden air from damaging existing 

equipment. 

Justification: Due to the chlorine laden air pumps and motors are corroding at a faster 

rate thus requiring frequent repairs. 


Planning: 05/07-6107 

Design: 06107-09107 

Construction: 0 118-08109 

a ,

Project Title: NCWRP-Ultrafiltration & EDR Upgrade 

CIP #: 42-933.0 


Budget: $1 1,130,2 15 (Project Total) 

Description: This project is to remove and upgrade all EDR equipment and install new 

Ultrafiltration treatment technology prior to the EDR. This project also 

entails the construction of an enclosure around the Demineralization 

facility. 

Justification: Title 22 of the California Administrative Code requires coagulation of 

secondary effluent that has turbidity exceeding 5 NTU prior to filtration. 

During periods of high turbidity the operation staff applies ferric chloride 

as coagulant to reduce turbidity. The application of ferric chloride has a 

detrimental effect on the EDR because it blinds the membranes in just a 

few hours requiring manual cleaning of the units before they can be used 

again. To avoid blinding the EDR during periods of high turbidity, the 

staff by would like to utilize Ultrafiltration to prevent the EDR from being 

blinded. 


Planning: 07108-1 0108 

Design: 10108-09110 


Also when the EDR was constructed, it was supposed to be a temporary 

facility with no enclosure. As a result the EDRs, cartridge filters, pumps 

piping and other associated equipment are currently open to the 

environment and therefore are prone to ultraviolet light attack and coastal 

high salinity environment.

Project Title: Pump Station 2 Onsite Standby Power 

CIP # 45-91 5.0 



Description: This proposed upgrade would replace the natural gas engine drives for 

pumps 4&5 with electric motors and provide two to three natural gas 

engines to supply prime electrical power on an electrical system that is 

isolated from SDG&E. Any two (and possibly three) of the 8 pumps at the 

station could operate on this power plant isolated from the SDG&E 

system. 

. ,Justification: This project will provide the required force main surge protection incase 

, . / of an electrical utility outage, better operator flexibility and pwnp station 



, providing the fourth electrical power source required by the EPA. Its 

operation is intended to also reduce the pump station operational cost. 




Construction: FY 2008 - 2009

Project Title: Pump Station 2 Screens 

CIP # 41-933.0 



Description: Replace the screens at PS2 with climber rake type screens. Part of the 

screening project, the conveyor belt carrying screenings to a trash bin and 

the trash bin itself will be enclosed. 

Justification: A screening study was completed by B&C in June 2003 for all major 

MWWD pump stations. It recommends a consistent plan for the use of 

screens in system pump stations and to minimize maintenance needs. 

. , Business Case Evaluation (BCE) is pending. 

Reference: Preliminary Design Report for Large Pump Station Screen Modification 

, 1 Projects, Brown Caldwell October, 2003 



Construction: FY 20 1 8 - 20 19

Project Title: South Metro Sewer Rehabilitation Phase IIIB 

CIP #: 45-961 .O 



Description: This project will rehabilitate the remaining 5000' of the 108" pipeline from 

Winship Lane to Pump Station 2. 

Justification: The South Metro Sewer is over forty years old and inspections and 

rehabilitations are necessary to insure the structural integrity in the sewer. 


Planning: Planning and inspection is scheduled for July 2007 


Construction: FY 20 14 

I

Project Title: Wet Weather Storage Facility 

CIP #: 45-940.0 

Council District: 2, 5 


Description: This project includes the implementation of the Live Stream Discharge of 

reclaimed water from the North City Water Reclamation Plant during 

heavy rain events to reduce the capacity demand on the downstream sewer 

system and facilities. This project also includes constructing a seven- 

million gallon (7-MG) Underground Storage Tank at the Liberty Station 

(vacated Naval Training Center) to provide hydraulic relief to the Pump 

Station 2, the South and North Metro Interceptors, and major trunk sewers. 

Justification: In 1997, MWWD in cooperation with the firm of Montgomery Watson 

evaluated the risk of capacity related overflows and determined that a wet 

weather storage facility would be required to provide hydraulic relief for 

the sewer system during heavy rain events. Since then, a series of 

engineering studies consistently verified the need of a storage facility. 

Among these studies was the Peak Flow Management Strategy, which 

recommended additional strategies including the Live Stream Discharge. 

In 2006, a Business Case Evaluation confirmed that the implementation of 

the Live Stream Discharge defers the need of a storage facility and 

therefore reduces the high initial capital cost for the next 10 years. 

Schedule Milestones: Live Stream Discharge 

Planning: July 2006 - June 2007 

Design: July 2007 - June 2009 

Construction: July 2009 - June 201 1 

Schedule Milestones: 7-MG Underground Storage Tank 

Planning: July 201 1 - June 2014 

Design: July 2014 - June 201 7 

Construction: July 20 15 - June 20 19

Project Title: Pump Station Upgrades 

CIP #: 41-929.0 


Budget: $20,639,463 

Description: This project consists of the upgrade to 23 municipal sewer pump stations. 

The upgrades will be broken into four construction packages. Upgrades 

include: forcemains, pump replacements, generator installations, and 

electrical equipment upgrades or replacements. 

1) GROUP1 

CIP# 41 -929.1 


Description: Group I SPS Upgrades consists of the North County sewer pump 

stations #71,73,74,75,76, 80, and 82 and upgrades include: 

Replacement of submersible sewage pumps, addition of emergency 

storage tanks, gas generators, & flow meters. 

Justification: Consent Decree requirement. . , 




Construction: Start 7/07, Complete 6/13 

2) GROUP11 

CIP# 41-929.2 


Description: Group I1 SPS Upgrades consists of the citywide pump stations to 

construct underground emergency sewage overflow storage tanks, 

new generators, & flow meters. This group includes pump stations 

#43,44,47,51 & 60A. 





Construction: Start 7/07, Complete 611 3 

3) GROUP I11 

CIP# 41 -929.3 


Description: This project consists of constructing new dual force mains at pump 

stations #44, 51, 54,60A, 71,73, 74, 75,76, 80, 81 and 82.





Construction: Start 7/07, Complete 6/13 

4) GROUPIV 

CIP# 4 1 -929.4 


Description: This project consists of mainly the small comfort (bathroom) 

stations at Mission Bay Park, and other small stations citywide. 

This group includes stations #46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. 

, , 





Construction: Start 7/07, Complete 611 3

Project Title: Pump Station 64 Fiber Optics Network 

CIP #: 41-940.0 



Description: This project provides for the installation of fiber optic cablelconduit 

between Pump Station 64 and North City Water Reclamation Plant. 

Justification: This project is needed to install the fiber optic link between Pump Station 

64 and North City Water Reclamation Plant. The implementation of this 

project will complete the Metropolitan Wastewater Department Operation 

and Maintenance Communication Network and enable the pump station to 

be monitored from the Central Control and Information Center located at ~ 

Metro Operation Center (MOC 11) .> 


Planning: 

Design: FY2008 

Construction: FY2009 

t

Footnote No. 101

MASTER 

INSTALLMENT PURCHASE 

AGREEMENT 

..A 

by and between the 

CITY SAN DIEGO 

and the 

PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY 

OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

Dated as of September 1, 1993 

RELATING TO 

INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS SECURED BY 

THE SEWER REVENUE FUND OF 

THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

EXECUTION COPY

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ARTICLE I 

DEFINITIONS 

Pase 

SECTION 1.01. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

ARTICLE I1 

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 

SECTION 2.01. Representations by the City . . 21 

SECTION 2.02. Representations and Warranties by 

the Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

ARTICLE 111 

ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT 

SECTION 3.01. Acquis'ition and Construction of 

the Project; Components . .......... 23 

SECTION 3.02. Changes to the Project . .......... 23 

ARTICLE IV 

INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS 

SECTION 4.01. Purchase Price . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

SECTION 4.02. Installment Payments; Reserve Fund 

Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 25 

ARTICLE V 

SYSTEM REVENUES 

SECTION 5.01. Commitment of the Net System - 

Revenues .................. 25 

26 

SECTION 5.02. Allocation of System Revenues . . . 

SECTION 5.03. Additional Obligations . . . . . . . . . 27

SECTION 6.01. 

SECTION 6.02. 

SECTION 6.03. 

SECTION 6.04. 

SECTION 6.05. 

SECTION 6.06. 

SECTION 6.07. 

SECTION 6.08. 

SECTION 6.09. 

SECTION 6.10. 

SECTION 6.11. 

SECTION 6.12. 

SECTION 6.13. 

SECTION 6.14. 

SECTION 6.15. 

SECTION 6.16. 

SECTION 6.17. 

SECTION 6.18. 

SZCTION 6.19. 

SECTION 6.20. 

SECTION 6.2 1 . 

SECTION 6.22. 

SECTION 7.01. 

ARTICLE VI 

COVENANTS OF THE CITY 

Page 

Compliance with Installment 

Purchase Agreement and Ancillary 

Agreements ................. 29 

Against Encumbrances ............. 30 

Debt Service Reserve Fund .......... 30 

Against Sale or Other Disposition 

of Property ................. 30 

Against Competitive Facilities ........ 31 

Prompt Acquisition and 

Construction ................ 31 

Maintenance and Operation of the 

Wastewater System; Budgets ......... 31 

Amount of Rates and Charges; Rate 

Stabilization Fund .............. 31 

Payment of Claims .............. 

. . 32 

Compliance with Contracts .......... 32 

Insurance .................. 32 

Accounting Records; Financial 

Statements and Other Reports ........ 33 

Protection of Security and Rights 

oftheAuthority .............. 34 

Payment of Taxes and Compliance 

with Governmental Regulations ........ 34 

Collection of Rates and Charges; 

No Free Service ............... 34 . 

Eminent Domain Proceeds ........... 34 

Taxcovenants ................ 35 

Further Assurances .............. 35 

Operate Wastewater System .......... 35 

Transfer of Metropolitan System 

Components ................. 35 

Subcontracting ................ 38 

Additional Covenants 39 

ARTICLE VII 

............ 

PREPAYMENT OF INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS 

Prepayment of Installment 

Payments .................. 39

ARTICLE VIII 

EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF THE AUTHORITY 

SECTION 8.01. Events of Default and Acceleration 

of Maturities . ............... 

SECTION 8.02. Application of Net System Revenues 

Upon Acceleration . ............. 

SECTION 8.03. Other Remedies of the Authority ....... 

SECTION 8.04. Non-Waiver . ................. 

............ 

SECTION 8.05. Remedies Not Exclusive 

SECTION 9 .01 . 

SECTION 10.01. 






ARTICLE IX 

DISCHARGE OF OBLIGATIONS 

Discharge of Obligations . . . . 

.. 

ARTICLE X 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Liability of City Limited to 

System Revenues 

........ 

Benefits of Installment Purchase 

Agreement Limited to Parties . . 

Amendments ........... 

Successor Is Deemed Included in 

all References to Predecessor . 

Waiver of Personal Liability . . 

Article and Section Headings. 

Gender and References ..... 

partial Invalidity . . . . . . 

Assignment ........... 

Net Contract . . . . . . . . . 

California Law . . . . . . . . 

Notices . ............ 

Effective Date ......... 

Execution in Counterparts .... 







SECTICN 10.13. 

Execution ......................... 47 

Exhibit A . Description of the Project ........... A-1 

exhibit^ . ~ormof Supplement ............... B-1 

iii

MASTER INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

his MASTER INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT, made and 

entered into as of September 1, 1993, by and between the CITY OF 

SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under a 

charter duly adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution 

of the State of California (the "Cityu), and the PUBLIC FACILITIES 

FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a joint exercise of 

powers entity duly organized and existing under and by virtue of 

the laws of the State of California (the "Authorityu). 

WHEREAS, the City proposes to undertake the acquisition, 

construction, installation and improvement of its wastewater system 

as more fully described in Exhibit .A hereof and as modified in 

conformity with same (the "Projectu); . . 

WHEREAS, the Authority has agreed to assist the City by 

financing the construction of the Project for the City; 

WHEREAS, the City has determined that the purchase of 

components and the Project by the City is necessary and proper for 

City uses and purposes; 

WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to sell components of the 

Project from time to time to the City and the City desires to 

purchase components of the Project from the Authority upon the 

terms and conditions set forth herein; 

WHEREAS, the City and the Authority have duly authorized 

the execution of this Installment Purchase Agreement; 

WHEREAS, all acts, conditions and things required by law 

to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to 

and in connection with the execution and delivery of this 

Installment Purchase Agreement do exist, have happened and have 

been performed in regular and due time, f o m and manner as required 

by law, and the parties hereto are now duly authorized to execute 

and enter into this Installment Purchase Agreement; 

NOW, TEEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THESE PREMISES AND OF 

WE MUTUAL AGREEMENTS AND COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN AND FOR OTHER 

VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES HERETO DO HEREBY AGREE AS 

FOLLOWS :

ARTICLE I 

DEFINITIONS 

SECTION1.01. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise 

..wires, the terms defined in this section shall for all purposes 

hereof and of any amendment hereof or supplement hereto and of any 

report or other document mentioned herein or therein have the 

defined herein, all of the following definitions shall be 

equally applicable to both the singular and plural forms of any of 

the terms defined herein: 

Accountant's Report 

The term "Accountant's Reportu means a report signed by 

an Independent Certified Public Accountant. 

Acquisition [or Construction] Fund 

The term "Acquisition [or ~C!onstruction] Fund" means the 

fund by that name established pursuant to any Issuing Instrument. 

. , 

Authoritv 

The term "Authorityw means the Public Facilities 

Financing Authority of the City of San Diego, a joint powers 

authority duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the 

laws of the State of California. 

Authorized Citv Representative 

The term 'IAuthorized City Representative1! means the 

Mayor, the City Manager or the Treasurer of the City or such other 

officer or employee of the City or other person who has been 

designated as such representative by resolution of the City Council 

of the City. 

Authorizinq Ordinance 

i The term I1Authorizing OrdinanceI1 means the ordinance 

pursuant to which the Installment Purchase Agreement was authorized 

i 

and any additional Ordinance or official authorizing act of the 

f Council of the City approving execution and delivery of any 

Supplement to the Installment Purchase Agreement or any ~ssuing 

I Instrument. 

I 

Balloon ~ndebtedness 

The term "Balloon Indebtedness" means, with respect to 

any Series of Obligations twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the 

principal of which matures on the same date or within a 12-month 

Period (with sinking fund payments on Term obligations deemed to be

i 

ents of matured principal), that portion of such Series of 

Pap 0bl14ati~n~ which matures on such date or within such 12-month 

period; ~rovided, however, that to constitute Balloon Indebtedness 

the amount of indebtedness maturing on a single date or over a 

12-month period must equal or exceed 150% of the amount of such 

series obligations which matures during any preceding la-month 

period. For purposes of this definition, the principal amount 

maturing on any date shall be reduced by the amount of such 

indebtedness which is required, by the documents governing such 

indebtedness, to be amortized by prepayment or redemption prior to 

its stated maturity date. 

Bond Counsel 

The term "Bond Counselu means a firm of attorneys which 

are nationally recognized as experts in the area of municipal 

finance . 

Charter .... 

The term I1Charter1l means 'the Charter of the City as it 

now exists or may hereafter be amended,. and any new or successor 

Charter . 

Citr 

The term llCityll means the City of San Diego, a municipal 

authority organized and existing under the Charter, and any 

successor to the City as a result of a transfer authorized under 

Section 6 -20. 

The term "Codeu means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

and the regulations thereunder, as amended, and any successor 

provisions of law. 

Comvonents 

The term llComponentsl' means components of the project 

specified in a Supplement. 

Consultant 

The tern llConsultant 

" means the consultant, consulting 

f im, engineer, architect, engineering firm, architectural firm, 

accountant or accounting firm retained by the City to perform acts 

Or carry out the duties provided for such consultant in this 

Installment Purchase Agreement. such consultant, consulting firm, 

engineer, architect, engineering firm-or architectural firm shall 

be nationally recognized within its profession for work of the 

character required. such accountants or accounting firm shall be

independent certified public accountants licensed to practice in 

the state of California. 

Contracts 

The term "Contracts" means any contract or lease of the 

city (including the Installment Purchase Agreement) authorized and 

executed by the City, the installment or lease payments of which 

are payable from the Net System Revenues and which are on a parity 

with ~nstallment Payments. 

Credit Provider 

The tern "Credit Providerll means any municipal bond 

insurance company, bank or other financial institution or 

organization which is performing in all material respects its 

obligations under any Credit Support arrangements for some or all 

of the Parity Obligations. 

Credit Provider Reimbursement ~blisations 

The term "Credit Provider Reimbursement ObligationsI1 

means obligations of the City to repay, from Net System Revenues, 

amounts advanced by a Credit Provider as credit support or 

liquidity for Parity Obligations. 

Credit Support 

The term "Credit SupportI1 means a policy of insurance, a 

letter of credit, a stand-by purchase agreement, revolving credit 

agreement or other credit arrangement pursuant to which a Credit 

Provider provides credit or liquidity support with respect to the 

payment of interest, principal or the purchase price of any Parity 

Obligations. 

Debt Service 

Except as otherwise provided in the next sentence, the 

term "Debt ServiceI1 means, for any Fiscal Year, the sum of (1) the 

interest payable during such Fiscal Year on all outstanding Parity 

Obligations, assuming that all outstanding Serial Parity 

Obligations are retired as scheduled and that all outstanding Term 

Parity Obligations are redeemed or paid from sinking fund payments 

as scheduled (except to the extent that such interest is to be paid 

from the proceeds of sale of any Parity Obligations), (2) that 

portion of the principal amount of all outstanding Serial Parity 

Obligations maturing on the next succeeding principal payment date 

which falls in such Fiscal Year (excluding Serial Obligations which 

at the time of issuance are intended to be paid from the sale of a 

corresponding amount of parity Obligations) , (3) that portion of 

the principal amount of all outstanding Term Parity Obligations 

required to be redeemed or paid on any redemption date which falls

in ~uch Fiscal Year (together with the redemption premiums, if any, 

; provided that, (1) as to any Balloon Indebtedness, Tender 

Indebtedness and Variable Rate Indebtedness, interest thereon shall 

be calculated as provided in the definition of Maximum Annual Debt 

service and principal shall be deemed due at the nominal maturity 

dates thereof; ( 2) the amount on deposit in a debt service reserve 

fund on any date of calculation of Debt Service shall be deducted 

from the amount of principal due at the final maturity of the 

parity obligations for which such debt service reserve fund was 

established and in each preceding year until such amount is 

exhausted; (3) the amount of any interest payable on any Parity 

obligation for which there exists a Qualified Swap Agreement shall 

be the net amount payable by the City as provided in paragraph (iv) 

or paragraph (viii) , as applicable, of the definition of Maximum 

mnual Debt Service; and (4) the amount of payments on account of 

parity obligations which are redeemed, retired or repaid on the 

basis of the accreted value due on the scheduled redemption, 

retirement or repayment date shall be deemed principal payments, 

and interest that is compounded and paid as part of the accreted 

value shall be deemed payable 0, the scheduled redemption, 

retirement or repayment date but not before. 

Defaulted Obliqations 

The term "Defaulted Obligationsn means Obligations in 

respect of which an Event of Default has occurred and is 

continuing. 

District 

The term "District" shall mean the San Diego Wastewater 

Management District created under Chapter 803 of 1992 Session Laws. 

Enqineerf s Report 

The term "Engineer's Reportu means a report signed by an 

Independent Engineer. 

Event of Default 

The term "Event of Defaultw means an event described in 

Section 8.0;. 

Fiscal Year 

The term I1Fiscal Year" means the period beginning on 

July 1 of each year and ending on the next succeeding June 30, or 

any other twelve-month period selected and designated as the 

official Fiscal Year of the City.

Independent Certified Public Accountant 

The term "Independent Cert.if ied Public Accountant" means 

any firm of certified public accountants appointed by the City, and 

each of whom is independent pursuant to the Statement on Auditing 

standards No. 1 of the American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants. 

Independent Ensineer 

The term "Independent Engineer" means any registered 

engineer or firm of registered engineers of national reputation 

generally recognized to be well qualified in engineering matters 

relating to wastewater systems, appointed and paid by the City. 

Installment Pavment Date 

The term "Installment Payment Dateu means any date on 

which an Installment Payment is due,,-as specified in or determined 

pursuant to a Supplement. 

Installment Payments 

The term I1Installment Payments means the Installment 

Payments scheduled to be paid by the City under and pursuant hereto 

and any Supplement. 

Installment Payment ObPisations 

The term llInstallrnent Payment obligation^^^ means 

Obligations consisting of or which are supported in whole by 

Installment Payments. 

Installment Purchase Asreement 

The term llInstallment Purchase Agreementf1 means this 

Master Installment Purchase Agreement by and between the City and 

the Authority, dated as of September 1, 1993, as originally 

executed and as it may from time to time be amended or supplemented 

in accordance herewith. 

Issuins Instrument 

The term "Issuing Instrumentn shall mean any indenture, 

trust agreement or Installment Purchase Agreement including any 

Supplement under which Obligations are issued or created. 

The term I1Lawl1 means the Charter and all laws of the 

State supplemental thereto.

The term "Maintenance and Operation Costs of the 

Metropolitan System" means (a) a Qualified Take or Pay Obligation 

related to the Metropolitan System and (b) reasonable and necessary 

costs spent or incurred by the City for maintaining and operating 

the ~etropolitan System, calculated in accordance with generally 

.ccepted accounting principles, including (among other things) the 

-,--asonable expenses of management and repair and other expenses 

necessary to maintain and preserve the Metropolitan System in good 

repair and working order, and including administrative costs of the 

City attributable to the Components which are part of the 

Metropolitan System, salaries and wages of employees, payments to 

employees retirement systems (to the extent paid from Metropolitan 

system Revenues), overhead, taxes (if any), fees of auditors, 

accountants, attorneys or engineers and insurance premiums, and 

including all other reasonable and necessary costs of the City or 

charges required to be paid by it to comply with the terms of the 

obligations the proceeds of which are used to acquire Components 

which are part of the Metropolitan ~kstem, including any amounts 

required to be deposited in the Rebate Fund pursuant to the Tax 

certificate relating to the financing of Components which are part 

of the Metropolitan System, fees and expenses payable to any Credit 

Provider (other than in repayment of a Credit Provider 

Reimbursement Obligation) , and including expenses incurred or 

accrued incident to the formation of an entity to which the City 

may transfer substantially all of the Metropolitan System pursuant 

to Section 6.20, but excluding in all cases (i) depreciation, 

replacement and obsolescence charges or reserves therefor, 

(ii) amortization of intangibles or other bookkeeping entries of a 

similar nature, (iii) costs of capital additions, replacements, 

betterments, extensions or improvements to the Metropolitan System, 

which under generally accepted accounting principles are chargeable 

to a capital account or to a reserve for depreciation, (iv) charges 

for the payment of principal and interest on any general obligation 

bond heretofore or hereafter issued for Metropolitan System 

purposes, and (v) charges for the payment of principal and interest 

,,, on account of any Obligation. 

" I 

'P, Maintenance and Operation Costs of the Municipal System 

,!;,kg:;:, 

I.,. .I .I 

8 ..,I,.. 

1 3 , ,$, 

.I%.,? ,:,p.,'.>< 

. , ?,,,. < 

:,,:\y,j:,?h:, 

, w;:.. 

~~:~.j~~'i~~~~! 

:a,~h,~, 

..~l_d.il, :ik~~:~i;~~; 


;, ,,:+,hi, Municipal SystemI1 means (a) a Qualified Take or Pay obligation 

,I,$

employees retirement systems (to the extent paid from Municipal 

System Revenues), overhead, taxes (if any) , fees of auditors, 

accountants, attorneys or engineers and insurance premiums, and 

including all other reasonable and necessary costs of the City or 

charges required to be paid by it to comply with the-terms of the 

obligations the proceeds of which are used to acquire Components 

which are part of the Municipal System, including any amounts 

required to be deposited in the Rebate Fund pursuant to the Tax 

certificate relating to the financing of Components which are part 

of the Municipal System, fees and expenses payable to any Credit 

provider (other than in repayment of a Credit Provider 

~eimbursement Obligation) , but excluding in all cases 

(i) depreciation, replacement and obsolescence charges or reserves 

therefor, (ii) amortization of intangibles or other bookkeeping 

entries of a similar nature, (iii) costs of capital additions, 

replacements, betterments, extensions or improvements to the 

Municipal System, which under generally accepted accounting 

prir~ciples are chargeable to a capital account or to a reserve for 

r the payment of principal and 

ion bond heretofore or hereafter 

urposes, and (v) charges for the 

st on account of any Obligation. 

Maintenance and meration Costs of the Wastewater Systm 


(a) a Qualified Take or Pay Obligation and 

ecessary costs spent or incurred by the 

' City for maintaining and operating the Wastewater System, 

e with generally accepted accounting 

ng other things) the reasonable expenses 

nd other expenses necessary to maintain 

er System in good repair and working 

strative costs of the City attributable 

llrnent Purchase Agreement, salaries and 

s to employees retirement systems (to 

enues) , overhead, taxes (if' any) , 

torneys or engineers and insurance 

reasonable and necessary costs of 

d to be paid by it to comply with the 

including this Installment Purchase 

ounts required to be deposited in the 

e Tax Certificate, fees and expenses 

r (other than in repayment of a Credit 

gation), and expenses incurred or 

tion of an entity to which the City 

transfer substantially all of the Metropolitan System pursuant 

in all cases (i) depreciation, 

e charges or reserves therefor, 

es or other bookkeeping entries of a 

f capital additions, replacements, 

rovements to the Wastewater System 

8

which under generally accepted accounting principles are chargeable 

to a capital account or to a reserve for depreciation, (iv) charges 

for the payment of principal and interest on any general obligation 

bond heretofore or hereafter issued for Wastewater System purposes, 

and (v) charges for the payment of principal and interest on any 

debt sewice On account of any obligation on a parity with or 

subordinate to the Installment Payments. 

Maximwn Annual D ebt Service 

The term llMaximum Annual Debt Service1' means, at any 

point in time, with respect to Parity Obligations then Outstanding, 

the maximum amount of principal and interest becoming due on the 

parity Obligations in the then current or any future Fiscal Year, 

I calculated by the City or by an Independent Certified Public 

1 ~ccountant as provided in this definition and provided to the 

1 

i 

I 

i 

Trustee. For purposes of calculating Maximum Annual Debt Service, 

the following assumptions shall be used to calculate the principal 

and interest becoming due in any Fiscal Year: 

J 

1 

i 

, 

i 

t I 

(i) in determining the principal amount due in each 

year, payments shall (except to the extent a different 

subsection of this definition applies for purposes of 

determining principal maturities or amortization) be assumed 

to be made in accordance with any amortization schedule 

established for such debt, including the amount of any Parity 

b 

1 

;r 

1 

$ 

1 

8 

i 

8 

t 

f k 

1 

7, 

5 

Obligations which are or have the characteristics of 

commercial paper and which are not intended at the time of 

issuance to be retired from the sale of a corresponding amount 

of Parity Obligations, and including any scheduled mandatory 

redemption or prepayment of Parity Obligations on the basis of 

accreted value due upon such redemption or prepayment, and for 

such purpose, the redemption payment or prepayment shall be 

deemed a principal payment; in determining the interest due in 

each year, interest payable at a fixed rate shall (except to 

the extent subsection (ii) or (iii) of this definition 

applies) be assumed to be made at such fixed rate and on the 

required payment dates; 

(ii) if all or any portion or portions of an Outstanding 

Series of Parity Obligations constitutes Balloon Indebtedness 

or if all or any portion or portions of a Series of Parity 

Obligations or such payments then proposed to be issued would 

constitute Balloon Indebtedness, then, for purposes of 

determining Maximum Annual Debt Service, each maturity which 

constitutes Balloon Indebtedness shall be treated as if it 

were to be amortized in substantially equal annual 

installments of principal and interest over a term of 25 ye?irs 

commencing in the year the stated maturity of such Balloon 

Indebtedness occurs, the interest rate used for such 

computation shall be determined as provided in (iv) or (v) 

below, as appropriate, and all payments of principal and 

LA1-3889.15 9

interest becoming due prior to the year of the stated maturity 

of the Balloon Indebtedness shall be treated as described in 

(i) above; 

(iii) if any of the Outstanding' Series of Parity 

obligations constitutes Tender Indebtedness or if Parity 

obligations proposed to be issued would constitute Tender 

Indebtedness, then for purposes of determining Maximum Annual 

Debt Service, Tender Indebtedness shall be treated as if the 

~rincipal amount of such Parity obligations were to be 

amortized in accordance with the amortization schedule set 

forth in such Tender Indebtedness or in the standby purchase 

or liquidity facility established with respect to such Tender 

Indebtedness, or if no such amortization schedule is set 

forth, th:+::l such Tender Indebtedness shall be deemed to be 

amortized in substantially equal annual installments of 

principal and interest over a term of 25 years commencing in 

the year in which such Series first subject to tender, the 

interest rate used for such computation shall be determined as 

provided in (iv) or (v) below, as appropriate; 

(iv) if any Outstanding Parity Obligations constitute 

Variable Rate Indebtedness (except to the extent paragraph 

(ii) relating to Balloon Indebtedness or paragraph (iii) ' 

relating to Tender Indebtedness applies), the interest rate on 

such Obligation shall be assumed to be 110% of the daily 

average interest rate on such Parity obligations during the 12 

months ending with the month preceding the date of 

calculation, or such shorter period that such Parity 

Obligations shall have been Outstanding; provided that in the 

event that such Variable Rate Indebtedness has been issued in 

connection with a Qualified Swap Agreement, the interest rate 

for purposes of computing Maximum Annual Debt Service shall be 

determined by (x) calculating the annualized net amount paid 

by the City under such Variable Rate Indebtedness and 

Qualified Swap Agreement (after giving effect to payments made 

under the Variable Rate Indebtedness and made and received by 

the City under the Qualified Swap Agreement) during the 12 

months ending with the month preceding the date of 

calculation, or such shorter period that such Qualified Swap 

Agreement has been in effect, and (y) dividing the amount 

calculated in clause (x) by the average daily balance of the 

related Parity Obligations Outstanding during the 12-month 

period contemplated by clause (x); 

(v) if Parity Obligations proposed to be issued will be 

Variable Rate Indebtedness (except to the extent subsection 

(ii) relating to Balloon Indebtedness or subsection (iii) 

relating to Tender Indebtedness applies) , then such Parity 

Obligations shall be assumed to bear interest at 110% of the 

x during the prior 12 

the date of sale of

such additional Parity Obligations, or if that index is no 

longer published, another similar index selected by the City, 

or if the City fails to select a replacement index, an 

interest rate equal to 80% of the yield for outstanding United 

States Treasury bonds having an equivalent maturity, or if 

there are no such Treasury bonds having such maturities, 100% 

of the lowest prevailing prime rate of any of the five largest 

banks in the United States ranked by assets; 

provided that in the event that such Variable Rate 

rndebtedness will be issued in connection with a Qualified 

Swap Agreement, the interest rate for purposes of computing 

Maximum Annual Debt Service shall be determined by (a) 

calculating the net amount to be paid by the City under such 

Variable Rate Indebtedness and Qualified Swap Agreement after 

giving effect to payments to be made under the Variable Rate 

Indebtedness and to be made and received by the City under the 

~ualified Swap Agreement) for the period during which the 

~ualified Swap Agreement is to be in effrct and for this 

purpose any variable rate of.-interest agreed to be paid 

thereunder shall be deemed to be.the rate at which the related 

parity Obligation shall be assumed to bear interest, and (b) 

dividing the amount calculated in clause (a) by the averaqe 

principal amount of the related Parity Obligation to he 

Outstanding during the first year after the issuance of such 

Parity Obligation; 

(vi) if moneys or Permitted Investments have been 

deposited by the City into a separate fund or account or are 

otherwise held by the City or by a fiduciary to be used to pay 

principal and/or interest on specified Parity Obligations, 

then the principal and/or interest to be paid from such 

moneys, Permitted Investments or from the earnings thereon 

shall be disregarded and not included in calculating Maximum 

Annual Debt Service; 

(vii) if Parity Obligations are Paired Obligations, the 

interest thereon shall be the resulting linked rate or 

effective fixed rate to be paid with respect to such Paired 

Obligations; and 

(viii) in the event that an agreement or commitment 

which, at the time of calculation is a Qualified Swap 

Agreement is or is to be in effect with respect to a parity 

Obligation which is not Variable Rate Indebtedness, the 

interest rate of such Parity Obligation for purposes of 

calculating Maximum Annual Debt Service shall be calculated as 

follows : 

(a) for such a Qualified Swap Agreement which is in 

effect on the date of calculation, the interest 

rate shall be calculated in the same manner as is 

specified in paragraph (iv) for a Qualified Swap

Maximum Rate 

Agreement issued in connection with Variable Rate 

Indebtedness which is Outstanding on the date of 

calculation.; and 

(b) for such a Qualified Swap Agreement which is not in 

effect on the date of calculation, the interest 

rate shall be calculated in the same manner as is 

specified in paragraph (v) for a Qualified Swap 

Agreement to be issued in connection with Variable 

Rate Indebtedness to be Outstanding after the date 

of calculation, and for this purpose any variable 

rate of interest agreed to be paid thereunder shall 

be assumed to be the rate assumed for Variable Rate 

Indebtedness described in paragraph (v) . 

The term "Maximum Raten means, on any day, the maximum 

interest rate allowed by law. .* 

~etropolitan System . , 

The term "Metropolitan SystemH means any and all 

facilities, properties and improvements designated by the City in 

its sole discretion as part of the Metropolitan System, and used 

for the conveyance from the Municipal System and treatment of 

sewage collected by the City through its Municipal System or by any 

of the Participating Agencies. 

Metropolitan Svstem Revenues 

The term llMetropolitan Sys tem Revenues means all income, 

rents, rates, fees, charges and other moneys derived from the 

ownership or operation of the Metropolitan System, including, 

without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (1) all income, 

rents, rates, fees, charges (including standby and capacity 

charges), or other moneys derived by the City from the wastewater 

services, facilities, and commodities or byproducts sold, furnished 

or supplied through the facilities of or' in the conduct or 

operation of the business of the Metropolitan System, and 

including, without limitation, investment earnings on the operating 

reserves to the extent that the use of such earnings is limited to 

the Metropolitan System by or pursuant to law, earnings on any 

Reserve Fund fo:.: Obligations the proceeds of which were used to 

finance improvements which are part of the ~etropolitan System, or 

to fund or refund any such Obligations, but only to the extent that 

such earnings may be utilized under the Issuing Instrument for the 

Payment of debt sewice for such Obligations; (2) the proceeds 

derived by the City directly or indirectly from the sale, lease or 

Other disposition of a part of the Metropolitan System; (3) any 

mount received from the levy or collection of taxes which are 

solely available and are earmarked for the support of the operation

of the Metropolitan System; (4) amounts received under contracts or 

agreements with governmental or private entities and designated for 

capital costs for Components which are to be part of the 

~~tropolitan 

System; and ( 5) grants received from the United States 

of ~merica or from the State of California for Components which are 

to be part of the Metropolitan System; provided, however, that 

Metropolitan System Revenues shall not include: (a) in all cases, 

deposits or any other deposits or advances subject to 

refund until such deposits or advances have become the property of 

the City; and (b) the proceeds of borrowings. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, there shall be deducted from Metropolitan System 

Revenues any amounts transferred into a Rate Stabilization Fund as 

contemplated by Section 6.08(b), and there shall be added to 

~etropolitan System Revenues any amounts transferred out of such 

Rate Stabilization Fund to pay Maintenance and Operation Costs of 

the Metropolitan System. 

The term I1Moody1 sI1 means Moody*' s Investors Service, Inc. , 

a Delaware corporation, and its successors, and if such corporation 

shall for any reason no longer perform the functions of a 

securities rating agency, llMoody'sll shall be 'deemed to refer to any 

other nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by 

the City. 

Municipal System 

The term IIMunicipal Systeml1 means any and all facilities, 

properties and improvements at any time owned, controlled or 

operated by the City, and designated by the City in its sole 

discretion as part of the Municipal System, for the collection of 

sewage from the points of origination thereof and the conveyance 

thereof to the Metropolitan System. 

I 

i~il"* Municipal System Revenues 

f, 

I, lb'l 

The term "Municipal System Revenuesu means all income, 

nts, rates, fees, charges and other moneys derived from the 

nership or operation of the Municipal System, including, without 

iting the generality of the foregoing, (1) all income, rents, 

es, fees, charges (including standby and capacity charges), or 

er moneys derived by the City from the wastewater services, 

:.facilities, and commodities or byproducts sold, furnished or 

plied through the facilities of or in the conduct or operation 

the business of the Municipal Sys tern, and including, without 

itation, investment earnings on the operating reserves to the 

ent that the use of such earnings is limited to the Municipal 

tem by or pursuant to law, earnings on any Reserve Fund for 

igations the proceeds of which were used to finance improvements 

hich are part of the Municipal System, or to fund or refund any 

h Obligations, but only to the extent that such earnings may be 

13

utilized under the Issuing Instrument for debt service for such 

(2) the proceeds derived by the City directly or 

indirectly from the sale, lease or other disposition of a part of 

the Municipal System; (31 any amount received from the levy or 

of taxes which are solely available and are earmarked 

for the support of the operation of the Municipal System; 

(4) amounts received under contracts or agreements with 

governmental or private entities and designated for capital costs 

for components which are to be part of the Municipal System; and 

(5) grants received from the United States of America or from the 

State of California for Components which are to be part of the 

Municipal System; provided, however, that Municipal System Revenues 

shall not include: (a) in all cases, customers1 deposits or any 

other deposits or advances subject to refund until 5uch deposits or 

advances have become the property of the City; and (b) the proceeds 

of borrowings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be 

deducted from Municipal Systein Revenues any amounts transferred 

into a Rate Stabilization Fund as contemplated by Section 6.08 (b) , 

and there shall be added to Municipa1'"System Revenues any amounts 

transferred out of such Rate Stabilization Fund to pay Maintenance 

and Operation Costs of the Municipal System.. 

Net Proceeds 

The term "Net ProceedsI1 means, when used with respect to 

any insurance, self insurance or condemnation award, the proceeds 

from such award remaining after payment of all expenses (including 

attorneys' fees) incurred in the collection of such proceeds. 

Net Metropolitan Svstem Revenues 

The term "Net Metropolitan System Revenues" means, for 

zny Fiscal Year, the Metropolitan System Revenues for such Fiscal 

Year less the Maintenance and Operation Costs of the Metropol2.tan 

System for such Fiscal Year. 

Net Municipal Svstem Revenues 

The term "Net Municipal System Revenues" means, for any 

Fiscal Year, the Municipal System Revenues for such Fiscal Year 

less,the Maintenance and Operation Costs of the Municipal System 

for such Fiscal Year. 

Met Svstem Revenues 

The term "Net System Revenues" means, for any Fiscal 

Year, the System Revenues for such Fiscal Year less the Maintenance 

and Operation Costs of the Wastewater System for such Fiscal Year.

I 

1 

i The term "Obligationsn means (i) obligations of the City 

for money borrowed (such as bonds, notes or other evidences of 

j or as installment purchase payments under any 

! contract: (including Installment Payments), or as lease payments 

under any financing lease (determined to be such in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting principles), the principal and 

interest on which are payable from Net System Revenues; 

(ii) obligations to replenish any debt service reserve funds with 

to such. obligations of the City; (iii) obligations secured 

by or payable from any of such obligations of the City; and (iv) 

of the City payable from Net System Revenues under 

(a) any contract providing for payments based on levels of, or 

changes in, interest rates, currency exchange rates, stock or other 

indices, (b) any Contract to exchange cash flows or a series of 

~ayments or (c) any contract to hedge payment, currency, rate 

~pread or similar exposure, including but not limited to interest 

rate swap agreements and interest rate cap agreements. 

Outs tandinq 

The term uOutstanding, " when used as of any particular 

time with respect to Obligations, means all Obligations theretofore 

or thereupon executed, authenticated and delivered by the City or 

any trustee or other fiduciary, except (i) Obligations theretofore 

cancelled or surrendered for cancellation; (ii) Obligations paid or 

deemed to be paid within the meaning of any defeasance provisions 

thereof; (iii) Obligations owned by the City or the Authority; (iv) 

Obligations in lieu of or in substitution for which other 

Obligations have been executed and delivered; and (v) Obligations 

assumed by the District or other successor in accordance with 

Section 6.20. 

Owner 

The term uOwnerll means any person who shall be the 

registered owner of any outstanding Obligation certificate or other 

evidence of a right to receive Installment Payments directly or as 

security for payment of the Obligation. 

Paired Oblisations 

The term "Paired Obligationsv shall mean any series (or 

portion thereof) of Parity Obligations designated as Paired 

Obligations in a Supplement or relcted Issuing Instrument or other 

document authorizing the issuance or incurrence thereof, which are 

simultaneously issued or incurred (i) the principal of which is of 

equal amount maturing and to be redeemed (or cancelled after 

acquisition thereof) on the same dates and in the same amounts, and 

(ii) the interest rates which, taken together, result in an

t 

irrevocably fixed interest rate obligation of the City for the 

terms of such Paired Obligations. 

paritv Installment Oblisation 

The term "Parity Installment Obligationn means 

obligations consisting of or payable from Installment Payments 

! are not subordinated in right of payment to other Installment 

1 payments. 

t 

I 

paritv Oblisations 

The term l1Parity Obligationsu means (i) Parity 

Installment Obligations, (ii) Obligations the principal and 

interest of which are payable on a parity with Parity In,, tallment 

I 

I 

+ obligations, (iii) Qualified Take or Pay Obligations and (iv) 

~ualified Swap Agreements. Notwithstallding the foregoing, any 

amounts payable with respect to a Qualified Swap Agreement which 

represent termination payments or unwinding payments shall not be 

deemed to be Parity Obligations unless, (a) such Qualified Swap 

Agreement expressly states that such termination payments or 

unwinding payments are to be considered Parity Obligations and 

(b) each Rating Agency which currently maintains a rating with 

respect to any Parity Obligation confirms in writing to the City 

that the inclusion of such termination payments or unwinding 

payments as Parity Obligations will not result in a downgrading, 

withdrawal or suspension of such rating. 

Partici~atins Asencies 

The term "Participating Agenciesu shall mean the cities 

and other agencies providing local sewage collection services 

within their re:*pective areas and which (a) have entered into 

contracts with the City pursuant to which the City is providing 

sewage collection, transportation, treatment or disposal services 

or (b) are having such services provided by the District or other 

successor to the City to which the Metropolitan System has been 

transferred pursuant to Section 6.20. 

The term "Paying Agentu or "Paying Agentsn means, with 

respect to an Installment Payment Obligation or Series of 

Installment Payment Obligations, the bank, trust company or other 

financial institution, if any, or other entities designated as the 

place or entity which shall make payment on such InsLallment 

Payment Obligation or a Series of Installment Payment obligations 

and/or the interest thereon instead of or in addition to the City 

Treasurer's office.

payment Fund 

The term "Payment Fund1' means the fund designated in the 

Issuing Instrument as the fund into which Installment Payments are 

be deposited for the purposes of paying principal or interest on 

related Obligations. 

permitted Investments 

The term "Permitted Investments" means investments which 

pursuant to an Issuing Instrument are permissible for the 

investment of funds received from the sale of Obligations pursuant 

to the Issuing Document or from other funds held pursuant to the 

Issuing Document. 

Proi ec t 

The term llProj ect l1 means the construction, replacement 

and improvements to the Wastewater Sysgem described in Exhibit A 

hereto and as modified with respect to. Components in conformance 

with Section 3.02 hereof. 

Purchase Brice 

The term llPurchase Price" means the principal amount plus 

interest thereon owed by the City to the Authority under the terms 

hereof as provided in Section 4.01 and as specified in a 

Supplement. 

Qualified Swap Aqreement 

The term "Qualified Swap Agreement" means a contract or 

agreement, payable from Net System Revenues on a parity with parity 

Obligations, intended to place Obligations on the interest rate, 

currency, cash flow or other basis desired by the City, including, 

without limitation, any interest rate swap agreement, currency swap 

agreement, forward payment conversion agreement or futures 

contract, any contract providing for payments based on levels of, 

or changes in, interest rates, currency exchange rates, stock or 

other indices, any contract to exchange cash flows or a series of 

payments, or any contract, including, without limitation, an 

int~rest rate floor or cap, or an option, put or call, to hedge 

payment, currency, rate, spread or similar exposure, between the 

City and a counterparty; provided that not less than 30 days prior 

to the City's execution of such contract or agreement, each Rating 

Agency which maintains a rating with respect to any Parity 

Obligation receives notice in writing of the City's pending 

execution thereof; and provided further that at the time of 

origination each Rating Agency which maintains a rating with 

respect to any Parity Obligation confirms in writing to the City 

that the City's execution and delivery of such contract will not 

result in a downgrading, withdrawal or suspension of such rating.

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

i 

i 

i 

pualified Take or Pay Obligation 

The term "Qualified Take or Pay obligationu means the 

obligation of the City to make use of any facility, property or 

Or Some portion of the capacity thereof, or to pay 

from System Revenues, or both, whether or not such 

facilities, properties or services are ever made available to the 

city for use, and there is provided to the City a certificate of an 

I dependent Engineer to the effect that the incurrence of such 

1 

I 

i 

1 

1 

obligation will not adversely affect the ability oE the City to 

comply with the provisions of Section 6.08(a). 

I Ratins Asencies 

i The term "Rating Agenciest1 means Moody's and S&P, or 

whichever of them is rating Parity Obligations. 

f 

I 

Rebate Fund 

The term "Rebate Fund" means the fund by that name 

established pursuant to any Issuing Instrument. 

Rebate Remirement 

The term "Rebate Requirementf1 shall have the meaning 

specified in any Tax Cert? f icate. 

j Reserve Fund and Reserve Account 

I 

t 

6 

t 

The terms "Reserve Fund" and I1Reserve Accountl1 shall have 

the meanings given to such terms in any Issuing Instrument or 

i 

I Supplement. 

Reserve Reauhrement 

The term "Reserve Requirement" shall have the meaning 

given to such term in any Issuing Instrument or Supplement. 

The term I1S&P1l means Standard & Poor1 s Corporation, a New 

York corporation, and its successors, and if such corporation shall 

for any reason no longer perform the functions of a securities 

rating agency, ."S&Pff shall be deemed to refer to any other 

nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by the 

City.

The term "Serial Parity Obligationsu means Serial 

which are Installment Payments or are payable on a 

parity with Parity Installment Obligations. 

Serial Oblisations 

The term "Serial obligation^^^ means Obligations for which 

no sinking fund payments are provided. 

Series 

The term "Series" means Obligations issued at the same 

time or sharing some other common term or characteristic and 

designated as a separate Series. 

Sewer Revenue Fund . 

The term "Sewer Revenue ~und" has the meaning ascribed 

. , 

thereto in Section 5.02 hereof. 

Subordinated ObS..isations 

The term "Subordinated Obligationsw means any 

Obligations, the payment of principal and interest on which are 

subordinated in right of payment to Parity Obligations. 

Supplement 

The term uSupplement" means a Supplement, substantially 

in the form of Exhibit B hereto, providing for the payment of 

specific Installment Payments as the Purchase Price for Components 

of the Project, executed and delivered by the City and the 

Authority. 

Svstem Revenues 

The term I1System Revenues" means all income, rents, 

!rates, fees, charges and other moneys derived from the ownership or 

operation of the Wastewater System, including, without limiting the 

generality of the foregoing, (i) all income, rents, rates, fees, 

charges (including standby and capacity charges), or other moneys 

derived by the City from the wastewater services, facilities, and 

commodities or byproducts sold, furnished or supplied through the 

facilities of or in the conduct or operation of the business of the 

Wastewater System, but including, without limitation, investment 

earnings on the operating reserves to the extent that the use of 

such earnings is limited to the Wastewater System by or pursuant to 

law, earnings on any Reserve Fund for Obligations but only to the 

extent that such earnings may be utilized under the Issuing 

Instrument for the payment of debt service for such Obligations;

(ii) the proceeds derived by the City directly or indirectly from 

the lease of a part of the Wastewater System; (iii) any amount 

from the levy or collection of taxes which are solely 

available and are earmarked for the support of the operation of the 

wastewater System; (iv) amounts received under contracts or 

with governmental or private entities and designated for 

capital costs; and (v) grants received from the United States of 

America or from the State of California; provided, however, that 

system Revenues shall not include: (a) in all cases, customers' 

deposits or any other deposits or advances subject to refund until 

such deposits or advances have become the property of the City; and 

(b) the proceeds of borrowings. Notwithstr~nding the foregoing, 

there shall be deducted from System Revenues any amounts 

transferred into a Rate Stabilization Fund as contemplated by 

section 6.08 (b) , and there shall be added to System Revenues any 

amounts transferred out of such Rate Stabilization Fund to pay 

Maintenance and Operation Costs of the Wastewater System. 

Tax Certificate 

The term "Tax Certif icatel1 shall ,mean any certificate 

delivered with respect to the maintenance of the tax-exempt status 

of Tax-Exempt Installment Payment Obligations. 

Tax-Exempt Installment Pawent Oblisations 

The term "Tax-Exempt Installment Payment ObligationsT1 

means Installment Payment Obligations in respect of which it is 

intended that the interest component thereof will be excluded from 

gross income pursuant to Section 103 of the Code. 

Tender Indeb teBnes s 

The term "Tender Indebtedness" means any Parity 

Obligations or portions of Parity Obligations, a feature of which 

is an option, on the part of the holders thereof, or an obligation, 

under the terms of such Parity Obligations, to tender all or a 

portion of such Parity 0bli:rations to the City, a Paying Agent or 

other fiduciary or agent for payment or purchase and requiring that 

Such Bonds or portions of Bonds or that such rights to payments or 

portions of payments be purchased if properly presented. 

Term Parity Oblisations 

The term "Term Parity Obligations means Tern Obligations 

which are Parity Installment Obligations or are payable on a parity 

with Parity Installment Obligations. 

. *

The term "Term Obligationsw means Obligations which are 

payable on or before their specified maturity dates from sinking 

fund payments established for that purpose and calculated to retire 

such obligations on or before their specified maturity dates. 

Trustee 

The term "Trusteerf means a financial institution acting 

in its capacity as Trustee under and pursuant to the any Issuing 

~nstrument, and its successors and assigns. 

Variable R ate Indebtedness 

The term nVariable Rate Indebtednessv means any portion 

of indebtedness evidenced by Parity Obligations the interest rate 

on which is not established at the tjme of incurrence of such 

indebtedness and has not, at some subsequent date, been established 

at a rate which is not subject to f.luctuation or subsequent 

adjustment, excluding Paired Obligations. , 

Wastewater Service 

The term "Wastewater Servicew means the wastewater 

collection and treatment services made available or provided by the 

Wastewater System. 

Wastewater Svstem 

The term "Wastewater Systemu means any and all 

facilities, properties and improvements at any time owned, 

controlled or operated by the City as part of the Sewer Revenue 

Fund (defined in Section 5.02 hereof) for the collection, 

treatment, distribution, administration, disposal or reclamation of 

waste, including the Municipal System and the Metropolitan System. 

After any transfer of the Metropolitan System permitted by 

Section 6.20, the term "Wastewater Systeml1 shall mean the Municipal 

System with respect to the City and the Metropolitan System with 

respect to the transfer~e. 

REPRESENTATIONS AND WZSLRANTIES 

SECTION 2 -01. Rewresentations bv the Citv. The City 

makes the following representations: 

(a) The City is a municipal corporation organized and 

existing under the Charter, which was duly adopted pursuant to the 

Provisions of the Constitution of the State of California.

(b) The City has full legal right, power and authority 

to enter into this Installment Purchase Agreement and carry out its 

1 Obligations hereunder, to carry out and consummate all transactions 

B 

by this Installment Purchase Agreeu~ent, and the City 

1 

d has with the provisions Of the Law in all matters relating 

I to such transactions. 

(c) By proper action, the City has duly authorized the 

delivery and due performance of this Installment 

purchase Agreement. 

i 

(d) The execution and delivery of this Installment 

i purchase Agreement and the consummation of the transactions herein 

i I 

will not violate any provision of law, any order of 

I 

i any court or other agency of government, or any indenture, material 

agreement or o'.her instrument to which the City is now a party or 

by which it or any of its properties or assets is bound, or be in 

conflict with, result in a breach of or constitute a default (with 

due notice or the passage of time or both) under any such 

indenture, agreement or other instrument, or result in the creation 

or imposition of any prohibited lien, charge, or encumbrance of any 

nature whatsoever upon any of the properties or assets of the City. 

(e) The City has determined that it is necessary and 

proper for the City uses and purposes within the terms of the Law 

that the City acquire the Project in the manner provided for in 

this Installment Purchase Agreement, in order to provide essential 

1 services and facilities to the persons residing in the City. 

i 

SECTION 2.02. Reoresentations and Warranties by the 

Authority. The Authority makes the following representations and 

warranties : 

(a) The Authority is a joint exercise of powers entity 

formed under the laws of the State of California. 

(b) The Authority has full legal right, power and 

authority to enter into this Installment Purchase Agreement and to 

carry out and consummate all transactions contempl.,ated by this 

Installment Purchase Agreement. 

(c) By proper action, the Authority has duly authorized 

the execution, delivery and due performance of this Installment 

Purchase Agreement. 

(d) The execution and delivery of this Installment 

Purchase Agreement and the consummation of the transactions herein 

contemplated will not violate any provision of law, any order of 

any court or other agency of government, or any indenture, material 

agreement or other instrument to which the Authority is now a party 

or by which it or any of its properties or asset.s is bound, or be 

in Conflict with, result in a breach of or constitute a default

(with due 110tice or the passage of time or both) under any such 

indenturel agreement Or other instrument, or result in the creation 

or imposition of any prohibited lien, charge or encumbrance of any 

,ature whatsoever upon any of the properties or assets of the 

~uthority- 

(e) The interest components of Tax- Exempt Installment 

payment obligations will not be includable in the gross income of 

the owners of such Obligations for federal income tax purposes. 

ARTICLE III 

ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT 

SECTION 3.01. Acmisition and Construction of the 

Project; Com~onents. The Authority hereby agrees to cause the 

project to be constructed, acquired and installed by the City, as 

agent of the Puthority. The City shall enter into contracts and 

provide for, as agent of the Authority, the complete construction, 

acquisition and installation of the Project. The City hereby 

agrees that it will cause the construction, acquisition and 

installation of the -'reject to be diligently performed. 

It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that, except 

to the extent of proceeds of Obligations which are deposited in an 

Acquisition Fund, the Authority shall be under no liability of any 

kind or character whatsoever for the payment of any cost of any 

Components. In the event the proceeds of Obligations deposited in 

an Acquisition Fund are insufficient to complete the construction, 

acquisition and installation of Components, the City shall cause to 

be deposited in such Acquisition Fund (or shall otherwise 

appropriate and encumber) from and to the extent of available 

amounts on deposit in the Sewer Revenue Fund (or other lawfully 

available moneys) an amount equal to that necessary to complete the 

construction, acquisition and installation of such Components. 

The Authority will not undertake to cause any component 

of the Project to be constructed, acquired or installed unless and 

until the City and the Authority have entered into a Supplement 

specifying the components of the project to be installed, the date 

of completion, the purchase price ,to be paid by the City hereunder 

for that component of the Project, and the Installment payments or 

the method of calculating Installment Pz:yments. 

SECTION 3.02. Chanc~es to the Proiect. (a) F'rm t* to 

time and at any time, the City may modify or amend the description 

Of the Project, to eliminate any part thereof and/or to substitute 

another Project or Projects, all without obtaining any consent, by 

~-iling an amended Exhibit A with the Authority and the Trustee; 

Provided however, that no such amendment shall substitute a Project 

Or Projects which are not to be owned by the Sewer Revenue Fund or

shall in any Way impair the obligations of the City contained in 

any supplement executed and delivered prior to any such amendment. 

I (b) The City may substitute other improvements for those 

1 listed as Components in any Supplement, but only if the City first 

i files with the Authority and the Trustee a certificate of an 

Authorized City Representative: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(i) identifying the Components to be substituted 

and the Components they replace; 

(ii) stating that the substituted Components will 

be owned by the Sewer Revenue Fund; and 

(iii) stating that with respect to Components 

financed with Tax-Exempt 1nstallmen.t Payment Obligations, the 

estimated costs of construction, acquisition and installation 

of the substituted improvements are not less than such costs 

for the improvements previously planned. 

Substituted Components may include or consist of an 

undivided interest in such Components, in'which event the costs 

associated with the substituted Components over and above the 

undivided interest need not be deposited in the Acquisition Fund 

(or otherw se appropriated and encumbered); provided that the 

certificate of an Authorized City Representative specifies that the 

funds necessary to complete the substituted Components are on 

deposit in the Acquisition Fund or otherwise appropriated and 

encumbered. 

ARTICLE IV 

INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS 

SECTION 4.01. Purchase Price. 

(a) The City will pay the Purchase Price for any 

Components being purchased as provided in a Supplcment. The 

Purchase Price to be paid by the City to the Authority pursuant to 

any Supplement hereto, solely from Net System Revenues and from no 

other sources, is the sum of the principal amount of the City's 

obligations under such Supplement plus the interest to accrue on 

the unpaid balance of such principal amount from the effective date 

thereof over the term thereof, subject to prepayment as provided 

I 

I therein. 

I 

! 

(b) The principal amount of the Installment Payments to 

be made by the City under a Supplement shall be paid at least five 

days prior to the date such Installment Payments are payable as 

specified in such Supplement or at such other earlier time or times 

and in the manner or manners as specified in such Supplement.

(c) he interest to accrue on the unpaid balance of such 

principal amount shall be paid at least five days prior to the date 

such interest is pay~~ble as specified in a Supplement or at such 

other earlier time or times as specified in such Supplement, and 

shall be paid by the City as and constitute interest paid on the 

principal amount of the City' s obligations thereunder. ~nterc-:t 

shall be payable in an amount not exceeding the Maximum Rate, at 

such intervals and according to such rinterest rate forclnulas as 

shall be specified in a Supplement or by reference to any Issuing 

Instrument to which such Supplement relates, and shall be payable 

with such frequency as shall be specified therein. 

pavments. 

SECTION 4.02. Installmexit Payments; Reserve Fund 

(a) The City may, subject to any rights of prepayment 

provided for in a Supplement, pay to the Authority, solely from Net 

system Revenues and from no other sources, the Purchase Price in 

installment payments over a period n0.J to exceed the maximum period 

prmitted by law, all as specified in a Supplement. 

In the event that a Trustee not2fies the City that the 

5 amount on deposit in a Reserve Fund or Resenre Account is less than 

8 the Reserve Requirement, the City shall deposit or cause to be 

deposited, solely from Net System Revenues, in such Reserve Fund or 

Reserve Account such amounts on a monthly basis as are necessary to 

increase the amount on depos'.t therein to the Reserve Requirement 

in the ensuing six months. 

(b) The obligation of the City to make the Installment 

Payments solely from Net System Revenues is absolute and 

unconditional, and until such time as the Purchase Price shall have 

been paid in full (or provision for the payment thereof shall have 

been made pursuant to Article IX), the City will not discontinue or 

suspend any Installment Payments required to be made by it under 

this section when due, whether or not the Project or any part 

thereof is operating or operable or has been completed,. or its use 

is suspended, interfered with, reduced or curtailed or terminated 

in whole or in part, and such Installment Payments shall not be 

subject to reduction whether by offset or otherwise and shall not 

be conditioned upon the performance or nonperformance by any party 

of any agreement f,or any cause whatsoever. 

5 1 

4 

1 

8, 

ARTICLE V 

SYSTEM REmES 

I SECTION 5. Of. Comikmsnt of the Net Svstm Revenues. 

b 

All Parity Obligations, including Parity Installment Payment 

Obligations, shall be secured by a prior lien on and pledge of Net 

System Revenues, and within such lien priority, such Parity

Obl igations shall be of equal rank without preference, priority or 

dis tinction of any Parity Obligations over any other parity 

Obl igations. The City does hereby grant such prior lien on and 

edge of Net Sy~:lem Revenues to secure Parity Obligations. Such 

en and pledge shall constitute a first lien on Net System 

Revenues. The City hereby r%?presents and states that it has not 

previously granted any lien or charge on any of the Net System 

Revenues; provided, however, that out of Net System Revenues there 

may be apportioned such sums for such purposes as are expressly 

prmitted by this Article V. 

SECTION 5.02. Allocation of Svstem Revenues. (a) In 

order to carry out and effectuate the commitment and pledge 

contained in Section 5.01, the City agrees and covenants that all- 

system Revenues shall be received by the City in trust and shall 

be deposited when and as received in the City of San Diego Sewer 

Revenue Fund, which fund was established pursuant to the Ordinances 

of the City Council of the City (the "Sewer Revenue Fund") and 

which fund the City agrees and covenants to maintain so long as any 

Installment Payments or payments due" by the City under any 

~ualified Swap Agreement remain unpaid, and all moneys in the Sewer 

Revenue Fund shall be so held in trust and applied and used solely 

as provided herein. The City shall pay (i) directly or as 

otherwise required all Maintenance and Operation Costs of the 

Wastewater System, (ii) to the Trustee, as assignee of the 

Authority, for deposit in the Payment Fund for Parity Obligations, 

the amounts specified in any Issuing Instrument, as payments due on 

account of Parity Obligations other than (A) payments due on 

account of Qualified Take or Pay Obligations and (B) payments due 

by the City under a Qualified Swap Agreement, (iii) to the obligee 

specified therein, any payment due as to Qualified Take or Pay 

Obligations, and (iv) to the counterparty specified in any 

Qualified Swap Agreement, the amounts or payments due under such 

Qual-ified Swap Agreement. In the event there are insufficient Net 

System Revenues to make all of the payments c40ntemplated by 

clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the immediately preceding sentence, 

then said payments should be made as nearly as practicable, pro 

rata, based upon the respective unpaid principal amounts of said 

Parity Obligations. 

(b) After the paymer.ts contemplated by paragraph (a) 

above have been made, and in any event not less frequently than 

May 15 and November 15 of each year, any remaining Net System 

Revenues shall be used to make up any deficiency in the Reserve 

Funds and Reserve Accounts for Parity Obligations. In the event 

there are insufficient Net System Revenues to make up all 

deficiencies in all Reserve Funds and Reseive Accounts for Parity 

Obligations, such payments into Reserve Funds and Reserve Accounts 

shall be made as nearly as practicable pro rata based on the 

respective unpaid principal amount of all Parity obligations. Any 

amounts thereafter remaining in the Sewer Revenue Fund may from 

time to time be used to pay for capital expenditures for the

wa.stcwater System or any other Wastewater System purpose, including 

on account Of Subordinated Obligations, provided the 

following conditions are met: . 

(1) all Maintenance and Operation Costs of the 

wastewater System are being and have been paid and are then 

current; and 

(2) all deposits and payments contemplated by clauses 

(ii) , (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (a) above shall have been 

made in full and no deficiency in any Reserve Fund or Reserve 

Account for Parity Obligations shall exist, and there shall 

have been paid, or segregate3 within the Sewer Revenue Fund, 

the amounts payable during the current month pursuant to 

clauses (ii) , (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (a) above. 

SECTION 5.03. Additional Oblisations. ' 

(a) The City may not create'-any Obligations the payments 

of which are senior or prior in right t'o the payment by the City of 

parity Obligations. . , 

(b) Without regard to Section 5.03 (c) , the City may at 

any time enter into or create an obligation or commitment which is 

a Cr.edit Provider Reimbursement Obligation or a Qualified Swap 

Agreement provided the Obligation to which the Qualified Swap 

Agreement relates is a Parity Obligation. 

(c) After the initial issuance of Parity Obligations 

hereunder, the City may at any time and from time to time issue or 

create any other Parity Obligations, provided: 

(1) There shall not have occurred and be continuing 

(i) an Event of Default under the terms of this Installment 

Purchase Agreement or any Issuing Instrument or (ii) an Event 

of Default or Termination Event (as defined in any Qualified 

Swap Agreement) under any Qualified Swap Agreement; and 

(2) The City obtains or provides a certificate or 

certificates, prepared by the City or at the City's option by 

a Consultant, showing that: 

(A) the Net System Revenues as shown by the books of 

the City for any 12 consecutive month period out of the 

18 consecutive months ending immediately prior to the 

incurring of such additional other Parity Obligations 

shall have amounted to at least 1.20 times the Maximum 

Annual Debt Service on all Parity Obligations Outstanding 

during such period. For purposes of preparing the 

certificate or certificates described above, the 

Consultant or Consultants may rely upon financial 

statements prepared by th.e City, which have not been

subj ect to audit by an independent certified public 

accountant if audited financi-a1 statements for the period 

are not available; and 

(B) the estimated Net System Revenues for the next 

12 months following the date of issuance of such other 

Parity Obligations will be at least equal to 1.20 times 

the Maximum Annual Debt Service for all Parity 

Obligations which will be Outstanding ilmediately after 

the issuance of the proposed Parity Obligations. 

For purposes of the computations to be made as described 

in clause (B) above, the determination of Net System 

Revenues : 

(i) may take into account any increases in rates and 

charges which relate to the Wastewater System and shall 

take into account any reduction in such rates and 

charges, which will, for pu?poses of the test described 

in clause (B) , be effective during the fiscal year ending 

within the 12-month period for which such estimate is 

made; and 

(ii) may take into account an allowance for aiy 

estimated increase in such Net System Revenues from any 

revenuc producing additions or improvements to or 

extensions of the Wastewater System, to be made with the 

proceeds of such additional indebtedness or with the 

proceeds of Parity Obligations previously issued, all in 

an amount eqval to the estimated additional average 

annual Net System Revenues to be derived from such 

additions, improvements and extensions for the first 36- 

month period in which each addition, improvement or 

extension is respectively to be in operation, all as 

shown by such certificate of the City or a Consultant, as 

applicable; and 

(iii) for the period contemplated by clause (B) 

Maintenance and Operation Costs of the Wastewater System 

shall be deemed to be equal to such costs for the 12 

consecutive months immediately prior to incurring such 

other Parity Obligations, but adjusted if deemed 

necessary, by the City or a Consultant, as applicable, 

or any increased Mairtenance and Operations Costs of the 

Wastewater System which are, in the judgment of the City 

or a Consultant, as applicable, essential to maintaining 

and operatin5 the Wastewater System and which will occur 

during the Fiscal Year ending within the period 

contemplated by clause (B) . 

The certificate or certificates described above in 

clause (B) shall not be required if the Parity Obligations

eing issued are for the Purpose of (i) issuing the Parity 

obligations initially issued under this Agreement or 

(ii) refunding (x) then Outstanding Parity Obligations if at 

the time of the issuance of such Parity Obligations a 

certificate of an Authorized City Representative shall be 

delivered showing that Debt Service in each Fiscal Year on all 

parity obligations Outstanding after the issuance of the 

refunding Parity Obligations will not exceed Debt Service in 

each corresponding Fiscal Year on all Parity Obligations 

outstanding prior to the issuance of such Parity Obligations; 

or (y) then Outstanding Balloon Indebtedness, Tender 

Indebtedness or Variable Rate Indebtedness, but only to the 

extent that the principal amount of such indebtedness has been 

put, tendered to or otherwise purchased by a standby purchase 

or other liquidity facility relating to such indebtedness. 

(d) Without regard to Section 5.03 (c) , if (i) no Event 

of Default has occurred and is continuing and (ii) no Event of 

Default or Termination Event (as defined in any Qualified Swap 

Agreement) under any Qualified Swap--Agreement has occurred and is 

continuing, the City may issue or incur Subordinated Obligations, 

and such Subordinated Obligations may be. paid only in accordance 

with the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 5.02. 

ARTICLE VI 

COVENANTS OF THE CITY 

SECTION 6.01. Com~liance with Installment Purchase 

Aqreement and AneflJ.ary Asseements. The City will punctually pay 

Parity Obligations in strict conformity with the terms hereof and 

thereof, and will faithfully observe and perform all the 

agreements, conditions, covenants and terms contained herein 

required to be observed and performed by it, anca will not terminate 

the installment Purchase Agreement for any cause including, without 

limiting the generality of the foregoing, any acts or circumstances 

that may constitute failure of consideration, destruction of or 

damage to the Project, commercial frustration of purpose, any 

change in the tax or other laws of the United States of America or 

of the Statc of California or any political subdivision of either 

or any failure of the Authority to observe or perform any 

agreement, condition, covenant or tern contained herein required to 

be observed and performed by it, whether express or implied, or any 

duty, liability or obligation arising out of or connected herewith 

Or the insolvency, or deemed insolvency, or bankruptcy or 

liquidation of the Authority or any force majeure, including acts 

of God, tempest, storm, earthquake, war, rebellion, riot, civil 

disorder, acts of public enemies, blockade or embargo, strikes, 

industrial disputes, lock outs, lack of transportation facilities, 

fire. explosion, or acts or regulations of governmental 

authorities.

The city will faithfully observe and perform all the 

conditions, covenants and terms contained in the 

Installment Purchase Agreement, including Supplements, and any 

Issuing Instrument or Qualified Swap Agreement relating to ~crity 

obligations required to be observed and performed by it, and it is 

expressly understood and agreed by and between the parties to the 

rnsta1lment Purchase Agreement that, subject to Section 10.07 

hereof, each of the agreements, conditions, covenants and terms 

contained herein and therein is ~ln essential and material term of 

the purchase of and paynlent for each Corr~ponent by the City pursuant 

to, and in accordance with, and as authorized under the Law. 

The City will faithfully observe and perform all of the 

agreements and covenants of the City contained in each Authorizing 

ordinance and will not permit the same to be amended or modified so 

as to adversely affect the Owners of Installment Payment 

obligations or the counterparty to any Qualified Swap Agreement 

that is in effect. 

. * 

The City shall be unconditionally and irrevocably 

obligated, as long as any Installment Payment Obligations remain 

outstanding and unpaid, to take all lawful actio~. necessary or 

required to continue to entitle the City to collect and deposit 

such System Revenues in the Sewer Revenue Fund for use as provided 

in this Installment Purchase Agreement, provided. however, such 

obligation does not, in any way, limit th2 City's ability to 

undertake any and all legal actions, including any appeals, in the 

defense of a federal court order dictating a wastewater system 

configuration other than that approved and adopted by the City. 

SECTION 6.02. Asainst Encumbrances. The City will not 

make any pledge of or place any lien on the Net System Revenues 

except as otherwise provided or permitted herein. 

SECTION 6.03. Debt Service Reserve Fund. The City will 

maintain or cause to be maintained each Reserve Fund and Resewe 

Account at the applicable Reserve Requirement. In the event th.e 

amount in any such fund or account falls below the applicable 

Reserve Requirement, the City will replenish such fund or account 

up to the applicable Reserve Requirement pursuant to Section 5.02. 

SECTION 6-04. Asrainst Sale or Other Disposition of 

- Fsopertv. Except as otherwise provided in Section 6.20, the City 

will not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the Wastewater Syst m 

or any part thereof essential to the proper operation of the 

Wastewater System or to the maintenance of the System Revenues, 

except as provided herein. Further, the City will not, except as 

otherwise provided herein, enter into any agreement or lease which 

impairs the operation of the Wastewater System or any part thereof 

necessary to secure adequate Net System Revenues for the payment 

of the Parity Obligations or which would otherwise impair che 

rights of the Authority with respect to the System Revenues or the

of the Wastewater System. Any real or personal property 

I which has become nonoperative or which is not needed for the 

efficient and proper operation of the Wastewater System, or any 

[ naterial or equipment which has become worn out, may be sold if 

such sale will not materially reduce the Net System Revenues and if 

the proceeds of such sale are deposited in the Sewer Revenue Fund. 

SECTION 6.05. Acrainst Com~etitiare Facilities. Excepl: as 

F 

I 

i 

1 

i 

I 

I 

3 

prmitted by Section 6.20, the City will not, to the extent 

permitted by existing law, construct, acquire, maintajn or operate 

and will not, to the extent permitted by existing law and within 

the scope of its powers, permit any other public or private agency, 

authority, district or political subdivision or any person 

whomsoever to acquire, con3truct1 maintain or operate within the 

City any wastewater system competitive with the Wastewater System. 

SECTION 6.06. Prompt Aeqlnisition and Construction. The 

1 City will take all necessary and appropriate steps to construct, 

I acquire and install the Project, as agent of the Authority, with 

t 

all practicable dispatch and in an expeditious manner and in 

conformity with law so as to complete the same as soon as possible. 

f. 

SECTION 6.07. Haintenance and meration of the 

Wastewater Systm; Budcrets. The City will maintain and preserve 

the Wastewater System in good repair and working order at all times 

and will operate the Wastewater System in an efficient and 

economical manner and will pay all Maintenance and Operation Costs 

of the Wastewater System as they become due and payable. The City 

will adopt and file with the Authority, on or before the effective 

date hereof, a budget approved by he City Council of the City 

setting forth the estimated Maintenance and Operation Costs of the 

Wastewater System for the period from such date until the close of 

the t-hen current Fiscal Year. On or before August I, of each 

Fiscal Year, the City will adopt, and on or before one hundred and 

twenty (120) days after the beginning of the Fiscal Year, file with 

the Authority a budget approved by the City Council of the City 

setting forth the estimated Maintenance and Operation Costs of the 

Wastewater System for such Fiscal Year. T.ny budget may be amended 

at any time during any Fiscal Year and such amended budget shall be 

filed by the City with the Authority. 

I dl 

" 

SECTION 6.08. Amount of Rates and Charses: Rate 

Stabilization Fund. 

(a) The City will fix, prescribe and collect rates and 

charges for the wastewater Service which will be at least 

sufficient (i) to pay all Obligations (other than parity 

Obligations), and (ii) to yield during each Fiscal Year Net System 

Revenues equal to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Debt 

Senrice for such Fiscal Year. The City may make adjustments from 

time to time in such rates and charges and may make such 

classification thereof as it deems necessary, but shall not reduce 

LA1-3889.15 31

the rates and charges then in effect unless the Net System Revenues 

from such reduced rates and charges will at all times be sufficient 

to meet; the requirements of this section. 

(b) The City may establish, as a fund within the Sewer 

Revenue Fund, a fund denominated the Rate Stabiliza.tion Fund. From 

time to time the City may deposit into the Rate Stabilization Fund, 

from current System Revenues, such amounts as the City shall 

determine and the amount of available current Sys tem Revenues shall 

be reduced by the amount so transferred. Amounts rray be 

transferred from the Rate Stabilization Fund solely and exclusively 

to pay Maintenance and Operation Costs of the Wastewater System, 

and any amounts so tl-ansferred shall be deemed System Tevenues when 

so transferred. All interest or other earnings upon amounts in the 

Rate stabilization Fund may be withdrawn therefrom and accounted 

for as System Revenues. 

SECTION 6.09. Pawnen, _ of Claims. The City will pay and 

discharge any and all lawful claims.* for labor, materials or 

supplies which, if unpaid, might become a lien on the Net System 

Revenues or any part thereof or on any funds in the hands of the 

City or the Trustee might impair the security of the Installment 

Payments, but the City shall not be required to pay such claims if 

the validity thereof shall be contested in good faith. 

SECTION 6.10. Com~lliance with. Contracts. The City will 

comply with, keep, observe and perform all agreements, conditions, 

covenants and terms, express or implied, required to be performed 

by it contained in all contracts for the use of the Wastewater 

System and all other contracts affecting or involving the 

Wastewater System to the extent that the City is a party thereto. 

SECTION 6.11. Insurance. 

(a) The City will procure and maintain or cause to be 

procured and maintained insurance on the Wastewater System with 

responsible insurers, or provide self insurance rc -;erves, in such 

amounts and against such risks (including accident to or 

destruction of the Wastewater System) as are usually covered in 

connection with wastewater systems similar to the Wastewater 

System. In the event of any damage to or destruction of the 

Wastewater System caused by the perils covered by such insurance or 

self insurance, the Net Proceeds thereof shall be applied to the 

reconstruction, repair or replacement of the damaged or destroyed 

portion of the Wastewater System. The City shall begin such 

reconstruction, repair or replacement promptly after such damage or 

destruction shall occur, and shall continue and properly complete 

such reconstruction, repair or replacement as expeditiously as 

Possible, and shall pay out of such Net Proceeds all costs and 

expenses in connection with such reconstruction, repair or 

replacement so that the same shall be completed and the Wastewater 

System shall be free and clear of all claims and liens unless the

;I 

city determines that such property or facility i.s not necessary to 

the efficient or proper operation of tile Wastewater System and 

therefore determines not to reconstruct, repair or replace such 

or facility. If such Net Proceeds exceed the costs of such 

reconstructi~n, repair or replacement, then the excess Net Proceeds 

shall be deposited in the Sewer Revenue Fund and be available for 

~ther proper uses of funds deposited in the Sewer Revenue Fund. 

(b) The City will procure and maintain such other 

insurance which it shall deem advisable or necessary to protect its 

interests and the interests of the Authority, which insurance shall 

afford protection in such amounts and against such risks as are 

usually covered in connection with wastewater systems similar to 

the Wastewater System; provided that any such insurance may be 

maintained under a self-insurance program so long as such 

self-insurance is maintained in the amounts and manner usually 

maintained in connection with wastewater systems similar to the 

wastewater System and is, in the opinion of an accredited actuary, 

actuarially sound. .* 

All policies of insurance required to be maintained 

herein shall, to extent reasonably obtainable, provide that the 

~uthority and the Trustee shall be given thirty (30) days1 written 

notice of any intended cancellation thereof or reduction of 

coverage provided thereby. The City shall certify to the Authority 

and Trustee annuaily on or before August 31 that it is in 

compliance with the insurance requirements hereunder. 

I 

1 

i SECTION 6.12. Accountins Records; Financial Statments 

and Other Reports. 

If$ , 

I , (a) The City will keep appropriate accounting records in 

';:, which complete and correct entries shall be made of all 

*, I](? transactions relating to the Wastewater System, which records shall 

ilable for inspection by the Authority and the Trustee at 

asonable hours and under reasonable conditions. 

(b) The City will prepare and file with the Authority 

d the Trustee annually within the number of days specified below 

ter the close of each Fiscal Year (commencing with the Fiscal 

ar ending June 30, 1994) - - 

(1) within two hundred and seventy (270) days, financial 

statements of the Sewer Revenue Fund for the preceding Fiscal 

Year prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting 

principles, together with an Accountant's Report thereon; and 

(2) within forty-five (45) days, a detailed report a-s to 

all insurance polici es maintained and self - insurance programs 

maintained by the C;ty with respect to the Wastewater System 

as of the close of such Fiscal Year, including the na-mes of 

33

the insurers which have issued the policies and the amounts 

ereof and the property or risks covered thereby. 

(c) The City will furnish a copy of the financial 

nts referred to in (b) (1) above to any Owner of the Bonds 

ing a copy thereof. 

SECTION 6.13. Protection of Securitv and Riqhts of the 

. The City will preserve and protect the security hereof 

rights of the Authority to the Installment Payments 

and will warrant and defend such rights against all 

d demands of all persons. 

SECTION 6.14. Pavment of Taxes and Compliance with 

tal Recrulations. The City will pay and discharge all 

sessments and other governmental charges which may 

be lawfully imposed upon the Wastewater System or any 

of or upon the System Revenues when the same shall become 

City will duly observe and conform with all valid 

s and requirements of any governmental authority relative 

ation of the Wastewater System or any part thereof, but 

all not be required to comply with any regulations or 

so long as the validity or application thereof shall 

in good faith. 

SECTION 6.15. Collection of Rates and Charues: No Free 

e City will have in effect at all times rules and 

or the payment of bills for Wastewater Service. Such 

ay provide that where the City furnishes water to the 

iving Wastewater Service, the Wastewater Service 

be collected together with the water rates upon the 

iding for a due date and a delinquency date for each 

case where such bill remains unpaid in whole or in 

becomes delinquent, the City may disconnect such 

the water service, and such premises shall not 

econnected to the water service except in accordance 

ting rules and regulations governing such situations 

. The City will not permit any part of the, 

em or any facility thereof to be used or taken 

e of charge by any authority, firm or person, or by 

(including the United States of America, the 

rnia and any city, county, district, political 

lic authority or agency thereof). 

SECTION 6.16. Ehinent Domain Proceeds. If all or any 

tewater System shall be taken by eminent domain 

n subject to the provisions of any Authorizing 

Net Proceeds thereof shall be applied to the 

e property or facilities so taken, unless the City 

uch property or facility is not necessary to the 

per operation of the Wastewater System and 

es not to replace such property or facilities. 

34

Any Net ~?roceeds of such award not applied to replacement or 

remaining after such work has been completed shall be deposited in 

the sewer Revenue Fund and be available for other proper uses of 

funds deposited in the Sewer Revrnue Fund. 

SECTION 6.17. Tax Covenants. There shall be included 3.n 

each Supplement relating to Tax-Exempt Installment Payment 

obligations such covenants as are deemed necessary or appropriate 

by Bond counsel for the purpose of assuring that interest on such 

~nstallment Payment Obligations shall be excluded from gross income 

under Section 103 of the Code. 

SECTION 6.18. Further Assurang-. The City will adopt, 

deliver, execute and make any and all further assurances, 

instruments and resolutions as may be reasonably necessary or 

proper to carry out the intention or to facilitate the performance 

hereof and for the better assuring and c0nfirmin.g unto the 

~uthority of the rights and benefits provided to it herein. 

SECTION 6.19. merate ~ast'ewater Svstem. The City will 

operate the Wastewater System in an efficient and economical 

manner, provided that the City may remove from service on a 

temporary or permanent basis such part or parts of the Wastewater 

system so long as (a) Net System Revenues are equal to one hundred 

twenty percent (120%) of the Debt Service for the then current 

Fiscal Year and for each Fiscal Year thereafter to and including 

the Fiscal Year during which the last Installment Payment is due as 

evidenced by an Engineer's Report on file with the City, and (b) 

the City.shall have filed with the Trustee an opinion of nationally 

recognized Bond Counsel to the effect that the removal of such part 

or parts of the Wastewater System will not adversely affect the 

exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the 

interest on Tax-Exempt Installment Payment Obligations. 

SECTION 6.20. Transfer 0-f MetropoPitan S Y S ~ ~ 

Com~onents. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein 

contained, the City may transfer ownership of substantially all of 

the Metropolitan System, including amounts in the Sewer Revenue 

Fund attributable to the Metropo:litan System, and any amounts in 

the Rate Stabilization Fund agreed upon by the City and the 

transferee as being attributable to the ~etropolitan System, to the 

District or any other governmental agency whose primary purp0s.e is 

to provide wastewater treatment and disposal service, provided such 

entity agrees to assume all Obligations the proceeds of whi.ch were 

used to acquire Components which are part of the Metropolitan 

System and all other obligations relating to the Metropolitan 

System which are payable from Metropol-itan System Revenues, Net 

Metropolitan System Revenues, System Revenues or Net System 

Revenues, including but not limited to sala.ries and benefits 

Payable to employees who are to become employees of such entity, 

all accounts payable, Qua1 if ied Swap Agreements, Credit Provider 

Reimbursement Obligations and all other obligations with respect

thereto such as capital improvement expenditure obl.igations snd 

tort claims, and the obligation to pay fines, penalties or damages 

.rising out of or relating to violation of federal, state or local 

laws or regulations which are applicable or purported to be 

to the operation of the Metropolitan System, and 

provided that the following conditions are met: 

(a) There shall not have occurred and be continuing an 

Event of Default under the terms of the Installment Purchase 

Agreement, or any other Issuing Instrument or Qualified Swap 

Agreement or any Termination Event (as defined in a Qualified Swap 

~~rcement) under any Qualified Swap Agreement; 

(b) There shall have been delivered to the Trustee an 

opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that the proposed transfer 

will not have an adverse effect on the exclusion from gross income 

for federal income tax purposes of the interest component of Tax- 

Exempt Inst~llment Payment Obligations; 

(c) The entity shall havk. obtained all necessary 

licenses, permits and consents from all g~verm~ental agencies or 

authorities havi.. :g or asserting ju~isdiction. over the activities of 

the Metropolitan System; 

(d) There shall be deli-\-:?red to all trustees for any 

Obligations and to any Qualified Swap Provider an opinion of 

counsel, who may be the City Attorney of the City, to the effect 

that the Supplements referred to in clauses (h) (1) and (h) (2) below 

are valid, binding and enforceable ?gainst the transferee in the 

case of a Supplement referred to in clause (h) (1) below and against 

the City in the case of a Supplement referred to in clause (h)(2) 

below; 

(e) The City obtains or-provides a certificate prepared 

wing that (i) the estimated Nct ~etropolitan 

r the next 12 months following the date of 

t least equal to 3 -20 i imes the Maximum Annual 

11 Outstanding parity Obligations to be assumed 

assuming for this purpose that the Outstanding 

to be assumed by the transferee will include all 

and (ii) the estimated Jet Municipal System 

evellues for the next 12 months fol-lowing the date of transfer will 

to 1.20 times the Maximum Annual Debt Service for 

Parity Obligations not to be assumed by the 

ree, assuming for this purpose that the Outstanding Parity 

o be assumed by the transieree will include all 

(f) There shall be delivered to the Trustee a notice of 

each of the Rating Agencies then providing ratings on any 

Obligations to be outstanding immediately after the transf er, 

the ratings on all such Obligations in effect 

36

immediately prior to such. transfer, or alternatively all such 

obligatioll~ shall be defeased or paid in full prior to such 

transfer; 

(g) There shall he delivered to ea-ch Owner notice of the 

intended transfer of Metropolitan System Components not less than 

30 nor more than 60 days prior to the expected transfer date; and 

(h) Incident Lo a transfer of the Metropolitan System 

-permitted by this Section 6.20, 

(1) the transferee shall execute and deliver to the 

Trustee a Supplement which shall contain the following: 

(A) the assumption and indemnification by the transferee 

of all obligations of the City hereunder, but only as they 

relate to the Metropolitan System, including Obligations the 

proceeds of which were used to acquire Componerits for the 

Metropolitan System; . n 

(8) a pledge by the trangferee of Net Metropolitan 

System Revenues for the payment of assumed Parity Obligations 

which shall be in substantially the same form as the pledge of 

the City hereunder of Net System Revenues to secure the 

payment of all Parity Obligations; 

(C) representations of the transferee substantially in 

the form-of Section 2.01, but only as to the Obligations 

assumed by the transferee and the covenants to be contained in 

such Supplement; 

(D) covenants of the transferee substantially in the 

form set forth in Sections 3.01 and 3.02, but only as to the 

Components which are or are to be part of the Metropolitan 

(E) covenants of the transferee substantially in the 

form of Sections 4.01 and 4.02, but only as they relate to 

Parity Obligations being assumed by the transferee and the Net 

Metropolitan System Revenues; 

(F) covenants of the transferee substantially in the 

form of Section 5.02, but limited only to Parity Obligations 

assumed by the transferee and moneys deposited from 

Metropolitan System Revenues and Net Metropolitan System 

Revenues ; 

(G) covenants .of the transferee substantially in the 

fonn of Section 5.03, but only in respect of Parity 

Obligations payable from Net Metropolitan System Revenues (for 

this purpose the calculations and coverages contemplated 

thereby shall relate only to Metropolitan System Revenues, 

37

l,L~-~ntenance and Operations Costs of the ~etropolitan System 

236 Net Metropolitan System Revenues); 

. . 

(H) covenants of the transferee substantially in the 

2grm of Article VI (exclusive of Sections 6 -20 and 6.21) , but 

.>niy to the extent of the Metropolitan Systemand Installment 

?a-pent Obliga-tions payable from Metropolitan System Revenues 

2nd Net Metropolitan System Revenues and Installment Payment 

;- .~,iigations 

,. assumed by or of the transferee; 

(I) Events of Default and remedies substantially in the 

zorm of Article VIII, but only relating to Parity Obligations 

assumed by the transferee; and 

(J) Covenants of the transferee substantially in the 

f o m of Sections 10.02, 10.03 and 10.12, but only with respect 

to parity Obligations assumed by the transferee. 

(2) the City shall execute and deliver a Supplement 

which shall reaffirm all of the City's representations and 

warranties under the Installment Payment Agreement ~ind each 

Supplement, the pledge provided for in Article V, and each of the 

covenants of the City contained in Article VI of the Installment 

Payment Agreement or elsewhere in either the Installment Payment 

Agreement or any Supplement, provided that such representations, 

warranties, pledge and covenants shall be limited solely and 

exclusively to the Municipal System, Municipal System Revenues, 

Maintenance and Operations Costs of the Municipal System and Net 

Municipal System Revenues, as the case may be. 

Upon e.xecution and delivery of the foregoing Supplements 

and upon satisfaction of the condi'cions hereinabove spscified, the 

City shall be relieved and discharged from any and.al1 Installment 

Payment Obligations payable from Net System Metropolitan Revenues 

and which have been assumed by a transferee. 

, . 

SECTION 6.23. Subcontractinq. Notwithstandi.ng anything 

to the contrary herein contained, the City may subcontract to 

Provide Wastewater Sewices to Participating Agencies through any 

entity to which it may thereafter transfer assets as permitted 

under Sect.ion 6.20, so that such entity may provide comparable 

services to Participating Agencies provided (i) such entity agrees 

to subcontract for all such Wastewater Sewices exclusivel-y wlth 

the City; and (ii) the entity agrees to charge the same rates the 

charged for such services at the time the contract with the 

takes effect or such other rates as the City may prescribe.

SECTION 6.22. Additional Covenants. 

The City may provide additional covenants pursuant to any 

sdpplement, including covenants relating to any Credit Support 

~btained for Installment Payment Obligations; provided, however, 

-,ha-; 

., 

such additional Cove~lantS do not materially and adversely 

&ffect the right of Owners of Outstanding Obligations issued prior 

- p any such Supplement. 

LXTPCLE VII 

PREPAYMENT OF IUSTALLMF,NT PAYMENTS 

SECTION 9-01. Bre~ament of Installment Payments. 

Provisions may be made in any Supplement for the 

prepayment of Installment Payments, in whole or in part, in such 

multiples and in such order oL maturity and from funds of any 

source, and with such prepayment premiums and other terms 

as are specified in the Supplement. Said Supplement shall also 

provide for any notices to be given relating to such prepayment. 

ARTICLE VIIf 

EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF THE AUTHORITY 

SECTION 8.01. Events of Default and Rcceleration of 

Maturities. If one or more of the following Events of Default 

shall happen, that is to say - - 

(1) if default shall be made in the due and punctual 

paymmt of or on account of any Parity Obligation as the same 

shall become due . . and payable; 

(2) if default, shall be made by the City in the 

performance of any of. the agreements or covenants required 

herein to be performed by it (other than as specified in (1) 

above), and such default shall have continued for a period of 

sixty (60) days after the City shall have been given notice in 

writing of such default by the Aut.:lority; 

(3) if any Event of Default specified in any Supplement, 

Authorizing Ordinance or Issuing Instrument sh,.:.ll have 

occurred and be continuing; or 

(4) if the City shall fi1.e a petition or answer seeking 

arrangement or reorganization under the federal bankruptcy 

laws or any other applicable law of the United States of 

America or any state therein, or if a court of competent 

jurisdiction shall approve a petition filed with or without

;1;4i1 

y 

1 

"I,]; 

#lli1 

PI 

the conPent of the City seeking arrangemei, t or reorganization 

under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law 

of the United States of America or any state therein, or if 

under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of 

(iff debtors any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume 

iliil 

It( 

IIIII~! 

[[(/?& 1Pl ? 

a 8,?> , , 

custody or control of the City or of the whole or any 

substantial part of its property; 

then and in each and every such case during the continuance of such 

:!!h!;b!$ ~ent of Default the Authority shall upon the written request of 

~/;>h,~,,$- 

, ;& the Owners of twenty- five percent (25%) or more of the aggregate 

,&j principal amount of all Series of Parity Installment Obligations 

!,rj,il 

,;:!,. outstanding, voting collectively as a single class, by notice in 

the City, declare the entire unpaid principal amount 

the accrued interest thereon to be due and payable 

, and unon any such dec1;:ration the same shall become 

due ai-id payable, anyth ng contained herein to the 

otwithstanding; provided, that with respect to a Series 

Installment Obligations which is credit enhanced by 

Support, acceleration shall not be effective unless the 

laration is consented to by the related Credit Provider and, 

rovided further, that nothing herein shall 'affect the rights of 

he parties to a Qualified Swap Agreement to terminate such 

ualified Swap Agreement. This subsection however, is subject to 

he condition that if at any ti~ne after the entire principal amount 

f all Series of Parity Installment Obligations and the accrued 

nterest thereon shall have been so declared due and payable and 

efore any judgment or decree for the payment of the moneys due 

hall have been obtained or entered, the City shall deposit with 

he Authority a sum sufficient to pay the unpaid principal amount 

f all such Series of Parity Installment Obligations and the unpaid 

ayments of any other Parity Obligations referred to in clause (1) 

bove due prior to such declaration and the accrued interest 

hereon, with interest on such overdue installments at the rate or 

ates applicable thereto in accordance with their terms, and the 

reasonable expenses of the Authrrity, and a:ry and all other 

efaults 'known to the Authority (other than in the payment of the 

ntire principal amount of the unpaid Parity Installment 

ligations and the accrued interest thereon due and payable solely 

reason of such declaration) shall have been made good or cured 

the satisfaction of the Authority or provision deemed by the 

thority to be adequate shall have been made theref or, then and in 

ery such case the Authority, by written notice to the City, may 

scind and annul such declaration and its consequences; but no 

,such rescission and annulment shal.1 extend to or shall affect any 

'subseq~rent default or shall impair or exhaust any right or power 

i~onsequent thereon. 

SECTION 8.02, Aw~Pication sf Net Gvst- Revenues U ~on 

eration. Subject to the provisions of any Issuing Instrument 

thorizing Ordinance, all Net System Revenues received after 

40

!I,) 91'" 

k 

and 

Second, to the payment of the entire principal amount of 

16 

$ 1 terms. In the even 

?.p , Revenues to pay the entire principal mount and accrued interest on 

;, all Parity Obligations, then accrued intcrt-st (and payments due to 

$'$'the counterparty to a Qualified Swap Agreement) shall first be paid 

*J 

1 and any remaining amount shall be pai - 

,i' 

i% in the event there are insufficient pet ! 

:dl total-amounts due in the priority. 

- . - 

dl i 

./ ' 

1 ,I SECTION 8.03. Other Remedies of the Authoritv. 

4, he Authority shall have the right, subject to receipt of consent 

rom any Credit Provider with respect to a particular Series of 

arity Installment Obligations-- 

(a) by mandamus or other action or proceeding or suit at 

law or in equity to enforce its rights against the City or any 

councilmember, officer or employee thereof, and to compel the 

;! - +A and carry out its or his duties under the Law and the 

I*$ agreements and covenants requir~d to be performed by it or him 

ib contained herein; 

I 

ti, 

8; 

k~+ + 

(b) by suit in equity to enjoin any acts or things which 

are unlawful or violate the rights of the Authority; or 

and employees -to account as the trustee of an express trust.

to institute suit to enforce such payment by virtue of the contract 

edodied herein. 

A waiver of any default or breach of duty or contract by 

the Authority shall not affect any subseq~ent default or breach of 

duty or contract or impair any rights or remedics on any such 

subsequent default or breach of duty or contract. No delay or 

by the Authority to exercise any right or remedy accruing 

any default or bl 2ach of duty or contract shall impair any 

such right or I-emedy or shall be construed to be a waiver of any 

sucll default or breach of duty or contract or an acquiescence 

therein, and every right or remedy conferred upon the Authority by 

the Law or by this article may be enforced and exercised from time 

to time and as often as shall be deemed expedient by the Authority. 

If any action, proceed.i.ng or suit to enforce any right or 

exercise any remedy is abandoned or determined adversely to the 

~~thority, the City and the Authority shall be restored to their 

former positions, rights and remedies as if such action, proceeding 

or suit had not been brought or taken. 

SECTION 8.85- Remedies ROLF ~ZGsive. No remedy herein 

conferred upon or reserved to the Auth~ ity or a counterparty to a 

~ualified Swap Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other 

remedy, and each such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in 

addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter 

existing in law or in equity or by statute or otherwise and may be 

exercised without exhausting and without regard to any other remedy 

conferred by law. 

DISCHARGE OF OBLIGATIONS 

SECTION 9.0%. Diseharse of 0.blisations. 

If (i) the City shall pay or cause to be paid or tilere 

shall otherwise be paid to the Owners all Outstanding Installment 

Payment Obligations of a Series the interest thereon and the 

principal thereof and the redemption premiums, if any, thereon or 

if all such Outstanding Obligations shall be deemed to have been 

paid at the times and in the manner stipulated in the applicable 

Issuing Instrument, or (ii) the transfer of ownership of \ 

substantially all of the ~c.tropolitan System, as contemplated by 

Section 6.20 shall have occurred, then all agreements, covenants 

and other obligations of the City hereunder shall thereupon cr ise, 

terminate and become void and be discharyed and satlsiied (but only 

as to such Series in the case of an event described in clause (i) 

and only as provided in Section 6.20 in the case of a transfer of 

the Metropolitan System as provided in Section 6.20) except. for the

SECTION 10.01. Liabi1i.t~ of City Limited to System 

Revenues. Notwithstandil-lg anything contained herein, the City 

8, 

' ' --shall 

- not be required to advance any moneys deri~ ed from any source 

of income other than the Net System Revenues a1 d the other funds 

provided herein for the payment of the Installment Payments or for 

the performance of any other agreements or covenants required to be 

performed by it contained herein. The City may, however, but in no 

evellt shall be obligated to, advance moneys for any such purpose so 

long as such moneys are derived from a source legally available for 

, , such purpose and may be legal ly used by the City for such purpose. 

The obligation of the City .-,to make the Inst:.allment 

payments is a special obligation of the City payable solely from 

such Net System Revenues and other funds provLded for herein, and 

does not constitute a debt of the City or of the State of 

California or of any political subdivision thereof within the 

meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or 

restriction. 

SECTION 10.02. Benefits of Installment Purchase 

Aqreement Limited to Parties. Nothing contained herein, expressed 

or implied, is intended to give to any person other than the City, 

the Authority or the assigns of the Authority and any Credit 

Provid.er any right, remedy or claim under or pursuant hereto, and 

any agreement or covenant required herein to be performed by or on 

behalf of the City or the Authority shall be for the sole and 

exclusive benefit of the other party. Ea.;~h party hereto agrees for 

the benefit of ,.:.ny counterparty to a Qualified Swap Agreement that 

covenants contained herein that are expressly applicable to such a 

counterpa~ty, are also intended to benefit such counterparty and 

each such cou.nterparty shall be deemed to be a third party 

beneficiary with respect thereto, entitled to enforce direct1.y and 

in its own name any rights or claims it may have against such party 

and otherwise protect its rights hereunder. 

SECTION 10.03. BBwenbents. 

This Agreement may be amended with respect to a Series of 

lment Payment Obligations in writing as may be mutually 

by the City and the Authority, with the written consent of 

edit Provider which is pr0vi.d-ing insurance until the final 

ty or payment in full of one or more maturities of such 

lment Papcnt Obligations, or any other Credit Provider for 

nstallment Payment Obligations and the Owners of a marjority 

4.3

cly affect the exclusion of the interest portion of the 

lment Paymenc:s received by the Owners of Tax-Exempt 

lment Payment Obligations from gross income under Section 103 

With the written consent of any Credit Provider, this 

g upon execution by the City and the Authority, without the 

(1) to add to

(3) to make such other amendmen-ts clr modifications 

which shall not materially adversely affect the interests 

of the Owners of the Installment Payment Obligations. 

SECTION 10.04. - Successor -- Is Deemed Included in all 

Rc fesences t.0 -- 

Predecessor. Except as otherwise provibcd herein, 

"henever either the City or the Authority is named or referred to 

herein, such reference shall be deemed to include the successor to 

the powers, duties and functions that are presently vested in the 

city or the Authority, and all agreements and covenants required 

hereby to be performed by or on behalf of the City or the Authority 

shall bind and inure to t.he benefit of the respective successors 

thereof whether so expressed or not. 

SECTION 10.05, Waiver of Personal T.,iabili.t,. No 

I 

! official, officer or employee oL the City shall be individually or 

personally liable Lor the payment of the Installment Payments, but 

i nothing contained herein sha~l relieve any official, -of, i-cer or 

1 

E employee of the Cit.y from the performance of any official duty 

provided by any applicable provisions of law or hereby. 

i 

i 

U 

SECTION 1 0 ., 06. Article and Seckiow Eeadiwqs, Gender a . ~ 

D 

a 

$ 

I 

'8 

i 

2 

3 

t 

~eferences. The headings or titles of the several articles and 

sections hereof and the table of contents appended hereto sha.'.l be 

solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the 

meaning, construction or effect hereof, and words of any gender 

shall be deemed and construed to include all genders. A1 1 

references herein to "ArticlesIn nSectionsH and other subdivisions 

or clauses arc to the corresponding articles, sections, 

subdivisions or clauses hereof; and the words "hereby," "herein," 

"hereof, "hereto, "herewithn and other words of similar import 

1 refer to the Installment Purchase Agreement as a whole and not to 

4 any particular article, section, subdivision or clause hereof. 

1 

SECTION 10.07. Partial Gnvalidittr. If any one or more 

of the agreements or covenants or portions thereof required hereby 

to be performed by or on the part of the City or the Authority 

shall be contrary to lz.w, then such agrecament or agreements, such 

covenant or covenants or such portions thereof sha1.l be null and 

void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining agreements 

and covenants or portions thereof and shall in no way affect the 

validity hereof. 

SECTEOX? 1.0.08. Assicamen$. The Installment Purchase 

Agreement and any rights hereunder may be assigned by the 

Authority, as a whole or in part, without the necessity of 

obtaining the prior consent of the City. The assignment of the 

Installment Purcha;;e Agreement 017 rights hereunder or under a 

Supplement to a Txustee is solely in its capacity as Trustee and 

the duties, powers and liabilities of the Trustee in acting 

hereunder shall, be subject to the provisions of the Issuing 

Instrument.

SECTION 10.10. Califmnia Law. Th.e Installment. Purchase 

SECTION 10.11. Notices. All written notices to be given 

hereunder shall be given by first class mail, postage prepaid, 

ourier or hand delivery to the party entitled thereto at its 

ddress set forth below, or at such other address as such party may 

rovide to the other party in writing from time to tlmc, namely: 

If to the City: City of San Diego 

Fknancial Management Dept. 

City Administration Bldg., 

202 C Street., Mail Station 9B 


Attn: Director 

If to the 

Authority': 

Public Facilities Financing 

Authority of the City of 

202 C Street, Mail Station 9B 


Attn: Auditor and Comptroller 

SECTION 10.12. Effective Datg. The Installment 

Purcha .:e Agreement shall become effective as to Installment 

Payments provided for in a Supplement upon the execut.ion and 

delivery of such Supplement or as otherwise specified therein, and 

shall terminate as to such Supplement when the Installment 

Payments contemplated by such Supplement shall have been fully 

paid or prepaid (or provision for the payment thereof shall have 

been made as provided herein) and any related Qualified. Swap 

Agreement is no longer in effect. 

SECTION LO. f 3 . Execution in 4gvwtemarts. The 

Installment Purchase agreementand each Supplement may be executed

&0V" ' 

IN WETNESS W-kIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and 

this Insti l.lment Purchase Agreement by their officers 

du1.y authorized as oE the day and year first written 

CITY OF SALT BEEGO 


, OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

San

7 

E IN WITNESS %VHEwEQF, the parties hereto have executed and 

ill attested this Inst.alln~er?t Purchase Agreement by their officers 

'I 

thereunto duly authorized as oi the day and year first written 

Attest: 

\ir Attest: 

,,ii$jb 

,F&$., 

&l,..(, 

,:r#c 

,@;! /, . 

. By 

!dr$ 

!!I:y Tit 

:1.'J! 

1,1 

APPROVED 325 TO FORM 

City Attorney of the City of San Diego 


OF THE CITY OF S2i.N DIEGB

EXHIBIT-A 

DESCRIPTION OF. ENTIKR PT.OJECT 

(Consumers' Alternative) 

purs[lant to Seciion 3 -02 of the Installment Purchase Agreement, this 

Exhibit A may be amended from time to time and at any time to modify 

or the description of the Project, to eliminate any part 

therrof and/or to substitute a Project or Projects, all without 

obtaining any consent, by filing an amend-ed Exhibit A with the 

Authority and the Trustee; provided however, that no such amendment 

shall in any way impair the obligations of the City contained in any 

supplement executed and delivered prior to any such amendment.

EXHIUI?" A 

Clean Watm Program 

Capital Project Descriptions 

AGRONOMIC S'I'UDY 

(FORMERLY AGRONOM TSTS ECONOMIC STUDY) 

This project provides for the study of soil and vegetation in order to 

determine the e.L.fects of reclaimed water on plant growth and soil chemistry. 

his study will also assess potential water-quality related problems and 

assist in development of effective irriga.t'on rnana.gement practices. The first 

phase of the project was completed in June 30, 1993. Phase I effort included 

setting up three (3) different plot sites, whose soil characteristic and 

c].irnatic zone differ and representative of distinct areas in San Diego. 

Initial data from experiment:.^ conducted on the plots provide preliminary 

findings. 

CLEAN WATER PROGRAM PRZXESIGN AND EYGINEERING SUPPORT 

-.-.- 

(FORMERLY CLEAN WAlIER PROGRAY MISNAGA6MENT dND JiDMINISTRATION) 

This project provides for support activities perfo~med by consultants relating 

to program management., rec'ords managem-nt, scheduling, qua]-ity assurance and 

control, and procurement support during design and construction. This project 

has the potential for funding from Future bond issues. 

40-910.4 EAST MISSION BAY EFFIIUENT PIPELINE 

(FORMERLY EAST I~~~,SIC:N BAY RECLI!.MA7?ION WATER PIPELINE) 

This project provides for construction of a pipeline to transport effluent 

from the Rose Canyon pi-peline to the Point Loma Tunnel Outfall (designation 

was originally the San Diego River Land Outfall) at [:he I-5/I-8 intersection 

for disposal into the ocean. This project provides for a 54 inch diameter 

pipeline that will be approximately 23,000 feet long. It will be either 

ductile iron, steel or concrete cylinder pipe. It will transport North City 

Water,Reclamation Plant (NCWRP) effluent from the new Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer 

to a junction structure located near the intersection of 1-5 and 1-8 (in the 

northeast quadrant of this intersection) . 

40-921.0 FIRP PHASE I1 DIGESTEIILYJUDGE AND CEKJRATE PIPELINES 

(FORMERLY CElb ;IRATE PIPi;:&INE EXTENS-T09V) 

This project provides for the second phase of the relocation of the sludge 

facilities from Fiesta Island. It includes a continuation of: thz digested 

sludge pipeline from Sunset Cliffs to the propose?. North

LAND ACQUISITION 

~t the north end of the preferred alignment is private property (11.5 acres) 

which is located directly across State Route 52 (SR-52) from the plant site, 

from Copley Drive, northward up the existing private access roadrcay, between 

lots 6 & 7, to the Caltxans Right-of-way (ROW). The project will tunnel under 

the freeway and turn northwest, parallel to the ROW, to the currently proposed 

utility corridor. 

46-055 .0 FIRP PmSTATm 

(FORMERLY FIESTA IS- REPLACEMENT PROJECT) 

This project provides for the first phase of the relocation of the sludge 

facilities from Fiesta Island in Mission Bay Park to a new site ?[et to be 

identified. This project includes an approximately 6-mile long 12-inch 

ductile iron digested sludge pipeline from Point Lorna to Sunset Cliffs Bridge, 

a sludge pump station at Point Loma and environmental work. 

The proposed FIRP Sludge Pump Station will pump digested sludge from the Point 

Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant (PIIWTP) to the NSPF. This project will be 

located at the intersection of Gatchell Road and Second Street at tlie south 

end of PLWTP. This facility wil.1. house three biosolids/sludge pumps 2nd 

associated equipment for pumping and screening of biosolids. 

..a 

The FLRP Pump Station facility will include: 

w A lower below gr;-de pump roc.11 level .(approximately 90 feet x 35 feet, at 

elevation 60) which contains the main sludge pumps, a bridge crane, 

sludge feed pumps and associated mechanical equipment (the feed pumps 

may be located in the adjacent gallery). 

A mezzanine level (approximately 90 feet x 20 feet, at elevation 80) 

iihich contains sludge grinders and the associated mechanical equipment 

(the sludge grinders may be located in the adjacent gallery with the 

feed pumps) . 

A main at grade level (approximately 90 feet x 55 feet, at elevation 95, 

i.e., existing grade) which contains switch gear, motor control centers, 

a pump access and maintenance area, and a possible future drive-through 

facility for loading sludge screenings. 

A possible second level (90 feet x 55 feet, at elevation 110) which may 

. contain the sludge screening equipment. The roof of the pump station 

may extend to a maximum height of 30 feet above existing grade or an 

approxir~ate elevation of 125 feet. 

A truck loading facility will be designed into the facility to remove 

the screenings. 

A below grade gallery extension adjacent to the pump station will also be 

construcized with this project (from 20 feet south of C Street to 20 feet: south 

of the pump statiox). The gallery wil.1 be a below-grade structure 15 feet 

high by a minimum of 15 feet wide at elevation 76. The width will be 

determined by the space required for future equipment. 

A 12-inch discharge force main will exit the pump station to the east or north 

and be routed around to the east side of the existing digeste2-s. The force 

main will be attached to a 6-foot high retaining wall that is being 

constructed along with slo,;e revegetation to help alleviate the erosion on the 

hillside east of Third Street. 

45 -920.0 METRO SYSTEM CONTROL CENTER 

This project provides for a Wastewater Opera.tj.ons Manager,isnt Network (COPNET) 

which will uni. ,.e all process monitoring and control systems and local. area 

computer networks (LAN) in and hetweeri new and. e;:isting facilities. The 

purpose of this project is to provide for centralized management and planning 

for all the major existing and new wastewater a.nd reclaimed water facilities 

for the Clean Water Program. The project wi1.l also provicle f 0:: furnishing and 

installing a computerized control system and will also include the

instrunentation and control units at the major wastewater treatment and water 

plants, sludge processing racilities and pumping plants. 

METRO SYSTEM OPERATIONS CENTER 

This project will provide for design, land acquisition (which includes 

suitable buildings) and refurbishment for Clean Water Progi-am laboratories. 

This project will provide a facility for housing the:operation staff of the 

C1ea.n Water Program. It will also p:covide a location for COMNET, which is the 

centralized computer monitoring/control system for the Clean Water Program. 

~t will also be used for pre-equipment purchase storage and serve as an 

operating training for the new facilities. This project wi.11 irivolve the 

of an existing facility located in th.e Kearny Mesa area. The 

facility has two existing buildings. One building at 9192 Topaz Way h.as 

approximatel.y 106,204 square feet which contains approximately 43,300 square 

feet of office space. It is a two-story building with 100% hc:ating and air 

conditioning syst:ems with parking for 280 vehicles. Zoning is M1B (light 

industrial). This building is approximately 12 years old. 

The other building located at 9150 Topaz Way has approximately 30,260 square 

feet contains approximately 7,260 square feet of office Epace wlth 100%heating 

and cir-condition-~g systems. It is a single-story building and has 

parking for 63 vehicles. le buildingpis zoned M1B (light industrial). The 

building is approximately 40 years old. The acquisition also consists of a 

two-acre empty lot locat d adjacent and to th7 north of the building sites. 

MTsETON GORGE WA ,gR RECLAMATION PLANT 

This project is not a p?:t of the City Council's Consumers Alternative work 

plan and is currently on hold. Expenditures to date are reimbursable. 

Planning and predesign work was performed for construction of a water 

reclamation pl,nt on the 3Tavy's Admiral Baker Field with a capacity of up to 

15 million gallons per day. The proposed plant was to be a facility to treat 

and reclaim sewage water from the adjacent Mission Gorge Interceptor to 

produce irrigation quality effluent. 

MISSION VALLEY EFFLUENT PIPELINE 

This project is not a part of the City Council's Consumers Alternative work 


Planning and predes.i.gn work was performed for a series of pipelines to 

transport excess plant effluent from the Santee Water Reclanlation Plant, the 

Mission Gorge Water Reclamation Plant, and the Missi.on Ve.lley Water 

Reclamation Plant. 

The Mission Valley Pipeline war, to extend from the west end of the future East 

Mission Gorge Interceptor (CIP No. 43-104.0) to the I-5/I-8 intersection. It 

was to be approximately 33,600 feet of 54" pressurized pipe intended to carry 

a peak flow of 72 million gallons per day. 

MISSION VALLEY SLUDGE PIPELINE 



Planning and predesign work were performed for this project tm-: provide the 

pipeline that would transport the raw sludge generated at the Mission Valley 

Water Reclamation Plant, Mission Gorge ,,rater Reclamation PI-ant, and 

potentially the Santee Water Reclamation Plant to the Northern Sludge 

Processing Fecility. 

The Mission Valley Slucge Pipeline was to ber>in at the M;ssion Gorge Water 

Reclamation Plsnt acid proci;.d west to a junction at the San Diego Jack Muqhy 

Stadium parking lot. It was then to proceed north along Murphy Canyon Road

46-159 - 0 

and then west through City streets to the Northern Sludge Processing Facility. 

~hj.s pipeline was to be 10 to 14 inches in diameter and approximately 75,741 

feet in length. 

MIsS~ONVA~~ILEY WATER RECT-/'MATION p m 


plan and is currently on hold. Expenditures to date are rc~.i.mbursable. 

planning and predesign work was performed for construc::.ion of a water 

reclamation plant on the south side of Can:ino del Rio North (to be realigned) 

near the present aquaculture plant in Mission Valley. This treatment plant 

was to generate up to 15 million gallons per day of reclaimed water, provide 

full secondary treatment of waste.-.ater dj-scharged to the ocean, and 

accommodate future increase-s in wixtewater flows. 

his project provides for the prel ; minary f acilitj es planning process 

I necessary to .:elect the treatm~~nt concept(s) and locat~olls for the ~riodified 

~etropolitan ..ewe7~age Faciliti s. The project has been conrpleted. 

1 

;I 

i 46-147.1 MODIFIED WASTEWATERTREATMENT FACILITY - STATE OCEAN PTANCOMPLIANCE 

4 r> 

3 his project provides for studies and design services to achieve State Ocean 

Ij Plan Compliance at the Point Loma Wastewatef Treatment Plant. 

d 

7 

YI 

1 

40-910.6 NORTH CITY EFFLUENT PIPEIJINE 

(FORMERLIr NORTH CITY RECLAIMED WATER PIPELIWJ 

This p-oject provides for construction of a 54-inch diameter reclaimed water 

tra~~smission pipeline to connect the NCWRP with the new Rose Canyon Trunk 

Sewer. It .rill run southward within City-owned land frim Miramar Road on the 

east side of 1-805, into Rose Canyon. This project provides for a 5n-inch 

diameter pipeline that will be approximately 5,200 feet long. It will be 

either steel or concrete cylinder pipe. It will transport NCWRP effluent from 

the west end of the North City Tunnel Connector to the new Rose Canyon Trunk 

Sewer. 

42-911.3 NORTH CITY RAW SLUDGE AND WATER PIPET-IINES 

This project provides for the planning, design and construction of a raw 

sludge force main and a water pipeline from the NCWRP to the Northern S1.udge 

Process:i.ng Facilities, and a raw sludge pump stat5on at the NCWRP. This 

project pro.v-lr.3es for the planning, design and construction of a raw sl~~dge 

force main and reclaimed water pipeline from the NCWRP to the Northern Sludge 

Processing Faci:i.ities, Phclse I1 and construction of a raw sludge pump station 

at the NCWRP. The projec!: is currently in the conceptual design stage. To 

avoid environmental. impacts we are looking at alternative pipeline alignments. 

The project will mist likely consist of a.n 18-inch raw sludge pipe1i:-,e and a 

36-inch reclaimed water pipeline. Depending on the alternative alignment 

selected, the length will vary from 16,200 feet to 35,000 feet. The 

recommended pipe materials for the sludge line are coal-tar epoxy lined steel 

pipe with cement mortar or tape coi-*ting and polyethylene-lin.ed ductile iron 

pipe with a taped coating. For the 1::ater line, the recomme~ided materials are 

ductile ?'.ran pipe cement mortar lined with tape coa.-tinq and reinforced 

concr~te pressure pipe, steel cylinder type, AWWA C-300. 

42-910 -0 NORTH ---- CTTY SLUDGE PROCESSING 

- FACILITIES 

(FORMER ,Y IVORTE CITY SLEDGE STABIL ZZATION FACILITYL 

This project will provide environmental documentation for the Northern Sludge 

Processing Facility - Phase 11. his project will provide the site-specific

enviroj.lmental documelltation (EIS/EIR) required f ~ ? the r Northern Sludge 

processing Facility, Phase I.1 and the North City Kaw Sludge and Water Pipeline 

are both proposed to be located on federal property. 

- ,8 ~0R~CITy -cAbl.NECTOR 

(FORMERLY NORTH CITY WASTEWATER DIVERSION F4cILIT.TES) 

This project bring:.: waSteWaY:er into the NCWRP by diverting flow from the Pump 

station 64 force main. It will provide ca.pa.city relief to the downstream 

wastev:.:.ter collection and treatment facilities. his project consists of an 

appr-oxirnately 17-foot diameter tunnel that will be approxi.mately 1800 feet 

long. It: will provide a corlduit under 1-805 between the NCWRP to the i:ast of 

1-805 and various utilities to the west of 1-805. This tunnel will house 

several pipelines. One will be an 84-inch sewer influer~t line that will carry 

wastewater flows froln the Pump Station 64 force main into the NCWRP. Another 

will b? a 54-inch effluent pipeline tha-t will connect the NCWRP to the North 

City P-i.peli.ne. Other pipelin-es .:uclude a 48-inch reclaimed water pipelirle a:ld 

a 24-inc:h plant Waste pipeline. A fiber optic conduit is also included. The 

tunnel will be approximately two-thirds filled with concrete. The pipeline 

materials will be either ductile iron, steel, PVC or concrete cylinder pipe. 

The tunnel materials are not known at this time. 

42-910.1 NORTH TTTY WATER RECLAMATION p ~ , ; 

.. 

This project provides for construction of a water reclamation plant near the 

intersection of 1-805 and Miranlar Road to generate up to 30 millioll ~jallons 

per day (KGD) of reclaimed water for Phase I and 45 MGD for Phase 11. This 

project provides for construction of a water reclamation plant to generat6 up 

to 30 MGD of reclaimed watcr for Phase I and 45 MGD for .hase 11. T11e 34-acre 

plant site is located just Tast of 1-805 and North of Miramar Road. The site 

extends north to Eastgat F? Nail Road. The influent arriving at the NCWRP will 

be pr sessed by screening followed by primary sedimentation, aeration in an 

activate sludge reactor, secondary sedimentation, filtration, and 

chlorination. The process facilities are designed to mcet the comprehensive 

reclaim-d water requirements set forth in Title 22 of the California Code of 

Regul tions for tertiary treated water. The following major onsite facilities 

would be constructed with reinforced concrete: 

Administration /Operation and Maintenance (OW.) Duilding is approximately 

30,000 square feet and will house the administrative, operation and 

maintenance staff. 

Influent Pump Station will pump-the wastewater t-o the head work facilities. 

This building is approximately 10,000 square Eect. 

Headwork facilitfies: The wastewater will be screened and then grit would be 

removed in an aerated grit chaiier. In this process, particle such as sand, 

gravel and other heavy, solid materials are removed. The approximate squai-e 

footag of this l~y~ilding is 21,000. 

Primary Sedimen ation Tanks: In these tanks, the velocity of the water slows 

sufficiently to allow most: solids to settle by c~cavity. The solids are 

remo7:ed as primary sludge from the bottom of the tanks. This process can 

remove up to 70 percept of suspended solids from the wastewater. The tanks 

are approximately ll-Loot deep s11d 41,000 square feet. 

Aeration Basins: T ~ wastewater C 

would flow at a slow rate through the aeration 

basins. The highly concentrated microorganisms consume the soluble organic 

matter in the wastewater. Air is bubbled through the wastewater at all times 

to meet the o-qgen r

e removed from wastewater in these tanks. These tha.nks are approxirr~ately 

63,000 square feet. 

$, 'J'e, 'ciary Filters: The flow from secondary sedjmentation talilcs will flow to 

;? 

y? 

r,* 

$94 

&( 

a g( 

PL 

& $.24l 

,,,~!;i:i 

,;y$;j:, 

P'" ,!!q;; 

,J:-+~ 

+!;+;, 


Chlorine Contact Tanks: The filtered wastewater will be mixed with chlorine 

and directed to the chloc-ine contact tanks for disinfection. With detention 

time of 120 minutcs, the bacicriological content of the water can be brought 

into c~rpliance with thc requirements of the Title 22. The tanks are 

approxxmai-ely 36,000 square feet. 

Cb'nrinati.q Building: Chlorine will be stored j.n this building. Two 20-ton 

chlorine ta!~ks will be stored for the phase I. A third tank would be added 

for phase 11. This building will he approximately 10,000 square feet. 

G I tertiary filters for additional solids removal. The filters are approximately 

93 

$.>cil; 

Chrmical Building: Chemic~l such as Ferric Chloride, Caustic and Sodium 

Hypochlorite will be stored in this building. This building is approximately 


4 NORTHEFN SLUDGE PR0C)ISSING FACILITY PHASE I1 

.... 

This project provides for the planning, design'and construction of facilities 

.for sludge processing. It will thicken, digest, dewater and dry sludge from 

the NCWRP and the PLWTP. This project provides for the planning, design, and 

construction of facilities for sludge processing. It wi:!l thicken, dj.gcst, 

denater and dry sl.udge from the northern area reclamation plants and from the 

PLWTP. The facility is proposed to be loc~.?:cd at a 30-39 acre tite on NAS 

Miramar, immediately north of State Route 52 and west of Convoy Street. The 

project is currently in the conceptual design phase and is subject to change. 

However, it is proposed to include the following facilities: 

Raw Biosolids Receivinq Tank - The tank will receive raw L:iosolids from the 

NCWRP and is intended to dampen peak flows. The receiving tank will be of the 

same configuration as the anaerobic digesters. It will be 105 feet in 

diameter and have a liquid depth of 45 feet. The tankwill be con--eructed 

using.a cast-in-place core wall wound with post-tensioning wises and covered 

with shotcrete. The tank will have a PVC liner cast-in-place with the 

concrete which will cover the roof and wal.ls to reduce potential for- 

corrosion. 

- ~iosolids Thickeninq (Centrifuqe) Buildinq - The thickening building will 

house high solids centrifucjss which will thicken wet bioso!.ids from ?.bout 0.5% 

to (i. 6% dry solids to 5-6% solids using a high speed rotating dl-urn. 13eyending 

on manufacturer, centri5;uge model, polymer feed rate, etc . thi-oughput. 

capacities vary signifi.cant1.y. However, ac-jsw~iing one unit will be out of 

service and : lrie unit will be provicied as st:andby, it is estimated that five 

centrifuges will be neu3ed. The building will be i.uTo-~tory and constructed as 

a reinforced concrete precast ti-le-up structure. I'c will a.lso include 

mechanical equi:-ment rooms., a control room, an electrical room, staff 

restrooms and other support space. The building is appr~;~.im?"Lely 31,400 

square feet. 

Thickened Biosolids Screeninq and Blexdinq Tanks - The dual compartmented 

th'.cl:ened bir~solids blending tanks will receive thickered and screened 

biosolids and blend them to achieve a more homogeneov.o feed to the digeste2.s. 

The blending tanks will. be locatr-d adjacent to the thickening building. 'i'he 

Corlcrete tanks will be 12 spare feet and have a liquid depth of about 11 

feet. 

&?aerobic r?

tensioning wires and covered with shotcret~e. The tanks will have a pv~ lin 

cast-in-place with the c0ncret.e. Ea.ch diges'cer will have a fixed concrete 

cover supported by tank walls and interior columns. 

~iqested Biosolids Storaqe Tanks - The storage tanks will provide storage 

capacit,y for maximum peak flows expected from the digesters and for 

emergeilcies if the dewatering process is out of service. Three 105 diameter ', 

tanks with a liquid cl.ept:h of 45 feet, in the same conf:iguration as the 

digesters will be provided. 

~iosolir& Dewaterinq Building - b he dewatering building will house process 

equipmeilt. The digested biosolids will be dewatered using the centrifuge 

dewatering pro;-.:-ss. Sn this process, water is renuwed by forcing biosolids to 

the outer wall c)f a rotating bowl. Based upon the design criteria, it is 

est:imated that eight centrifuges at 200 gpm are necessary. Th5.s assumes that 

yi~o centrifuges will be out of service, one for :.-pair and one for standby. 

The build.j.ng also will include a-;: operations control room, staff rest.roorns, 

elevator, c?leva.tor equipment roorn, electrical. room, service area. and 

maintenance vehicle access. Adjacent to the :;uilding will be a :- toraga t.?:uck 

loading struc;::ure which houses si.los, pumps and truck loading equipment. The 

basic structural system will be a reinforced concrete precast tilt-up system. 

The buil.cling is ~gproximately 31,600 square feet. The thickening buil-ding and 

the dewatering building may be combined into one structure in future phases of 

Wastewate~Puunp Stat- - A wastewater pump station will be built at the 

southwest corner of the NSPF site. It will receive wastewater from various 

processes and centrate and subnatant from the (:.owatering process. This waste 

will be pump through the centrate pipeline to a sewer in Mission Valley. The 

pump station will. have wet wells, t:wo dry well stories below grade, and one 

dry well story above grade. The station substructure will be approximately 

104 feet x 53 feet in plan and 40 feet deep. The single story superstructure 

will be about 16 feet high. The basic structural system will be a cast-in- 

place reinforced concrete system. The station will be large enough to house 

seven pumps. However, based upon the estimated flows, three duty and two . 

standby variable speed pumps will initially be installed, three for wastewater 

and two for centrate. Each pump will be capable of pumping 2,500 gpm. 

Claemical Storaqe and Odor C_o&rol Buildinq - This building will 1. . used to 

house chemical feed equipment used in the various processes. I''~,~nps, 

comnpressors and other equipment will be housed in the enclosed cne story castin-placa 

reinforced concrete building. The building is approxi~nately 5,100 

square feet . The chem?.cals, which include caustic soda, sodium hypocli.; orite , 

sulfuric acid, ferric chloride and polymer, will be stored ,in outdoor tanks 

with coiitainment basin:; where required. 

Enerw-gui1.dinq - This buildincir will house hot water boilers, chillers and 

assocj a:- od mec.'hanical equipmeili.. The necea..ary electrical and control 

equipment will also be hou.sed in this one story precast tilt-up building. The 

building is approximately 11,000 square feet. 

0Deratj.ons Buildins - The Operations Bui'ding is a one story tilt-up 

reinfo:rced concrete 1,uilding consisting of three components: administration 

offices, operations ful~;:tion, and ma.intenance fu.nction. Within these 

components are the Manager's office, Supervisor's offices, clerical offices, 

security off ice, visitors lobby, visitors assembly mom, public/staf f 

restrooms, main control room, electrical room, computer/termi:ila.tion room, 

process control laborato::.y, staff shower/locker room,, machinij.lg, carpentry, 

paint, electrical, electronics, hai.~.rdous materials storage and equipment , 

cleaning area. The ?.)uilding is approximately 30,000 square feet. 

Truck Was& .qacili.tv - The truck wash facility is a one story building which 

will serve as a washing area for biosolids transport trucks as they enter the 

facility. It will house an equipment room, office/laundry zrea, electrical

oom and an open covered v7ashing srea. This building enc0mpa;ses 2,646 square 

feet. 


plan and is currently on hold. E.xpenditures to date are reimbursable. 

A predesign report was prepared and consultant contracts were negotiated in 

the event the project was approved for implementation in the first phase. 

The Otay p.Iley Pipel.i.ne was to convey excess effluent from the Otay Valley 

Water Reclamation Plant to the South Bay Wastewat.:-r Treatment plant and Water 

&clamation Plant site a.ld into the South Hay Land Outfall ;:or ocean disposal. 

This pipeline was to have the primary function of serving as a fail-safe 

mechanism for disposing of all plant effluent, especially during coincident 

periods of ].ow reclaimed watei: demand and high p!.ant flows. The pipeline size 

of 36-inch was determined based on a ):-.ak flow of 19.2 mgd from the Otay 

Valley Water ~?eclamation Plant. The total length of the pipeline was to be 

approximately 43,000 feet. 

40-910.7 OTAY VALLE'Y SLUDGE PIPELINE 

This project is not a part of the City.Councilts Consumers Alternative work 

plan and is currently on hold. Expenditures*to date are reimbursable. 

A predesign report was prepared and co~lsultant contracts were negotiated in 

the event the project was approved for implementation in the first phase. 

The Otay Valley Sludge Pipeline was to transport unthiclcened sludgr from the 

Otay Valley Water Reclamation Plant to the Southern Sludge Processing Facility 

located at the same site as the South Bay Treatment Plant. The Southern 

Sludge Processing Facility was scheduled for completion after the Otay Valley 

Water Reclamal-ion Plant was in operation. During this interim period, the 

sludge was to be divf-:ted to the San Ysidro Sewer. Upon start-up of the South 

Bay Sludge Processing 1 oility, the diversion wzs to be abandoned and the 

sludge transported to tile processing facility. 

An 8-inch dia-eter pipe had been selected for the Otay Sludge Pipeline with 

the £0110 -.ng pi.pe material alternatives: steel pipe, and ductile iron pipe 

42-91 7.3 OTAY VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 

This project is not a part of the City Council's Consurriers Alternative work 

plan and is currentll,. on ho~\d; Expenditures to date are reimbursable. 

A predesign report was prepared and consli.l.tant contracts were negotiated in 

the event the project was approved for in~plemelltation in the first phase. 

The recommer~ded plan for the Otay Valley system was to construct an on-line 

water reclamation plant at Otay Valley Road East site. Initial capacity was 

to he 

6 n-l:,:d. The plant was to be expa.nded to 12 mgd by 2010. Two new wastewater 

diversion structures and a new pump station were to be constructed to r'i~.liver 

Wastewater to the plant. A reclaimed water transmission line was to c,.nvey 

the treated water to users and to the South Bay ltzild outfall 50::- discl3.arge 

when supply exceeds demand. S!.udye gcnera.ted in the Otay Villley plant was to 

be pumped to the southern sludge processing site. The recommended layout 

places all process unJts and support buildings on a 30-acre site. The 

following were the major structures of the Otay Valley Water ~eclamation 

Plant : 

1n.fluent and Sludae Pmp Station was to have two floors below the finished 

grade and one floor above the finished grade. It was to be reinforced

concrete str11ctul-e. The lowest floor was to bt! divided into two areas, an 

influellt pump rocm arid two Wet walls. The first .floor was 'LO be finished 

grade was tcl have a crane/hoist room, a motor control center (MCC) room, and a 

mechanical quipment and HVAC room. 

Headwork~/Grit Tanks/Primary Sedimentation Tanks facility included a headworks 

building, two grit tanks, end six primary i;-edirrL:-:ntation tanks. The headworks 

building was, a two stol~ struct:ure zk)ove ttii? finished grade. Tl?e first floor 

of the bui.3dlng consisted of a truck loading area, an MCC room, a scum 

concentration room, and a bar screen room. The second floor directly a.bove 

the bar screen room was to house the grit dewatering equipment, belt conveyors 

rind storage hoppers. There were to be two grit tanks, 15 feet wide, 10 feet 

~:~ep, and 34 feet long. There were six primary sedimentation tailks, each 

approxim;.i:ely 20 feet wide, 12 feet deep, and 100 feet long. 

Aeration Basins area included four aeration tanks, an influrnt distribution 

channel, a mixed 1, quor channel, and a blf rer gall-ery. Each aeration channel 

was to be approximately 63 feet wide by 15 feet deep by 95 feet long. Tlie 

wastewater would flow at a slow rate through the aeration basins. The highly 

concentrated microorgcnisms would consume the solublr organic matter in the 

wastewatrr. Aix would be bubbled through the wastebater at all times to meet 

c,,ygen requirements of the organjsms and maintain aerobic condition. 

. . 

Tertiary Filters area consisted of eight filter basins, an influent channel, a 

filter gallery, and waste filter backwash conduits. Each filter basin was to 

be approximately 19 feet wide by 9 feet deep by 19 feet long. The flow from 

sedimentation tanks was to flow to tertiary filters Lor additional solids 

removal . 

Chlorine Contact Tanks/Recl.aimad Water Pump Seation - the filt?red wastewatel 

was to be mixed with chlorine o .I directed to the chlorine contact tanks for 

disinfection. With detention tlme of 1.20 minutes, tile ?~acteriological content 

of the water could be brought into compliance with the requirements of Title 

22. 

Administration Building was to be a single-story above grade structure. The 

basic structural system of the building was to be cast-in-place concrete 

frames and a concrete roof. It was to serve both as a work place and visitor 

center. 

Maintenan.ce building was to be r single-story above grade structure, --hich 

would house operations and maintenance functions for the OVWRP. The ilasic 

structural. system of the bu lding was to 11% cast- ii place concrete £rimes and 

a concrete roof. 

Chemical Building consisted of a chemical s'corage/feed room, a chlorine 

storage room, a chlorine feed room, a chlorine leak scrubber room.and a truck 

unloadir- :j area.. 

Electrical Building consisted of an engine room and an electrical switch gear 

and MCC room. 

46-170.0 POIIW Lorn --.T)IGESTER FACILITY UPGRADE AND EXFmSION 

This project provides for upgrading and expanding the PLWTP digester facility. 

IJ~>grad

The Digester upgrade portion of the projeci: will upgrada the existing 

digesters to allow for smooth operation of the digester system. Digester 7 

be a new concrete digester a,% the south east corner of tl-re PLWTJ 

immediately south if the existing digesters. This di.g?ster, as are all the 

other six, will be 125 feet in diameter, apprt xirnately 38 feet in height and 

has a volume of approximately 470,000 cublc feet. 


p1a.n and is cunrently on hold. E7cpenditures to date are reimbursable. 

planning and predesign work was performed for converting and upgrading the 

point Lorna Wastewater Treatnient Plant from an advanced primary treatment 

facility to a secondary treatment facility. 

shaft will be located. 

A- 10 

. ,

1 

i 

j 

project was conipletcd in November 1992. The master plan identified 

approxima.tely 40,000 acre -f oot-per-year (AFY) existing a:ld 20,60(! AFY 

future recla.i.med water demand. within the City of San lliego. This 

brings tj::: total !.~otentii:l dernand to 60, 600 AE'Y. ?;le recommended distribution 

~ys tem co~lsisting of approximatc1.y 158 mil.€:.: of pipelines, 102 storage tanks 

and 10 pumping stations, could serve 35,000 AF'Y of demand. 

ROSE CANYON TRUNK SEWER - CWP PORTION 

This project provides funding for the C1r;a.n Water Program's shcre of the Rose 

Canyi:n Trunk Sewer Project (CIP 46-111.0) to be constructed by the Water 

utilities Department. This project provides an outlet for the disposal of my 

excess reclaimed water. 

This project will provide for Y1.e construction of a pipeline, 72-inch maximum, 

that wi3.l initially carry untreated wastewa.ter from Pump Station No. 64 to the 

PL~P. After the NCWRP is operational, this proposed pipeline sill be 

converted to a.n ef:;;'luent pipeline which will carry excess reclaimed effluent 

from the NCWRP to the Point .Loma Outfall. 

The proposed pipel-ine consists of approximately 4.8 miles of varia.bly sized 

pipeli-nes. Specifically, this includes 22,750 lincar feet (If) of 60-inch 

diameter pipeline, 1,410 If of 48-i~ich-diameter pipeline, 680 If OF 54-inch 

diameter pipeline, and 545 If of 72-inch diameter pipeline. This project also 

includes property acqii.sition and associated structures, includ:i.ng a concrete 

utility hridge (cross?..lg Rose Creek at Silnta Fc;: Street), two junction 

structures, three diversion structures, and numerous manhciies. 

This project is not a part of the City Council's Coit7:umers Alternative work 

plan and is currently on hold. Excenditures to date c7-e reimbursable. 

A predesign report was prepared on this project which was for the beneficial 

use of cornposted biosolids (sludge) in San Pasqual Valley. 

There was to be no design or construction, only a coordin~\tion effort. 

Application would not begin until. receipt (in 1995 or 1996) of a Class A 

"Excel~tional Quality" biosolids compost product. 

75-910.3 SAN PASQUAL VALI:EY -wATER/WAS'IETVATER MASTER PLAN 

This project provides for master planning of water rec1amat:ion projects in the 

San Pasqua1 Valley. The project was carried out in two phases. Pllsse I is a 

feasibility study which reviewed the existing and projected wastewater flows 

to the Hale Avenue Recovery Facility (KARF) in Escondido, potential reclaimed 

water demand in the San Pascpal Valley and Rancho Bernardo areas, potential 

sources of reclaimed water and potent-ial programs for reclaimed water 

n.ana.gement, groundwater management aa.ld sludge management. Phase I1 is a 

facilities plan which involves the development and evaluation of alternative 

facilities, based on the reccnunendatiolls i.n the feasibility study (Pixase I), 

required to distribute reclaimed water from the HARF in Rscondido to 

identified users in the San Pasqual Valley and Rancho Eernardo, and 

conceptual.ly review'the implementation of a groundwater management plan in the 

San Pasqual Basin. 

42-910-2 SLUDGF ANC, - BIOSOLIDS MnXAG~~mNT FAC LITY 

(FOIZ~YJLKLY SOUTHEN__ ' TJDGE DIS J-L,SAL E ~ ~ C I T J I ~ 

This project provides for the processing 3.nd final disposal of excess sludge 

from the metro system which cannot be beneficially reused. There are

currently two candidate sites. 

This is a 77 acre site and access road under private ownership, located within 

the City of San Diego and adjac~nt to NAS Mi?:amar. The owner conducts a rock 

extra~tic.n and processing business on the site and on adjacent land owned by 

the U.S. Navy. Four or five lessees occupy spt.ce on the private]-y-owned land 

and operate busimesses compatible with the rock extraction activities, such as 

a concrete batch plant, asphalt emulsion ;.-;%ant, satin seal. plant and truck. 

maintenance shop. 

One concrete block, 10,000 squaze feet off. .i ce bui-lding, an 8,500 square feet 

concrete block maintenance buildi.~lg, a.nd thxee or four 2,000 squar-: feet metal 

warehouse-type buildings are on tiie site. One unfilled pit is on the site and 

a second area is slated for future excavation. In total, tile two pits consume 

approximately one third of the 77-acre site. 

If used by the CWP for a biosolids disposal site, it is expected that the pits 

will be lined wi.th a synthetic rriatcrial to render them water-tight. The 

entire site, including the pits, would then be filled with a biosolic?s/soil 

mix. Filling operations would !;e consist=?nt with a rec1amatic.n plan ::hat 

would bc approved by the City oC San Diego and the State Division of Mines and 

Ge~~logy. It is expected that one or two buildings would also be constructed 

on the site for storage and maintenance of equipment if existing buildings are 

not suitable for this purpose. 

'.i?his is an undeveloped 300-acre canyon on Otay Mesa near t.he international 

border. It is adjzcent to other undeveloped land that is proposed and ::oned 

for industrial development. Immediately south of the site is a candidat..e site 

for a new San Diego County municipal waste landfill. Immediately east of the 

site is land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. 

If developed as a biosolids management and disp0si:l site, approximately 100 

acres would be lined with a synthetic liner and used as a monofill for a 

mixture of biosolids and soil. It is expected that an 

administration/maintenance building would be constructed on the site and would 

be a concrete str~ct.~-c. of about 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. A new halfmile 

to one-mile lor, access road wotild be included Ln the project. Curr~i~t 

access is by a jeep .iail. 

SOUTH RAY IAND OUTFALL 

This project provides for CWP1s portion of costs for the construction of a 

dual purpose gravity sewer pipeline to capture and convey sewage overflows 

from Mexico and flows ar~ticipat.cd from future growth in the South San Diego 

Area. This project provides for CWP1s portion of costs for the planning, 

design tnd construction of the first phase of an outfall system in the South 

Ba,. that will be used to convey treated effluent from the International 

Treatment Plant and future City southern region plants to the ocean for final 

disposal. Construc:iion of the outfall is completed and consists of: 

m 10,075 feet of 144-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe with coal tar 

epoxy exterior, Class I. 

1,775 feet of 1.44-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe with coal tar 

epoxy exterior, Class 11. 

&I 450 feet of 144-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe wiV.h coal tar 

epoxy exterior, Class 111, all pipe was manufactured by heron. 

rn 8 cast-in-place structural reinforced concrete manholes.

1 

A 60-foot wide permanent easement alc'lg the pipeline alignment. 

his project provides construction of an extension to the South Bay Land 

Outfall to convey treatcc; effluent from the proposed international treatment 

plant and the City's souI:he?.:n region treatment plants into the ocean. This 

project provides for CWP's portion of costs for the pli:.nniny, desigr:~ and 

construrt'ion of an extension to the South I3ay Land Outfall to convey treated 

effluenf. from the Interr~rtional. 'Treatment Plant and fu?.ure City sout.1-~.cirn 

region plants to th:? ocean £02. final disposa.1. The project is current1.y in 

the conceptual d.esi.cj.n phase an6 consists of two parts: a i.and outfall 

extei-1sio1i aiid an ocean outfall. Four alternatives are being considered. They 

j.nclu(2.e conve~ltional , open- cut construction (Al'. ?rns.:ive A) and tunnel. 

c.i)nstruction (~lternative E3) , wit11 two initial dilution rates: 100 : 1 and 80 : 1. 

These alternatives consist of: 

&lcernat ive A - L? : ~..-O~fa~. Ext~~nsion 

6,420 feet of 114-inch di*x!ter pipe. Pipe materials that would meet the 

criteria for the outfall extension are concrete pressure pipe and steel pipe. 

A 60-foot wide permanent easement along the pipeline alignment. 

3Jternative A - Ocean Outf all 

18,550 feet o: 114-inch diameter pipe for an initial dilution of 100:l and 

14,350 feet of 108-inch diameter pipe for 80:l. Possible pipe materials are 

reinforced cor2crete non-cylinder pipe and steel pipe. 

~lternative B 

A 23,690-foot tunnel with an internal diameter of 132 inches for an initial 

dilution of 100:l. Support of the excavated tunnel will be with pre-cast 

reinforced concrete sections. A 96-inch diameter steel liner will be provided 

inside the pre-cast concrete t.unne1 liner over a distance of 6,000 feet at 

fault crossings. 

A 19,420-foot tunnel with ;.n internal diameter of 126 inches for an initial 

dilution of 80:J.. A 90-inch diameter steel liner will be provided inside the 

pre-cast concrete tunnel liner over a distance of 5,000 feet at fault 

crossings. 

A 100-foot wide casement along the a1igi:ment of the outfall. 

40-911.1 SOUTHBAY SECQgv=?Y SEWERS, i'FV,Su 

. . 

' I . 

?'his project is 1-ot a part of the City Councilfs Consu-iers Alternative work 

plan and LS curl-ently on hold. Expendjtures to daLe are reimburs~ble. 

The Secondary Pla.nt-. Conveyance System Step 1 (SSSSl) and Step 2 (SBSS2) was to 

car

I 2 

This project is n.ot a part of the City Counci.lfs Consumers Alternative work 

plall and is currently on hold. Expenditures t.o ,date are reimbursable. 

In ilhe process of preparing the predesign reports for Phase 1 SRCS it was 

det:;~:mii?ed there was in.slf£icient flow to operate the trestmeljt plant. 

heref fore, Phase I1 :.. i!v:-:~:s woul.d need to be included in Phase I. Costs 

accumula.ted in Phase 11 were a part of the predesign report for Phase I. 

. g 10 -5 SOUTH BAY.. .S LUDGE PRO.CmING FACILIT-XIi 

his project is not a part of the City Coll:~cil's Consumers A?tern:~tive work 

plan and is currently on hdld. Expenditurcs to date are reirnbus:sable. 

A p:ielimini,ry feasibility study was performed on this project. The Southern 

Sludge pro

This p:r.oject is not a part of the City Counc-ll's Consumers Alternative work 

plan and. is currently on hold. Oxpenditures to date are reimbursable. 

A i~reliminary feasibility study was performed on this project. The Sou?h Bay 

Water l?eclamat?.on Plant (SBWRP) was to have a capacity to produce up to 14 

million gal.1011:; p.?r day (rngd) of reclaimed water for agricultural a.nd 

industrial use in the San Diego motrt-j::oliti.,n aj:ea. The South. Bay Secondary 

Treatment Plant (SBSTP) was to have ail initial capacity of 41 mgd and was to 

be expandable to !;5 mgd in Phase 2 to trant the flows projected for the yea.r 

2050. The SBWRP was to produce reclaimed water for reuse markets, in the 

communities of San Ysidro,, Irrigerial Beach, Chula Vista rind National City and 

in unincorpora-ted areas in tile vicinity. SBSTP was to treat all .flows 

generated in the south Bay poi..tion of the ~etropolitan Sewerage System not 

routed to the two South Bay system water reclamatiol~ plants, Otay Valley and 

the South Bay. Structv.res of tt,e SBWRP and SBSTP consisted of: the major 

structures: 

Headworks and Primary Sec-?in~:.:ltation Tanks - the headworks building was to 

house the mechanical bar screens and the grit classification equipment 

includj.i:lg grit aeration blowers. In the primary sedimentation tan.ks, the 

velocity of the water slows suffj.clcnt;y to allow most solids to st:ttle by 

gravity. The solids would be removed as primary sludge from Che bottom of the 

tanks. This process could remove up to.70 percent of suspended solids from 

wastewater. . , 

Aeration Basins was to consist of 12 tanks 20 feet wide by 454 feet long with 

20 feet side water depth. Three more tanlcs were to be constructed in Phase 2. 

The plan dimension of the structure was apj~roximately 320 feel: by 480 feet. 

The wastewater would flow at a slow ra;:e through the aeration basins. The 

highly concentrated microorganisms c:onsume the soluble organic matter in the 

wastewater. Air wc:uld be bubbled through the wastewater at al.1 times to meet 

oxygen requirement. .; of the organisms and maintain aerobic condition. 

Secondary C!larifiers were to consist of 40 basins, influent and effluent, and 

an underground RAS pump gal.lery. The total plan dimensic.;li of the clarifiers 

were to be approximately 720 feet by 180 feet. Up to 90 percent of the 

suspended solids were to be removed from wastewater in these clarifiers. 

Chorine Contact Tanks would consist of 5 basins in an under~round recizangular 

concrete box structure. The plan dimension of tile structure was to be 

approximately. 350 feet by 150 feet. Four of the 5 basins were to be built in 

Phase 1 of construct;on. The filtered wastcwater was to be mixed with 

chlorine and directed to thc chlorine contact tanks for disinfec{:./ion. With 

detention time oE 120 minutes, t l ; ~ bacterioloyi.ca1 content of the water could 

be brought in::,> compliance with the requirements of the Title 22. 

Blower Building was 'io house the air blowers required for process aeration and 

for agitation of the influej-1: and effluent channels of the primary 

sedimentation tanks, aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. The basic 

system of the struc~ure could b~? a reinforced concrete frame which would 

support a bridge crane at 40 feet span. 

Chlorine Building was to consist of a chlorine storage room to house bulk 

stora~re tFinks and a -1llorine teed room with liquid chlorine evaporators and 

chlnrlnat-.om. 

%ertia.q Filters - the flow from sed.imentation tanks was to flow to tertiary 

filters for additional solids removal. 

The following were common facilities shared with the Soutii Bay Sludge

I 

I 

processing l~'ac~~..l.ities : 

Energy Duildi-ig was to house the standby cngine-driven genprator :,ets, gas 

fires steam boilr s and associatbd mechanical equipment. The necessaq 

control panels, switchgear, HVAC rquipment, and offices were also to bc hnL1sed 

in the building. An ICC room was to he provid-ed. 

Chemical Euilding was to house the cl~emical storage tanks and chemical feeding 

equipment used in the vari.,us treatment processes. 

administration ~uildln~ was to he a sj-ngle-story abov:: grade structure. The 

basic system of Llle structure could be reinForced concrete frames. 

operations and Faintenance Building was to be a single-story above grade 

structure. The basic system of the struct~re could be reinforced concrete 

frames . 

Plant Drainage Pul?p Station was to be located at tl~e sciuthwest side of 1-he 

chlor3ne contact tank. It was to be a below grdde rej-nforced concrete box 

structure. The top of the structure would be above finished grade. 

Odor Control FaciliLies - there we]-e o be two odor facilities. One was to be 

located next to the headworks and the-other next to the DAFT complex. Each of 

the two faci1it;es was to consist of five trains of tanks and pumps:, fans, and 

foul air ducts. 130th facilities were to be located outdoors on a concrete 

slab on grade. 

40-911.3 m T H BAY WATER RECLAW-!-TION SEWERS 

This :)reject is not ? part of the City Council's Consumers Alternative work 

plan .ad is currently c;n hold. Expenditures to date are reimbursable. 

A preliminary feasibility study was performed on chis project. The South Bay 

to Reclamation Plant Conveyance System (SBRS) was a project that provided for 

the construction of sewer pipelines and pump stations with in C'itay 

Mesa/Nestor and Tijuana River Valley comullities to di.vert better quality 

wastewater. The SBRS would carry ~:~stewater with less than 1,000 mg/l total 

dissolved solids on an average d.aily basis (and therefore suitable for 

reclamation and reuse) to the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. Tl~e diameter 

of the pipes would be approximately 30 and 36 inches on a route of over 25,500 

feet long.. 

46-155.0 STATE OCrAN PW--COMP3;JJsCE FACILITIES - PHSSE I 

This short-term project provided Cor compliance with the Cali~Fornia State 

Ocean Plan by extending the ocean outfall at Point Loma Wastewater Treatment 

Plant. This project : as been con~pleted. 

40-911.5 STATE O C E PLAN ~ CO~~TANCE FACILITIES - PHASE 11 

This project provides for compliance with the Clal-l fornia State Ocean' Plan by 

ex::ending the ocean outfall at the i'LWTP. 'il-1~ project cc~r~.s.i.sts of extending 

tl-le existicg outfalll. 12,500 feet starting from the existing diffuser v?;;e (wye 

is a sing1.e pipe that splits- -with llYH or llT1l configuration), 2.2 mi:!.es out in 

the ocean et a depth of 210 feet to a.bout 4.5 miles cut at a cicpth c)f 316 feet 

and ending j.11 a new Y-shaped diffuser wye that will extend the effluent 

carrying pipe an additional 2,500 feet to the north and south of thi. main 

barrel aliglunent to aid d.ispersion. The pipe will be laic in 20-fo~t 

sections. Each sectiol? ~;f the main ba.. re]. i.s rne.ie of reiriZorced c( :lcrete 12foot 

interi-la1 d.iameter :.nd weighs about: 70 tons. The diffuser pipes are a.1~0 

made from .rei:jforce?. concrete and. va1r.y in size from 7-:foot internal diameter 

to 4-foot internal diameter. The pipe is being manufactured by Hydro Conduit 

Corporation in Corona, California.

I 

; ;:rsv .;.:. ; .. -.. -.= ...- .---.-... . . - -- . :.m., . ~ < . ~ % x - - 7-m-F: : ~ ~ : < ~ 

4r-*4n.o aLmAWa WAsT-EB,XEZ. ..~K~~~'.Kc~'iSUK~:!S 

PROJECT 

This project provided for initial collection and treatio:?nt of wast~ewater f]-ows 

along the international border. This project was, in part, ~;,..?:;.nt j':unded and 

has been completed.

SURPLmNT DATED .- 1s - #lo 

MASTER ZNSTALWNT PURCHASE AGR.El3aN DATED AS 

SEPTWLGI,@R 1, 1993 By AKD B7"!mEEN TEE CITY OF 

SAN DIEGO AND THE PUWLXC! PAC!:!.:I.,ITIES PI%\T~~CIMG 

AU'LBORIT'Y OF TiXE C:ITH OF SZa D:f:EGO 

WHEREAS, the City of S3.n DLego (the 1lCit:yIl) and the Public 

Fac%lit.ies Financing Authority of the City of San Diego (the 

1l.nuthori ty l1 ) have heretofore enl~ered into a Ma.st ::r 1nstal.l.ment 

purchase AgrW3nerlt dated as of September 1, 1993 (the If.Rgreer..:entfl) 

pursuant i;o which the Authority ha.s a.grei.3, to proxride the Projf..:t t-0 

the City and the City has agreed from tirne to ti.me t.o purchase 

components of the Project as are specj f ied. in a Supplement; and 

WIEREAS, with respect Lo Coml!onenLs of the Proje!ct 

identified in a Supple1 -.nt the City will agrec to purch,se the same 

and pay in Installment Payments for such Components pursuant to a 

supplement ; and 

WXFWEAS, 1nstall-ment Payment-s specified in a Supplement 

will then be served as the collateral for Obligati-ons the proc::eeds of 

which will be used to finance the Project; and 

WHEREAS, the City and the Authority now wish to specify the 

Components of the Project which are to k;2 currently financed by 

execution and delivery of this Suppl.ement; 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto have agreed as follows: 

SECTION 1.01. Def - initioj-:q. All of the definit:ions 

contained in the Inst:.a.llment Purchasi- Agreement shall apply to this 

Suppler-;..nt except as ot.herwise ex.pressly pro-v-ided. In addition, the 

following terms are o.:fined herein. 

The term nComponentsn means t.he components of the Project 

specified in E*-iblt A hereto for which the City will be making 

Installment Payments as hereinafter specified. 

Thz term llCornponent Ins tallrnent Payments means the 

Installment Payna:nts herein specified which ore to pay the purchase 

Price of the Components.

The term I1Component Obligation Series ' means [herein 

described ObligaLi-0n.s to bi? supported by Component Installment 

payments 1 . 

ART1 'LE II 

REPRESENTATIONS AND WWIEWTIK:.; 

SECTTQN 2.01. l'~io City hereby lakes the following 

[The representations contained in Sect?.ons 2.01 of the 

Agreement (but expanding the same to inc!.ud.e this Supplement) ] 

SECTION 2.02. The Authority hereby malces tl 3 f r lowing 

representations and warranties: 

[The representations andwarranties contzjned in Section 

2.02 (a) - (d) (but ~xpanding the same to .include this supplement) and 

section 2.02 (el (but only if the Installment Payments to be maAe 

pursuant to Article 111 are intended to be Tax-Exempt Install~nent 

Payment Ohligc?-t ions) 1 

ARTICLE I%K 

COMPONENT INSTAL~MT PAmNTS 

SECTION 3 -01. The City agrees to p-.y as Component 

Installment Payments, solely from Net Systern Rc--veliues as providej. in 

the i~sreemc nt , the following: 

SECTION 3 .02. The Component ~nstallrnent ' Payments specif j.ed 

herein are [Par: ty Installment ~bij.gationa/Sul;ordinated Obligat.ions1 . 

ARTICLE IV 

yEHDER FOR PU1'.CWSE 

PECTION 4.01 The City shall havc, the f oll owing obligations 

with respect to the. Coiilponent Obligatiori 85:rics to the extent 

the same are teiidered for purchase by the City:

SEC'TION 5.01 Pre~avm~~nt and Redemvtio~. The Cri ty shall 

have the Lollow.ing rights and dul :ic%s to prepsy Component Installment 

payments : 

PJLTIGLE Vl 

ADDITIONAL COVENANTS 

SECTION 6.01 Addition.al Co-\r,.!?.ants. In addition tc:, the 

covenants specified in the Agreement, the f oll.owing addi-tional 

covenanLs are added with respect to the Component Obligation Series: 

[Tax Covenant for Tax- Exempt 1n.s tallment Paymrn.t 

0bl.igation.s: The Ci.1 y will not diractly or ird irectly use or p)e~:mit 

the use of any proceeds of the Cc:inponent Obligation Series or any 

other funds of t.he City or of the Project or take or os~iit to t2ke any 

action that would cause the Component ' OYlJ-igation Sc-.ries to be 

"private activity bondsl1 within the meaning of SecLion 141 of the 

Code, or obligations which are Iff edcrally guaranteed" within the 

m2anin.g of Section 149 (b) of the Code. 

The City covenants that j-t wil.1 not talce any action, or 

fail to take any action, if any such action or failure to take action 

would adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of the 

interest represt:nted by the Component Obligatior Series under Section 

103 of the Code. The C,-ty will. not directly or illdirectly use or 

emit the use of any proceeds of the Component Obligation Series or 

ny other funds of the City, or take or omit r.o take any act-ion, that 

ould cause the Component Obligat-.'.on Series to be "a-;:.oitr;.:ge bonds" 

ithin the meaning of Section 148(a) of the C;:.~d.e. To that cn.d, the 

i-ty w ill comp1.y with all requiremerlts of Section 148 of the Code to 

5!.e extent applicable to the Conzponent Obligation Se:cic--s. In the 

Jent that at any time the Cit.y is of the opiniofi that for purposi:s 

f this Section it is necessary to rest~.::j.ct or limit:. tl-J':: yield. the 

.vestment:. of any moneys: held hy the Trustee under the [Issuing 

trument] or otherwise, the C_i..ty shall so instruct the Trustee in 

riting, and shall cause the Trustee to take such action as may be 

cessary in accordance with such instructions. 

Without limiting the generality of the forego_i.ng, the City 

reeS that th.ere shall be paid from time to time all am0unt.s 

*ired to be rebat.,

i 

I 

.,.. 

b'. states of Ar~~crica at the times and in the amounts determined unilcr 

~h:;.s SectiorL t:.I.le Rebate Requirement, as described. in the Tax 

CE.-tifica.'-:e and t,: otherwise comply wj.i.h the prov:i.sions of th.e T;*X 

Ce,,,:tif i.ct1.t.e ei-ecltted Iny the City in connecti :,u with t11.e execution and 

tivery very of L;.le Component Oblj-gation Scries 

~otwithstanding any provision of this Section, if the City 

shall provide Lo the Trustee an opinion of na.tfonally recog~lized Bond 

counsel to the effect-. that any a.ction required under this Section i.s 

no longer required, or to the effect tha.t riome furt-h.er action is 

required, to ~naintain tl-rc exclusion from gross income of tl.~e intc:rest 

on the Component 0bligatj.on Series -- pursuant to Sectiorl 103 of 

the Code, the City may rely c-.onclusi-vcly on such opinion in complying 

with the provisions hereof, and the covenants hereunder shall be 

deerr~ed to be modified to that extent] . 

SECTION 7.01 Addit ;..on_al E-?.ents ol..Qe-f?-ul t . The Piollowing 

shall be atided a:.: Events of Default under Sectioii 8.01 c)Z the 

Agreement wh.:i.ch axe applicable solely to this Suppl-ement . 

-, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Supplement has been executed by 

the city and the Authority as of the year and date first above 

written. 

APPROVED AS TO FOJA?lM: 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

BY__- 

City Attorney of the City of San Diego 

BY - ---- 

Assistant city Attorney 

City Manager 

PUBLIC FACPLTTIES FT?JdkBTCING AUTHORITY 

OF THE CITY OF S.2I.N DIEGO 

BY - -- -. - - - 

Chairman

Footnote No. 102

Footnote No. 103

DATE ISSUED: October 10,2001 REPORT NO. 0 1-209 

ATTENTION: Honorable Mayor and City Council 

Docket of October 16,2001 

SUBJECT: Sewer Revenue Fund, Sewer Service Charges 

REFERENCE: City Manager's Report No. 99-03, issued January 7, 1999 

City Manager's Report No. 99- 1 1, issued January 15, 1999 

Deputy City Manager's memo to Mayor and Council, dated December 3,1999 

SUMMARY 

Issues: 

Should the City Council adopt Sewer Service Charges for Fiscal Years 2002,2003,2004 and 

2005 which will increase sewer system revenues by 7.5% per year for four successive years, 

effective March 1' of each year, to fund the continued upgrade and expansion of the 

wastewater system which is required to comply with federal and state mandates including 

the Clean Water Act, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA), the State Ocean Plan, the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, and the federal 

Stipulated Final Order for Injunctive Relief (Stipulated Order). 

Manager's Recommendations: 

Consistent with the City Council's direction of May 15, 200 1, direct the City Manager to 

increase all sewer service charges by 7.5% on March 1,2002 (FY 2002), 7.5% on March 1, 

2003 (FY 2003), 7.5% on March 1,2004 (FY 2004) and 7.5% on March 1,2005 (FY 2005), 

to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, OPRA, the 

State Ocean Plan, the NPDES Permit, and the Stipulated Order.

Other Recommendations - None. 

Environmental Impact - This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3) 

as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Fiscal Impact: 

The cost of the Metropolitan Wastewater Department's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 

from FY 2002 through FY 2005 is estimated to be $517.2 million. Funding this effort will 

require issuing sewer revenue bonds as well as increasing sewer service charge revenues 

7.5% per year in Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. Additional service charge 

increases will be necessary to fund needed capital improvements in subsequent years. The 

estimated cost of the CIP from FY2006 through FY2010 is $695.3 million, for a total 

estimated cost for the period from FY2002 through FY2010 of more than $1.2 billion. 

BACKGROUND 

The last sewer rate increases were approved by City Council on January 19, 1999. The Council 

approved sewer service charge increases of 5% per year for three consecutive years, FY 1999, FY 

2000 and FY 2001 to fund the continued upgrade and expansion of the wastewater system. 

Attachment 1 provides a summary of the key events that impacted the City's Metropolitan Sewerage 

System prior to that, from 1987 through 1998. 

In 1999, the following changes occurred, impacting the Sewer Fund Financing Plan in a positive 

way: On April 30, 1999, the City accepted a NADIBank Grant in the amount of $17.2 million for 

the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. On October 26, 1999, the City accepted an EPA Grant in 

the amount of $2.1 million for the South Bay Reclamation Sewer and Pump Station. On June 8, 

1999, the City Council'approved acceptance of five low interest State Revolving Fund (SW) Loans, 

two for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and three for the South Bay Water Reclamation 

Plant, with a total estimated value of $80.8 million. Estimated savings in interest costs for these low 

interest loans was $17.8 million on a present value basis when compared to traditional bond 

financing. On June 2 1,1999, the City Council approved the expansion of the South Bay Water 

Reclamation Plant fiom 7 million gallons per day (mgd) to 15 mgd. With this expansion and the 30 

mgd of capacity at the North City Water Reclamation Plant, the City met its requirement under 

OPRA to provide 45 mgd of water reclamation capacity by 2010. As a result of expanding the South 

Bay Water Reclamation Plant, the City was able to delete the Mission Valley Water Reclamation 

Plant fiom its Sewer Fund Capital Improvement Program, which will save the City approximately 

$105 million. 

In December, 1999, City staff updated the Financing Plan incorporating the above changes. The 

following tables compare the sewer rate increases and average single family residential monthly 

sewer costs for the previously approved FY 1999 Financing Plan and updated FY2000 Financing 

Plan. From 1993 to date, a total of $1.165 billion dollars in bonds have been issued and used to 

finance the wastewater capital improvement program.

Projected 

FY99 

Projected 

FYOO 

Projected 

FY99 

Projected 

FYOO 

DISCUSSION 

FY99 

5% 

5% 

FY99 

$27.03 

$27.03 

FYOO 

5% 

5% 

Annual Rate Increases 

Average Single Family Residential Monthly Sewer Costs 

FYOO 

$28.38 

$28.38 

FYOl 

5% 

5% 

FYOl 

$29.80 

$29.80 

FY02 

10% 

5% 

FY02 

$32.78 

$31.29 

FY03 

9% 

5% 

FY03 

$35.73 

$32.85 

Through 1999, the emphasis had been on the maintenance, repair, upgrade and expansion of the 

Metropolitan System (treatment facilities and outfalls) in order to ensure compliance with OPRA 

and the Stipulated Order. As the City approached the completion of the major upgrades to the 

Metropolitan System, the emphasis shifted to the Municipal System, which consists of nearly 3,000 

miles of pipeline and 80 pump stations. The Municipal System is operated and maintained by the 

Metropolitan Wastewater Department's Wastewater Collection (WWC) Division. 

In 1999, as part of the City's Zero-Based Management Review (ZBMR) Program, the WWC 

Division began a two year assessment, benchmarking and optimization study. The study was 

conducted by two consultants with separate but complementary responsibilities. The 

"Benchmarking" consultant reported directly to the City Optimization Program Manager and was 

responsible for a detailed benchmarking study and a mock bid to gauge the private sector competitive 

budget level for this operation. The "Optimization" consultant was deployed to work more directly 

with the workforce to determine best industry practices, perform an independent operational 

assessment, and integrate all information from the workforce and from both consultant efforts into 

an optimization plan. 

FY04 

4% 

5% 

FY04 

$37.16 

$34.50 

FY05 

4% 

5% 

FY05 

$38.65 

$36.22 

FY06 

4% 

5% 

FY06 

$40.19 

$38.03 

FY07 

2% 

5% 

~y07 

$41.00 

$39.93 

FY08 

2% 

5% 

FY08 

$41.82 

$41.93

The "Optimization" consultant's two-year examination indicated in part: 

The System consists of almost 3000 miles of sewer pipelines and 80 pump stations. 

800 - 1000 miles of the System are over 50 years old. 

About 60% of the System is vitrified clay pipe. Clay pipes built before 1965 lack gaskets 

between the pipe sections, making the lines susceptible to root intrusion at the joints. 

Approximately one half of spills are caused by root intrusion. 

About 7% of the System is concrete pipe. These pipes are susceptible to corrosion, 

deterioration, and blockage. The recent Municipal CIP has focused on replacement of 

concrete pipes. 

Between one quarter and one third of spills are caused by grease blockages. 

10 - 15 spills are caused each year by vandalism, particularly debris thrown into manholes. 

Priority for cleaning of the System has focused on "hot spots" where grease blockages or root 

intrusion is known to be a problem. Half of the System is not routinely cleaned. 

Lack of access to 320 miles of pipelines and their associated manholes in canyons and open 

space has led to minimal maintenance of the System in those areas. 

The WWC Division mock bid indicated that the operating and maintenance budget for the collection 

system is in the competitive range. However, both the mock bid analysis and the optimization study 

indicated or recommended a number of measures to better utilize resources and continuously move 

toward best industry practices. Additionally, the "Optimization" consultant's assessment included 

an evaluation of available benchmarking data concerning the total number of Sanitary Sewer 

Overflows (SSO's) or spills in the wastewater collection system of the City of San Diego compared 

to other cities / agencies. The data demonstrated that San Diego's collection system spills have 

reduced considerably over recent history, but remain in excess of the number expected of a "good 

performing" agency. To achieve the level of good performing agencies, the "Optimization" 

consultant's summary briefing at the April 18,2001 NR&C Committee meeting indicated that both 

the implementation of Best Management Operations and Maintenance Practices and the execution 

of an adequate Capital Improvement Program are required. These targeted reductions are intended 

to protect the environment and support the Mayor's goal of reducing beach postings and closures. 

In November 2000, the "Optimization" consultant noted the deteriorated condition of the Municipal 

System (like many collection systems across the country) and the attendant need for an increased 

capital improvement program in order to filly implement some of the O&M optimization measures. 

The consultant emphasized that to reach the benchmarked reductions in sanitary sewer overflows, 

both the implementation of recommended optimization measures and an increased capital 

improvement program were needed. 

The consultant prepared a preliminary estimate of annual capital expenditures required to bring the 

system up to a sustainable condition. This preliminary estimate was based on national industry 

standards for construction cost and life expectancy for sewer pipelines and pump stations, and 

resulted in a range of $109 million to $137 million each year over a 10 year period. A focused 

system condition assessment utilizing televised and other diagnostic data was also recommended.

The Metropolitan Wastewater Department's (MWWD) Engineering and Planning Section performed 

an independent analysis of this issue using available GIs data regarding sewer age and material. The 

MWWD staff reached similar conclusions regarding annual capital expenditure levels required for 

the Municipal System. 

While the current sewer spills record and ongoing televising of pipelines indicate that a significant 

amount of the system is in a deteriorated state, it is anticipated that some pipelines to be assessed will 

be in adequate condition (revised life expectancy will exceed preliminarily estimated life expectancy) 

and will either not require near-term replacement, or will be able to be rehabilitated using less 

expensive construction techniques. With this in mind, an average annual expenditure level of $100 

million (somewhat below the lower end of the consultant's estimated range) was utilized for 

immediate work load and financial planning. This figure will be revisited as the focused assessment 

of the System is executed over the next several years. It is felt unlikely that the revised level can be 

lower without increased risk of not attaining benchmarked reductions in sanitary sewer overflows. 

However, such factors as constructability and neighborhood disruption may argue against it being 

significantly higher. To date, 273 Municipal System projects with an estimated cost of $322.8 

million have been identified and scheduled from FY2002 through FY2005. 

The proposed 10 year program includes ramping up the rehabilitation and replacement of 

deteriorated pipelines from the current 15 to 20 miles per year to 60 miles per year. 

Based on the recommendation contained in the assessment and optimization study, the: City 

developed what is referred to as the "Accelerated Municipal Program." The Accelerated Municipal 

Program's objective is to achieve the goal of reducing sewer spills ,from 10.3 to 6.6 spills per 100 

miles of sewer by the end of calendar year 2006. The Accelerated Municipal Program addresses both 

operation and maintenance (O&M) and capital improvement needs. The costs associated with the 

Accelerated Municipal Program for the period from FY2002 through FY2010 are shown in the 

following table. See Attachment 2 for a listing of Muni Capital Improvement Projects. 

Municipal System 

(Inflated Dollars in Millions) 

Although the emphasis has shifted from treatment facilities and outfalls to the collection system, the 

Metropolitan System still represents a significant hnding requirement when considering both O&M 

and capital improvements, as indicated in the following table. See Attachment 3 for a listing of 

Metro Capital Improvement Projects.

Metropolitan System 


In summary, the funding requirements for both the Municipal System and the Metropolitan System 

for both O&M and capital improvements are significant, as indicated in the following table. 

Municipal & Metropolitan Systems 


To implement the combined Metropolitan and Accelerated Municipal Programs, annual rate 

increases of 7.5% will be required for FY2002 through FY2005. In addition, rate increases will be 

required for FY2006 through FY20 10. The following table shows the proposed and projected rate 

increases, as well as the average single family residential monthly sewer costs for FY2002 through 

FY2010. 

PROPOSED 

FY02 

7.5% 

$32.04 

FY03 

7.5% 

$34.44 

Annual Rate Increases 

& 

Average Single Family Residential Monthly Sewer Costs 

FY04 

7.5% 

$37.02 

FY05 

7.5% 

$39.80 

PROJECTED 

FY06 

6.5% 

$42.38 

FY07 

5.0% 

$44.50 

FY08 

5.0% 

$46.72 

FY09 

5.0% 

$49.06 

FYlO 

5.0% 

$51.51

The City Council's approval of the City Manager's recommendation that a series of four annual 7.5% 

increases in rates be adopted is important for these reasons: 

1. Doing so allows the City to meet current bond covenants and supports the continued 

orderly execution of the capital plan for which the existing bonds were sold; and 

2. It provides sufficient funding for needed wastewater system maintenance and 

improvements in compliance with federal and state mandates, and demonstrates a 

good faith effort and the City's continuing commitment in the context of the 

Stipulated Order and the ongoing waiver renewal process. 

CONCLUSION 

The City has pursued a successful course of legislative, legal and financing actions that has resulted 

in significant reductions in the scope and cost of mandated sewer system upgrades and of projected 

monthly sewer service charges while continuing to responsibly protect the environment. To maintain 

and build upon those successes, continued funding of the wastewater capital program is essential, 

as is an increased level of municipal maintenance and repair. Ongoing compliance with the NPDES 

Permit, the waiver-enabling OPRA and the Stipulated Order associated with the Municipal System 

require that current and proposed increases in maintenance, repair, upgrade and replacement 

continue. The action requested today will allow the City to meet those requirements. 

ALTERNATIVE 

Consider delaying the sewer service charge increases requested for FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004 and 

FY 2005 or setting those increases at levels lower than 7.5%. These actions are not recommended 

because this could prevent the issuance of additional debt on a scale necessary for the construction 

of projects the City needs to comply with the requirements the NPDES Permit, Clean Water Act, 

OPRA, and the requirements of the Stipulated Order to upgrade and maintain the Municipal Sewer 

System. 


SCOTT TULLOCH 

Metropolitan Wastewater Department Director 

GEORGE LOVELAND 

Senior Deputy City Manager 

Note: Attachment 3 is not available in electronic format. A copy of the attachment is available for 

review in the office of the City Clerk. 

AITACHMENTS: 

1. Metropolitan Sewerage System Key Events 1987 through 1998 

2. Metropolitan Wastewater Department FY 2002 Final Budget Muni System Appropriation 

Schedule

3. Metropolitan Wastewater Department FY 2002 Final Budget Metro System 

G:\mngmt\public\WZH\Memo\manager report-3.wpd


Metropolitan Sewerage System 

Key Events 

1987 throu~h 1998 

Attachment 1 

Page 1 of 3 

912710 1 

In early 1987, the City began the planning process to upgrade and expand the sewage system to serve 

the region through the year 2050 and to comply with the federal Clean Water Act. 

In July 1988, the City was sued by the federal and state governments fbr noncompliance with the 

Clean Wak Act's requirements for secondary treatment of wastewater. A proposed Consent Decree 

was negotiated allowing for environmental, planning and construction schedules that would have 

required all water reclamation facilities to be operational by 1999 and the Point Loma Wastewater 

Treatment Plant ("Point Loma") to be upgraded to full secondary treatment level by 

December 3 1,2003. This agreement was the basis for the design configuration of the upgrade to 

secondary sewage treatment approved by the City Council (adopted as "Alternative IV"). The cost 

of the program was estimated at $2.5 billion (capital costs excluding the costs of financing) through 

the year 2003. It should be noted that the program and the $2.5 billion in estimated expenditures 

only addressed the upgrade and expansion of the Metro System and did not include the work on the 

Municipal System. 

On June 19,1990, the City Council approved a five year sewer financing plan which incorporated 

annual increases of 6% in monthly sewer service charges and 16% in sewer capacity charges. These 

increases were based on the 1990 "Wastewater Financial Plan and Revenue Program" and were 

predicated upon incurring bonded indebtedness to finance the majority of the Capital Improvement 

Program required to meet the Clean Water Act. Implementation of this financing plan was 

completed July 1, 1994, when the last rate increase was effective. 

In September 1991, the City Council directed the City Manager to pursue a means of preserving the 

Point Loma Treatment Plant at advanced primary treatment. That effort focused on the pursuit of 

amendments to the Clean Water Act that would either allow the City to re-apply for a waiver of the 

Act's secondary treatment requirements, or amend the Act to provide for different discharge 

standards for coastal waters, thereby saving the region's ratepayers significant future capital and 

operating costs. 

In April 1992, a rate analysis and financing package was brought to the City Council for the first 

issuance of bonds for projects required by the proposed Consent Decree (Alternative IV). The rate 

analysis reflected a requirement for annual sewer service charge increases of 15% for the period FY 

1993 through FY 1997, an 8% increase in FY 1998, and 1.5% increases thereafter. This analysis also 

included projected sewer capacity charge increases of 16% annually through FY 1997. 

In light of the magnitude of these rate increases, the City Council requested development of an 

alternative program which was smaller in scope and resulted in lower rate increases. In response, 

the "Consumers' Alternative" system configuration was developed, then adopted by Council, to

Attachment 1 

Page 2 of 3 

912710 1 

replace Alternative IV. The Financing Plan presented to Council for the Consumers' Alternative 

included the issuance of $1 billion of debt to finance most of the capital construction, contained no 

increase in capacity charges beyond FY 1995 and increased sewer service charges by 6% per year 

through FY 2001, a projected rate profile significantly lower than that required for Alternative IV. 

In September 1993, the initial issue ($250 million) of sewer revenue bonds was sold. As part of this 

issuance, Council committed to adjust future sewer charges as necessary to meet the financial tests 

prescribed in the bond covenants. 

In April 1994, the federal court set aside the proposed Consent Decree, finding that it was not in the 

public interest. This action eliminated Alternative IV as a viable system configuration. 

In August 1994, the U.S. District Court approved and filed an Interim Order which directed the 

construction of facilities consistent with the Council adopted-Consumers' Alternative. This Interim 

Order included all of the capital projects to be constructed until the remaining issues between the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City could be resolved. 

On October 3 1, 1994, Congress passed the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA) of 1994 which 

amended the Clean Water Act to permit the City to apply for a waiver from secondary treatment 

standards at Point Loma. The OPRA legislation required the City to commit to the implementation 

of a wastewater reclamation program that, at a minimum, would achieve a system capacity of 45 

million gallons of reclaimed wastewater per day (mgd) by January 1,2010, and would result in a 

reduction in the quantity of suspended solids (mass emissions) discharged into the marine 

environment during the period of modification (waiver). In addition, the modification had to result 

in the removal of not less than 58% of the biological oxygen demand (on an annual average) and not 

less than 80% of total suspended solids (on a monthly average) in the discharge. 

In February, 1995, ground was broken on the Metro Biosolids Center (MBC). In accordance with 

the 198 1 agreement between the City and the California Coastal Commission, MBC replaced the 

Fiesta Island Sludge Processing Center, so that Fiesta Island could be converted to recreational use. 

MBC went into operations in February, 1998. The cost of MBC and its related facilities was $332.9 

million. 

In April, 1995, the City filed an application with the EPA for a waiver, and in August 1995 the EPA 

issued a tentative decision approving the waiver and a modified National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. On November 9, 1995, the EPA granted the City's request 

for a modified NPDES permit pursuant to a waiver. The permit incorporated both federal NPDES 

and state wastewater discharge requirements, required the upgrade at Point Loma to meet the 

requirements, and required construction of water reclamation facilities capable of treating 45 million 

gallons per day by the year 2010, all of which the Wastewater System Capital Improvement Program 

contemplates. The waiver does not in any way modify the court's Final Order or the Wastewater 

System Capital Improvement Program. The waiver had a term of five years which ended on 

November 9,2000. The City has applied for a five-year waiver extension in order to maintain its

exemption from the secondary treatment standards of the Glean Water Act. 

Attachment 1 

Page 3 of 3 

912710 1 

On September 13, 1996, the City and all parties to the U.S.A. v. City litigation agreed to a Stipulated 

Final Order from Injunctive Relief (Stipulated Order) that resolved all of the remaining issues 

concerning alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The Final Order provided for specified 

upgrades of the sewer collection system including the replacement of sixty miles of concrete mains 

by June 30,2003, a comprehensive pump station and force main audit, an upgraded information 

system, additional grease control, and incorporation of the capital improvement projects listed in the 

Interim Order. After appropriate public noticing and a hearing on public comments, the Final Order 

was signed and entered by the judge on June 6, 1997. With this entry, all projects listed in the Final 

Order became mandated by the court and the allegations regarding the Clean Water Act were 

resolved. 

The OPRA legislation clearly results in significantly lower sewer bills than would have occurred 

without the legislation. However, the cost of the projects necessary to comply with OPRA and the 

court-ordered projects still requires rate increases. 

On October 2, 1996, the City Council approved sewer service charge increases of 6% in both FY 

1997 and FY 1998.

WATER DEPARTMENT TABLE OF EXHIBITS 

1. Water Department General Info. (Index). FNS. 1, 3, 8, 19 

2. City of San Diego Water Department PUAC Presentation, November 28,2006. FNS. 2 

3. Public Facilities Financing Authority, Sub. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2002 Oct. 2002. FNS. 4, 11, 

13,25,27,29,30,31,38 

Strategic Plan for Water Supply 1997-2015, July 1997. FNS. 5, 6, 18,21,23,37 

City of San Diego Water Utility 2002 Annual Financial Report. FNS. 7,9, 12 

Natural Resources & Culture Committee Executive Summary Sheet, December 1,2006. FNS. 10 

Water Cost of Service Rate Study Final Report, Raftelis Financial Cons., 12/14/2006. FNS. 14, 24,45, 

46,47,48,49, 50, 5 1, 52 

Water Department General Information (CIP). FNS. 15, 17,20 

Public Facilities Financing Authority, Sub. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1998 Aug. 1998. FNS. 16, 

32,43 

City of San Diego Long-Range Water Resources Plan (2002-2030), Dec. 9,2002. FNS. 22 

DHS, January 22, 1997, Compliance Order No. 04-14-96CO-022. FNS. 26 

DHS, Apr. 27,2004, Amend. #10 to Compliance Order 04-14-96CO-022. FNS. 28 

Memorandum, Dennis Kahlie, March 2, 1994; August 8,2005 Revision; City Council Resolutions. 

FNS. 33,40, 88 

Report to City Council, Prop. 218 Noticing, 12/18/2006. FNS. 34, 39,41,44,54 

Union-Tribune, 12/27/06, Rash of ruptures has Sun Diego scrambling to make cost& repairs. FNS. 35 

Engineering News Record Website. FNS. 36 

Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. Audit Report, August 7,2006. FNS. 53 

Union-Tribune, 01/05/07, Water main bursts in downtown, closing lanes. FNS. 107

Footnote No. 104

DATE ISSUED: January 3, 2007 REPORTNO: 07--006 

ATTENTION: 

' 

Council President and Members of the City Council, City ,Council 

Meeting of January 8,2007 

SUBJECT: Proposition 21 8 Noticing of Proposed Sewer Rate Adjustments 

REFERENCE: 

REOUESTED ACTION: 

Council authorization to notice, pursuant to Proposition 2 18 to include the following: 

o Proposed sewer rate adjustments, increasing sewer system revenues by 8.75% in Fiscal 

Years2007 and 2008 and 7% in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 

o Shames' Lawsuit settlement impact to Sewer Service Charges of 3.05% in Fiscal Years 

2007 and 2008,0.6% in Fiscal Year 2009, and 0.5% in Fiscal Year 2010, assuming the 

above rate increases are also implemented 

o Raise Single Family ~esidentiai (SFR) billing cap fi-om 14 ~undied Cubic Feet (HCF) to 

20 HCF 

o Reduce return to sewer ("return") factor for SFR water usage from 100% to 95% 

o New SFR customer rate increase fiom $35.88 to $38.32; and 

Set the public hearing date to consider proposed rate adjustments at the City of San Diego Council . 

Mmeeting of February 26,2007; and 

Receive the Wastewater Cost of Service Rate Study as the basis for establishing the rate structure. 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ' 

e Authorize the Mayoi or his designee to initiate Proposition 21 8 noticing for the sewer rate 

adjustments by 8.75% on May 1,2007 and May 1,2008 (Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008), 7.00% on 

' 

May 1,2009 and May 1,201 0 (Fiscal Years 2009 and 201 0) to ensure continued compliance with 

federal and state mandates and allow MWWD to enter into a Final Consent Decree with the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by June 30,2007. 

Set the public hearing date to consider proposed wastewater rate adjustmetns at City of San Diego 

Council Meeting of February 26,2007; and 

Receive the Wastewater Cost of Service Rate Study .

RAMIFICATIONS OF NO RATE INCREASES: 

... 

. .. . 

The proposed rate increases are on a critical timeline that is driven by litigation over past sewer spills in 

the consolidated cases of United States v. City of Sun Diego (Case No. 03-CV-1349K) and Baykeeper v. 

City of San Diego (Case No. 01-CV-0550B). The City is currently operating under a Partial Consents 

Decree.entered in these cases, which expires on June 30,2007. If the City has not obtained the funding 

necessary to approve and lodge a Final Consent Decree with the Court by June 30,2007, it is likely the 

stay of litigation will be lifted and the cases will proceed to trial. This would result in rate payer-generated 

revenues being applied to litigation costs in addition to court-mandated improvements to the inhstructure. 

In addition, MWWD will be unable to access public or private financing, resulting in significant delays or 

suspension of infrastructure projects. Delays in these critical infrastructure projects will put the system at 

risk of collection and treatment system failures, increased sewage spills, violation of regulatory permits, 

and potential fines or other enforcement actions from regulatory agencies. 

In order to approve and lodge a Final Consent Decree by June 30,2007 and avoid the potential problems 

described above, the following timeline is imperative: 

January 8,2007 - City Council hearing to set the public hearing as required by Proposition 21 8 

January 1 1,2007 - Proposition 2 18 notice must be mailed to meet the 45 day noticing requirement 

February 26,2007 - City Council public hearing to consider proposed rate increases (45 days after 

mailing the Proposition 21 8 notices) and introduction of ordinance authorizing a bond issuance and 

financing documents. The bond. financing is anticipated to be a private financing. 

April 2007 - Closing of the bonds, and bond funds available for the Wastewater System and City 

Council consideration bf a Final Consent Decree 

May 1,2007 - rate increase effective to support the bond issuance and signing of the Final Consent 

Decree 

June 30,2007 - deadline to lodge Final Consent Decree 

This timeline and each of its dates for specific action is critical to ensure that MWWD complies with the 

EPA mandates. The Court has allowed MWWD to postpone the signing of the Final Consent Decree due 

' 

. to the City's financial crisis. However, the Court has firmly indicated that it will not allow further 

postponement of signing the Final Consent Decree. 

The Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. Cost of Service Study's (COSS) recommendations are consistent 

with and are reflected in the wastewater basis .for the sewer rate base fee and HCF fees being proposed. 

The City Council's ability to deviate from these rates is limited: the rate- adjustments proposed by this 

report can only be changed if the alterations are consistent with the COSS. Changes that are inconsistent 

with the COSS could violate the requirement of Proposition 218 and State guidelines that sewer fees not 

exceed the proportionate cost of providing the service to each parcel. Therefore, any proposed changes 

should be examined carehlly. 

SUMMARY: 

Background 

Under the Final Consent Decree, the City is required to replace or rehabilitate pipelines and trunk sewers, 

upgrade various pump stations, and maintain the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) system at current 

levels. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is intended to address these issues as well as ensure 

sufficient O&M activities. In order to support this CIP, additional funds will be required through a 

.

combination of bonds, grants, state revolving fund loans and cash. This investment in infrastructure will 

require a series of rate increases beginning May 1, 2007. Pursuant to Proposition 21 8, and prior to 

Council's formal consideration of rate increases, the City must provide property owners 45 days advance 

notice when any rate increases will be considered. This action authorizes this Notice to take place. 

Proposition 218 

On November 5, 1.996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 21 8, the "Right to Vote 

on Taxes Act." Proposition 218, effective JuIy 1, 1997, added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the State 

Constitution, which contain a number of provisions affecting the ability of local govkrnments to levy and 

collect both existing and .hture taxes, assessments, fees and charges. Article XIIiD, section 6(a)(l) 

imposes noticing procedures for imposing a new or increasing an existing property-related fee or charge. 

This initiative changed the way the public is notified of proposed fee increases. Specifically, it requires 

that notices be mailed to all property owners of record at least 45 days in advance of the date on which a 

proposed property related fee increase may be adopted. 

Therefore, it is the intent of MWWD to mail notices on or before January 1 1,2007, to property owners of 

record and City of San Diego sewer bi.11 customers, advising them that the City Council of the City of San 

Diego will hold a public hearing on February 26,2007 to consider adoption of the proposed revisions to 

existing sewer fees and charges. If adopted, the revisions would become effective on May 1,2007 and 

annually thereafter through May 1,2010. 

History 

In June, 1990, City Council approved a 6% increase in sewer service charges for five consecutive years, 

'Fiscal Years 1991 through 1995. At that time the City Council also approved a 16% increase in sewer 

capacity charges. In January, 1999, Council again approved increasing all sewer service charges by 5% 

for three consecutive years, Fiscal Years 1'999 through 2001. The emphasis of these increases was on the 

maintenance, repair, upgrade ,and expansion of the Metropolitan System in order to ensure compliance 

with the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA) and the Stipulated Order in United States v. City of San 

Diego (Case No. 88- 1 10 1-B). The Stipulated -Order required specified upgrades of the sewer collection 

system, including the replacement of 60 miles of concrete mains by June 30,2003, a comprehensive pump 

station and forcemain audit, an upgraded information system, additional grease control, and incorporation 

of the capital improvement 'projects listed in the Interim Order. 

Major accomplishments during this timeframe include the completion of the North City Water 

Reclamation Plant, South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, Metropolitan Biosolids Center, South Bay Ocean 

Outfall, Wastewater Operations Management Network, and major upgrades to the interceptor system and 

the Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant. As MWWD approached the completion of the major 

upgrades to the Metropolitan System, the emphasis shifted to the Municipal System, which consists of 

nearly 3,000 miles of pipeline and 80 pump stations. 

In October, 2001, City Council approved increasing all sewer service charges by 7.5% for four consecutive 

years, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005, to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the Clean 

Water Act, OPRA, the State Ocean Plan, the National Pollutant Ilischarge Elimination System Permit, and 

the Stipulated Order (City Manager's Report No. 01-209). A portion of these increases was required to 

fund an Administrative Order fiom the EPA to reduce sewer spills. The following are the rate increases 

that were considered in October, 2001 of which the first four where approved and implemented:

The proposed program included increasing the rehabilitation and replacement of the deteriorated pipelines 

from the current 15 to 20 miles to 60 miles per year. Subsequently an extasive closed circuit televising 

condition assessment of over one third of the pipeline system led to the recommendation that the pipeline 

rehabilitation and replacement program only be increased to 45 miles per year. This assessment 

-determined that certain areas of the pipeline system were in satisfactory condition, resulting in-a revised 

life expectancy that exceeded preliminary estimates. 

Additionally, as the program was implemented, it was determined that only half of the nearly 3,000 mile 

pipeline system was being cleaned on a regular basis. Thereforej the City Council approved a staff 

recommendation to increase Wastewater Collection Division personnel and equipment assigned to pipeline 

maintenance. The additional maintenance resulted in the entire system being cleaned on a regular, 

scheduled basis, resulting in an 81 % reduction in the number of sewage spills through Fiscal Year 2006. 

Despite reducing the Municipal Capital Program fkom the projected 60 miles per year to 45 miles per year, 

construction cost increases substantially exceeded inflation-based cost projections. In 2004, MWWD 

received a $152 million loan from Bank of America, which allowed the department to continue working 

on the Administrative Order, enabling completion of 30 miles of pipe replacement and rehabilitation per 

year. Because MWWD did not receive the proposed Fiscal year 2006 rate increase, the CIP progam.has 

been substantially reduced in order to stay within current revenues. 

City staff is currently working on a private financing option expected to be executed in April, 2007 to 

retire the outstanding loan obligation with Bank of America and fund the first year of capital projects 

required by the proposed Final Consent Decree in the consolidated cases of United States v. City of San 

Diego (Case No. 03-CV-1349K) and Baykeeper v. City of San Diego (Case No. 01-CV-0550B) in order to 

continue rehabilitation and replacement efforts. The next bond offering required to meet the Fiscal Years 

2008 and 2009 capital needs is expected to occur in April, 2008. To ensure accurate estimates, an external 

consultant has conducted an analysis of the projected costs. Since the 2001 rate case anticipated needs 

through 2010 and construction costs have increased substantially over the 2001 assumptions, it is expected 

that additional rate increases will be needed to continue the system replacement and upgrade efforts 

beyond the current rate proposal. 

Current Need 

The City owns and operates a regional wastewater system that includes both the Municipal (Muni) and 

Metropolitan (Metro) Systems. The Muni system is a sewage collection system of nearly 3,000 mil& of 

pipe that serves the City's service area. The.Metro.systern, which services both the City and Participating 

Agencies (PAS), includes facilities which provide advanced primary treatment, secondary treatment, 

tertiary reclamation, sIudge processing and efnuent disposal. The Metro System currently includes three 

wastewater treatment plants that are operational, two ocean outfalls, a biosolids processing center, three 

major pump stations, and several miles of' force mains and gravity flow interceptors. Due to the complex 

exchange of effluents, solids and centrates, sharing of one common outfall and receipt of flows from the 

participating agencies, the Metro system is viewed and operated as "a regional system" from a permitting, 

regulatory compliance and operational efficiency standpoint. 

MWWD focused on the needs of the Muni system in the early 2000s and there continues to be a critical 

need to rehabilitate or replace many pipelines, trunk sewers and pump stations through 20 13. The 

following is the list of needs contemplated in the rate case and in compliance with the proposed sewer 

spills consent decree: 

Replacement and rehabilitation of 250 miles of sewer pipeline, including 17 specific .trunk sewers 

r Upgrade of 12 sewer pump stations

Replace aging infrastructure, e&ated at $648 million, including specific projects required by the 

Final Consent ~ecree:. (see Attachment) 

o $277 million for pipeline replacement and rehabilitation . 

o $197 million for trunk sewer rehabilitation 

o $82 million for treatderit plants . \L i 

o $32 million for municipal sewer pun$ stations 

o $ I5 milIion for large shwer pump stations :. 

o $45 million for other pri!jects, primarily the Metro Facilities Control System Upgrade, 

Wet Weather Storage Fa@ityi and Annual Allocation- CIP Contingencies 

Meet ongoing O&M needs of the wastiyater system, which includes mandates from the proposed 

'C 

Final Consent Decree ' 

Meet CIP pay-go costs of approximately 209i.pf the $648 mhlion CIP 

! 

.__ . :I 

The rate case evaluates the financiil needs and akcounts f$%ll costs related to the system. The current rate - 

case is intended to provide the fust four years of new&~ary r&igcieases for the capitaland operation and 

maintenance (O&M) program that is planned. Additional rate increases will be necessary to continue the 

program after that point in order to sustain compliance with the proposed Final Consent Decree. However, 

monies saved ftom'ongoing department-wide Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) and Bid to Goal or 

Managed Competition will be applied to minimize future rate increases. The following is an overview of 

the Rate Case analysis and the Cost of Service study performed to determine the necessary rates and 

assure apportionment of the rates in a fair andequitable manner. 

Rate Case 

To provide for the continued operation of the City's regional wastewater system on a sound financial basis, ,, 

the revenues must be sufficient to meet the funding requirements or cash obligations of the system. 

Revenue requirements include O&M and CIP expenditures, principal and interest payments on existing 

debt and other obligations. The wastewater enterprise's annual expenditures are divided between: the 

Muni expenditures and the Metro expenditures. Muni relates essentially to the collection system in the 

City's own retail service area and Metro relates to treatment and disposal services shared both by the City 

and the Participating Agencies (PA). 

The MWWD Services and Contracts.Division annually receive O&M and capital expenditure information 

for both the Metro and ~u+ni-infiatrhure components. The Division utilizes these costs to deielop 

comprehensive ~&~+nd'diP cost projections for the entire wastewater enterprise as part of its financing 

. 

plan development. 

The information regarding the financing plan is used to determine the overall revenue needs of the 

wastewater system, which is then used to determine the rate increases necessary to carry out the financial 

plan. In February, 2006, the City of San Diego entered into a consultant services agreement with 

Berryman & Henigar, Inc. to develop a current sewer rate case for MWWD based on the financing plan 

developed by MWWD. In addition, the financing plan was reviewed by the Public Utilities Advisory 

Commission (PUAC) wastewater rate sub-committee, the accounting firm Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C., 

and Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. for the cost of service study. After several meetings and document 

review, the PUAC subcommittee recommended supporting the proposed rate increases and the full PUAC "':. 

voted to unanimously support the proposed rates. The accounting firm of Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. 

provided an agreed-upon procedures review and also indicated that.the rates were~easonably supported 

(see attachments). Finally, the proposed rate increases are requir&l to alIow the city to sign the.proposed 

Final Consent Decree with the EPA by June 30,2067. The8e proposed rates will '6%d the O&M and CIP 

projects mandated in the first four ydars of thk ind dl Consent$Decree.

Mayer Hoffman McCann Re. 

An Independent CPA Firm 

Goarad Govwnmefi-i Servlcea* BhrfBoion 

2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 200 

Irvine, California 92612 

949-474-2020 ph 

949-2635520 

fX 

I www.mhm-pc.com 

Office of the Mayor 


Independent Accountant's Report on Aweed-Upon Procedures 

A~plied to Proposed Wastewater Rate Increases 

We have applied the procedures e~imerated below to the City of San Diego's proposed 

wastewater rate increases. These procedures: which were agreed to by the City of San Diego 

were performed solely to assist the City in evaluating the proposed wastewater rate increases. 

llis engagement lo apply agreed-upon procedures was performed in accordance with standards 

established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of the 

procedures is solely the responsibility of the specified users of the report. Consequently, we 

make no representations regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for 

the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. 

For purposes of comparisons referenced in this report, amounts are considered to be consistent if 

the difference between the compared amounts is less than $1 million and also less than 15%. 

BACKGROUND 

The Wastewater rate model was developed by outside consultants. The rate model contains 

projections of future expected revenues, operating costs, and capital costs. The model requires 

the rate increases to be sufficient to cover net operating costs and 20% of annual capital costs 

while not violating certain constraints. The model's constraints include maintaining $10 million 

in unrestricted, undesignated equity and maintaining a debt coverage ratio of at least 125% 

through fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. The model projects the following rate increases 

beginning: 

May 1,2007 8.75% 

May 1,2008 8.75% 

May 1,2009 7% 

May1,2010 7% 

PROCEDURES PERFORMED 

The procedures performed and the results of those procedures were as follows: 

1. We agreed the beginning unrestricted, undesignated equity balance at June 30, 2006 to 

unaudited accounting system reports. 

Results: The unaudited accounting system reports supported the amounts included in the 

rate model.

November 17,2006 


Page 2 

2. The rate model projects revenues based on historical trends and projections of future 

demand. The rate model ii~cludes the following revenue projections (in thousands): 

Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 

2007 200& - 2009 2010 - 201 1 

Service Charge Revenues $ 238,538 26 1,769 293,274 316,409 337,207 

Sewage Treatment Plant Services 70,389 73,916 77,5 18 81,142 84,705 

Interest Earnings 3,963 4,867 5,358 6,134 6,482 

Capacity Charge 14,984 15,139 15,294 15,450 15,607 

Other Revenue 17,507 10,794 11,093 11,404 11,728 

a We agreed the 2003 to 2006 revenues to unaudited accounting system reports. 

These revenues are used in the model to calculate historical trends. 

Results: For the years ended June 30, 2003 through 2006, the revenues are 

consistent with unaudited accounting system reports. 

We agreed the 2007 revenue amounts to the 2007 Annual Budget. 

Results: The 2007 Annual Budget is consistent with the projected revenues used 

in the rate model cal.culation. 

For Service Charge Revenues, we analytically tested the projected revenues for 

the years ending June 30, 2007 through 2011 by calculating revenues as a 

percentage of the sewered population as projected by San Diego Association of 

Governments. We also ~eviewed Service Charge Revenues by comparing future 

increases to historical increases. 

Results: Projected revenues as a percentage of the populati~n are consistent with 

historical years. Additionally, projected revenues, excluding inflation and 

projected rate increases, are consistent with historical revenues. 

For Intares1 Income, we calculated the rate of return using unaudited accounting 

system reports. 

Results: The projected rate of return is consistent with current market interest 

rates.



Page 3 

For Sewage Treutment Plant Services, Capacity Charges, and Other Revenues we 

compared each projected year to the prior year, beginning with the fiscal year 

ended June 30,2005. 

Results: Projected revenues did not significantly vary from prior year data except 

for Other Revenues during 2007 to 2008. This is a result of a one-tinle refund to 

the Wastewater Department from the Motive Equipment Fund. The refund is 

attributed to the Wastewater Department's accumulation of funds in the Motive 

Equipment Fund which exceeds projected fleet vehicle requirements in operations 

over a 30-year period. The action is currently in the process of being approved by 

City Council. 

3. The rate model projects other sources of funding based on long-tenn budgeting 

expectations. The rate model includes the following projections of other sources (in 

thousands): 

For the years ended June 30, 

2007 - 2008 - 2009 2010 - 201 1 

BondProceeds $ 199,345 80,270 95,590 148,380 147,534 

Other Sources 14,435 - - - - 

Total $ 213,780 80,270 95,590 148,380 147,534 

Bond Proceeds are issued to fund 80% of expected capital project expenditures. 

Wastewater revenues are used to fund the remaining 20% of capital projects. We 

recalculated 80% of the capital project expenditures to determine if the amount of 

bond proceeds is accurate. 

Results: Bond proceeds reported in 2007 are equal to 60% of eligible capital 

project expenditures, a reimbursement of 2007 eligible capital project 

expenditures, and $152 million of proceeds to be used to refund outstanding debt. 

Bond proceeds reported in 2008 through 201 1 are consistent with 80% of eligible 

capital project expenditures. 

We inquired about si,gificant changes in Other Sources. 

Results: The $14 million of Other Sources in 2007 represents known grant 

fimding in 2007 that is unknown for future years.



Page 4 

4. The rate model projects operating expenses based on historical trends and projections of 

hture demand. The rate model includes the following expense projections: 

Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 

2007 - 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Debt Service $ 95,947 99,248 105,747 113,477 125,492 

Operating & Maintenance 245,158 247,709 265,865 28 1,359 292,308 

We agreed the 2003 to 2006 expenditures to unaudited accounting system reports. 

These expenditures are used in the model to calculate historical trends. 

Results: For the years ended June 30, 2003 through 2006, expenditures per the 

unaudited accounting system reports are consistent with expenditures in the rate 

m.ode1, 

We agreed the 2007 expenditure amounts to the 2007 Annual Budget. 

Results: The 2007 expenditures per the model are consistent with the approved 

expenses in the 2007 Annual Budget. i 

For Operating h Maintenance Expenditures we compared each projected year to 

the prior year starting with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. Operating and 

maintenance expenses did not increase by more than 15% in any year and are 

consistent with historical amounts, We obtained a detailed listing of what makes 

up the operating and maintenance expense amounts. For significant fluctuations 

between fiscal years, we obtained an explanation from management. 

Results: The major changes in Operating & Maintenance Expenditures are as 

follows: 

Increase in Pension Contribution - We agreed the increase to projections 

provided by the Office of the Mayor. 

Increase in Retirement Heath Benefits - We agreed the increase to , 

projections provided by the Office of the Mayor. 

Increase in General Government Services - We agreed the increase to 

detailed reports of the General Governmental Service Allocation. 

Decrease in use of Senrice Level Agreements - We agreed the decrease 

to the Mayor's response to the Grand Jury findings.



Page 5 

For operati1zg & Maintenance Expendifui-es, we calculated expenditures as a 

percentage of flow as reported and projected by the San Diego Association of 

Governments for both historical and future years. 

The results are as follows: 

For the vears ended June 30. 

Ratio of Flow to Operating & 

Maintenance Expenditures 0.08% 0.08% 0,07% 0.07% 0.07% 

Historical Average for 2003 - 2006 = 0.08% 

For Debt Service Expenditures, we agreed principal and interest payments to bond 

maturity schedules on outstanding debt. We also agreed debt service payments to 

the City's bond model. that projects debt service on bonds that have not yet been 

issued. 

Results: No exceptioils were noted. 

5. The rate model projects capital expenditures based on specific project start dates and cost 

estimates. The capital project expenditures include a 3.5% contingency cost and an 

inflation factor of 4%. We compared the capital project expenditures in the rate model 

to q e City's Capital Improvement Budget. 

Results: The capital improvement budget included in the 2007-201 1 annual budget 

report totals $979 million. The capital improvement expenses from 2007-201 1 in the rate 

model total $643 million. The variance of $336 million is mainly attributed to 

management's decision to schedule certain projects in later years than previously 

budgeted for in the capital projects budget. The modified projects are as follows:



Page 6 

Proiect Number Proiect Name 

Annual Allocation - Sewer Main RepIacements 

Amual Allocation - T& Sewer Rehabilitations 

Annual Allocation - Accelerated Projects 

Annual Allocatioll - MWWD Trunk Sewers 

Wet Weather Storage Facility 

NCWRP - Ultrafiltration and EDR Upgrade 

Pump Station 2 Screens 

SB WRP Demineralization Phase 1 and 2 

Pooled Contingency 

Annual Allocation - Unscheduled Projects 

We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an audit, the objective of which would be the 

expression of an opinion on the subject matter. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that 

would have been reported to you. 

This report is intended solely for the use of the City of San Diego, California and is not intended 

to be and should not be used by those wllo have not agreed to the procedures and taken 

responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes. 

&=+" fi fi4 

hine, California 

November 1.7,2006 

' 

f

Footnote No. 105

In addition to the Cost of Service and Rate Setting process, this Study focused on three major areas: 

Adherence to SWRCB regulation and guidance on wastewater ratemaking; 

Modifications to rate design with respect to the SFR sewer cap and return factor; and, 

Options for cost allocations to the base fee. 

These Study issues are discussed in the following subsections. 

6.1 Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements 

The SWRCB provides direction on how sewer charges should be developed in California. Some of this 

direction is in the form of regulations contained in the Revenue Program Guidelines, while other 

direction is in the form of less formal guidance from SWRCB staff. The City's rate structure is in 

compliance with the revenue program guidelines, however, the SWRCB commented on the single 

family residential usage cap &scussed below. 

In addition Proposition 218 applies to water and sewer rates that require rates not exceed the cost of 

providing service and that rate revenues only be used for providing service. In addition, to comply with 

Proposition 218, the City must provide notices by mail to property owners and conduct a public hearing 

not less than 45 days after mailing the notice. At the public hearing, the City must consider all protests 

against the fee. If written protests against the proposed fee are not presented by a majority of owners of 

the parcels, the agency may impose the fee. Voter approval at an election is not required. The Citv 

intends to meet these requirements. 

6.2 Impact on the Residential Sewer Cap 

At the conclusion of the last study the City received notification from the SWRCB that the proposed cap 

on SFR customers must be set high enough to capture at least 95 percent of the users or all SFR 

customers with winter water use above the existing cap be surveyed to verify that each account is a SFR 

user and not multi-family or commercial user. 

RFC performed an analysis of the winter water usage for the last five years and determined that the five- 

year average to cover 95 percent of the users resulted in a cap of 20 hcf per month. Using this cap and a 

95% return factor, RFC conducted a mass balance as described in Section 4.4 of ths report and obtained 

a reasonably good balance on the wastewater flow. The mass balance supports a revision of the monthly 

SFR usage cap from the current 14 hcf per month to 20 hcf and a 95% return factor. 

6.3 Cost Allocation to the Base Fee 

Another focus of this Study was to examine options for an equitable allocation of costs for recovery 

through the customer base fee. It is accepted practice in the utility ratemaking industry to identify costs 

that may be appropriately allocated to customer accounts and recover these costs through the customer 

base fee. RFC first examined Muni and Metro system O&M costs to isolate the types of expenditures 

typically allocated for base charge recovery. These costs fall into four categories: 

Customer service, billing, meter reading, and meter maintenance; 

A proportionate share of other administrative and general costs; 

December 15,2006

Footnote No. 106

75 Cal.App.3d 13,141 Cal.Rptr. 794 

(Cite as: 75 Cal.App3d 13) 

C 

Apartment Ass'n of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. 

City of Los AngelesCal.App.2.Dist.APARTMENT 

ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 

INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, 

v. 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and 

Appellants 

Civ. No. 50268. 

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, 

California. 

November 14, 1977. 

SUMMARY 

Plaintiffs sought to invalidate a city ordinance 

imposing a sewer service charge on the ground that 

the system of classification used in the ordinance 

constituted a denial of equal protection. The 

ordinance provided for imposition of the charge on 

governmental, industrial and commercial users. 

Commercial users included apartment houses, 

condominium, stock cooperatives and community 

apartment projects consisting of five or more 

dwelling units served by a single water meter. The 

trial court upheld plaintiffs' claim of 

unconstitutionality. (Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, No. CA 48753, Robert P. Schiffeman, 

Judge.) 

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of 

unconstitutionality. The court noted that 

classification of residential structures on the basis of 

number of units exists in various legislative 

enactments, and that there was no practical 

alternative to the classification in this case given the 

city's contention that the only available billing 

system was that of the department of water and 

power, which had long utilized these classifications 

in its operations.(Opinion by Kingsley, J., with 

Files, P. J., concurring. Separate dissenting opinion 

by Jefferson (Bernard), J.) 

HEADNOTES 

Page 2 of 6 

Page 1 

Classified to California Digest of Official Reports 

(1) Constitutional Law $ 94--Equal 

Protection--Traditional and Pragmatic Bases for 

Classification. 

A judgment holding a sewer service*14 charge 

ordinance unconstitutional on equal protection 

grounds, was reversible error, where the 

classification involved in the ordinance was one 

traditionally used and where the only billing source 

adaptable to collection of the charges utilized that 

classification. The classification in dispute 

exempted residential structures containing four or 

fewer units and larger structures with individual 

water meters, while including five- or more unit 

structures with one meter in the definition of 

commercial users subject to the charge. 

[See Cal.Jur.3d, Constitutional Law, $ 323; 

Am.Jurdd, Constitutional Law, $506.1 

COUNSEL 

Burt Pines, City Attorney, Thomas C. Bonaventura 

and John F. Haggerty, Assistant City Attorneys, for 

Defendants and Appellants. 

Kaplanis & Grimm, Trevor A. Grimrn, Horvitz, 

Greines & Horowitz and Ellis J. Horvitz for 

Plaintiffs and Respondents. 

KINGSLEY, J. 

The city, and the department of water and power 

appeal from a judgment holding unconstitutional a 

city ordinance imposing a sewer service charge. We 

reverse the judgment. 

The ordinance involved imposes a sewer service 

charge on governmental, industrial and commercial 

users. The charge, measured by the amount of water 

used, is billed and collected for the city by the 

department. The ordinance defined commercial 

users as including apartment houses, 

condominiums, stock cooperatives and community 


75 Cal.App.3d 13, 141 Cal.Rptr. 794 


apartment projects consisting of five or more 

dwelling units served by a single water meter. The 

charge was not imposed on such structures having 

four or less units, nor on structures of any size 

having individual water meters for each unit.*15 

The attack here is solely on the ground that the 

distinction between the five or more unit structure 

with one meter and a smaller structure or a large 

structure with individual meters is a denial of equal 

protection. 

Preliminarily, the appellants contend that the 

plaintiffs, not being shown to be the owners of the 

kind of residential structure subject to the charge, 

are not proper parties to sue; and that the trial 

court's findings do not support the judgment. Since 

we conclude that the record does not support the 

ultimate finding of unequal protection and because 

of the public interest in the merits of the litigation, 

we do not determine the validity of either of those 

contentions. 

(1) It is well settled, and respondents do not dispute, 

that the ordinance, whether considered as enacted 

under the police power or under the taxing power, is 

valid if the classification made therein is based on 

some reasonable basis. We conclude that the record 

here shows such a reasonable basis. The 

respondents do not contend that a classification that 

distinguishes between purely residential users and 

industrial and commercial users is invalid. As we 

understand them, they challenge only the limited 

type of residential structures that are classified in 

the ordinance as being commercial. 

It is true that sewage discharge from an apartment 

house or similar structure of less than five units will 

be proportionally as large as from a larger structure. 

It is also true that a five- or more unit structure with 

individual meters will discharge the same volume of 

sewage as one of that size with a single meter. 

However, an ordinance may make a valid 

Page 3 of 6 

Page 2 

classification based on traditional distinctions and 

on pragmatic considerations. The classification of 

residential structures on the basis of five or more 

units exists in various legislative provisions. FN' 

The city maintains no billing system adaptable for 

the assessment and collection of the charge herein 

involved; its department of water and power has 

such a*16 system. Resort to the department as a 

collection agency was a rational decision. However, 

the department's existing billing system for water 

charges, to which the sewer charge is added, 

distinguishes, and long has distinguished, in its 

operation, between the five-or more unit structure 

on a single meter and the other types of residential 

users. Absent an ordinance that imposed a sewage 

charge on all residential users there existed no 

practical alternative to the classification herein 

involved. The ordinance is based on reasonable 

grounds and is valid. 

FN1 For example: Los Angeles County 

Ordinance No. 5860, section 572, imposes 

a business license fee on apartment houses 

of five or more units; the Federal Fair 

Housing Law (42 U.S.C.A. 5 3603(c)(3)), 

applies only to dwelling structures of five 

or more units; the California Fair Housing 

Law, Health and Safety Code, section 

35720, subdivision 5, also distinguishes 

between dwelling structures on the same 

basis. 

The judgment is reversed. 

Files, P. J., concurred. 

JEFFERSON (Bernard), J. 

I dissent. 

The majority reverses a judgment of the trial court 

which declared unconstitutional a city ordinance 

imposing a sewer service charge. The attack on the 

ordinance is predicated on the contention that it 

violates plaintiffs' constitutional right to equal 

protection of the laws. Under the ordinance, no 

sewer service charge is imposed on structures 

containing four units or less irrespective of whether 

such structures are serviced by a single water meter 

or a water meter for each unit. For structures 




Page 4 of 6 

Page 3 

containing five or more units, the sewer service ordinance which based a sewer connection fee for a 

charge is imposed only as to those structures having hospital on the number of bed spaces. The English 

a single water meter. If a structure contains five or Manor court, in sustaining the validity of the 

more units with an individual water meter for each ordinance, held that a charge per bed space bore a 

unit, no sewer service charge is imposed as to that reasonable relationship to the burden on the sewer 

structure. system. 

The trial judge found that the ordinance constitutes 

a violation of equal protection of the laws in levying 

a sewer service charge - declared to be a tax - on 

structures with five or more units based on whether 

there was a single water meter or a water meter for 

each unit, and in exempting from the charge 

structures containing four units or less. I agree with 

the trial judge that the distinctions made by the 

ordinance are arbitrary and not based upon any 

reasonable classification. Hence, the ordinance is 

invalid. 

The majority sustains the validity of the ordinance 

on the theory that the ordinance makes a valid 

classification based on traditional distinctions and 

pragmatic considerations. The 

traditional-distinctions justification is simply stated 

to be that in various legislative provisions, a 

classification has been made between multi-unit 

structures with the*17 dividing line being 

structures with four units or less and those with 

more than four units. The pragmatic consideration 

is premised upon the theory that the city has no 

billing system adaptable for the assessment and 

collection of the sewer charge, but that the 

department of water and power has a computerized 

billing system which permits the collection of a 

sewer charge on multi-unit buildings which have a 

single water meter servicing such building. 

I recognize that the issue of the constitutional 

validity of an ordinance, insofar as equal protection 

of the laws is concerned, is to be approached 

through the well-established principle that "the 

constitutionality of an ordinance is favored and 

courts are reluctant to declare an ordinance 

unconstitutional. Ordinances are nresumed to be 

constitutional if any rational consideration supports 

their enactment ...." (English Manor Corp. v. 

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control Dist. (1974) 42 

Cal.App.3d 996, 1003 [I17 Cal.Rptr. 3 151.) (Italics 

in original.) The English Manor case dealt with an 

It is generally recognized that a classification of 

users based upon their effects on the sewer system 

represents a reasonable classification. For a 

classification to be free from arbitrariness or 

invidious discrimination, however, it must be 

reasonably commensurate with the burdens placed 

on the sewer system by the users of the system. 

Using this test of reasonable relationship, sewer 

service charges - based upon a variety of factors - 

have been upheld as constitutional. Thus, sewer 

service charges based upon water consumption have 

been declared valid on the theory that the amount of 

water that flows into a building is apt to be roughly 

proportional to what flows out as sewage. (In re 

City of Philadelphia (1941) 343 Pa. 47 [21 A.2d 

8761.) Similarly, an ordinance ba~ing sewer service 

rates on the number and type of plumbing fxtures 

has been held to be a valid classification. (Town of 

Port Orchard v. Kitsap County (1943) 19 Wn.2d 59 

[I41 P.2d 1501.) 

In Boynton v. City of Lakeport Mun. Sewer Dist. 

(1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 91 [I04 Cal.Rptr. 409, 61 

A.L.R.3d 12281, a sewer rate classification for 

commercial establishments was based generally 

upon the number of (1) available restrooms, (2) 

kitchens, and (3) people served. Although these 

factors do not correspond exactly with the amount 

of water used, the*18 Boynton court upheld the 

ordinance as "reasonably related to the burden 

imposed upon the sewer system. While other 

methods, including the use of water metered rates, 

could be used in fming sewer rates, the method here 

used was not unreasonable or discriminatory." ( 

Boynton, supra, 28 Cal.App.3d 91,96.) 

In Associated Homebuilders v. City of Livermore 

(1961) 56 Cal.2d 847, 852-853 [17 Cal.Rptr. 5, 366 

P.2d 4481, the court dealt with orhances which 

prescribed sewer-connection charges "measured by 

the use to which the property (and consequentially 

the city's sewer system) will be put, including the 

O 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.


(Cite as: 75 Cal.App.3d 13) 

number and type of plumbing fixtures to be 

installed. Accordingly, it ... is in the nature of an 

excise tax imposed on all persons thereafter 

applying for building pennits for the privilege of 

connection to (and is reasonably commensurate 

with the burden to be imposed on) the facilities of 

defendant's sewer system." 

In the case at bench, the classification between 

property owners who must pay a sewer service 

charge and those not required to pay is not 

reasonably related to any factors seeking to measure 

the burden on the sewer system such as are set forth 

in Boynton, English Manor Corp., Associated 

Homebuilders, In re City of Philadeljhia, or Town 

of Port Orchard. 

The case at bench is not unlike that of Gowens v. 

City of Bakersfield (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 282 [3 

Cal.Rptr. 7461. In this case a city ordinance 

required hotels that offered lodgings for five or 

more persons for comp~nsation to collect a tax on 

transients of 4 percent of the compensation paid by 

such transients. Gowens held the tax scheme to be 

arbitrary, discriminatory and a violation of the 

constitutional principle of equal protection of the 

laws. Gowens took the view that no reasonable 

classification was made in exempting from 

imposition of the tax establishments containing less 

than five lodgings. The court stated that it could " 

find no reasonable distinction for tax purposes from 

the viewpoint of a lodger between one seeking and 

using a large hostelry capable of accommodating 

many people and a small one accommodating a 

lesser number." (Gowens, supra, 179 Cal.App.2d 

282,286.) 

The only justification which is urged to support the 

classification set up in the ordinance before us is 

that of so-called pragmatic considerations or 

administrative convenience. Occasionally there is 

found in the decisional law a statement such as " 

[aldmin~strative convenience and*19 expense in 

the collection or measurement of a tax are alone a 

sufficient justification for treating some taxpayers 

differently than others." (City of Sun Jose v. 

Donohue (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 40, 45 [I23 

Cal.Rptr. 8041.) In making h s statement, the City 

of Sun Jose court remarked that in using utilities to 

Page 5 of 6 

Page 4 

collect the tax, only a small percentage of the total 

number of utility users were not being taxed under 

the circumstances presented. 

It is also to be noted that the City of Sun Jose case - 

for its view of administrative convenience - relied 

on Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 

U.S. 495 [81 L.Ed 1245, 57 S.Ct. 868, 109 A.L.R. 

13271, which dealt with the Alabama 

Unemployment Compensation Act which taxed 

employers who had eight or more employees, but 

exempted employers with less than eight 

employees. The Carmichael court stated: " 

Administrative convenience and expense in the 

collection or measurement of the tax are alone a 

sufficient justification for the difference between 

the treatment of small incomes or small taxpayers 

and that meted out to others. [Citations.] We cannot 

say that the expense and inconvenience of 

collecting the tax from small employers would not 

be disproportionate to the revenue obtained. For it 

cannot be assumed that the legislature could not 

rightly have concluded that generally the number of 

employees bears a relationship to the size of the 

payroll and therefore to the amount of the tax, and 

that the large number of small employers and the 

paucity of their records of employment would entail 

greater inconvenience in the collection and 

verification of the tax than in the case of larger 

employers." ( Carmichael, supra, 301 U.S. 495, 

511 [81 L.Ed 1245, 12541.) 

I cannot support the view that administrative 

convenience is sufficient to support the 

classification made in the case at bench. The 

situation presented before us is clearly different 

from that presented in City of Sun Jose and in 

Carmichael. A classification based upon whether an 

owner of a multi-unit building utilizes a single water 

meter as contrasted with an owner who uses a 

separate water meter for each unit of the building 

and imposes a sewer service charge only on the 

owner who has a single water meter for all of the 

units is arbitrary, unreasonable and bears no 

reasonable relationship to the basis of the 

imposition of the sewer service charge, to wit, the 

burden imposed upon the sewer system. The burden 

imposed upon the sewer system is roughly the same 

whether a building contains separate meters for 

O 2007 ThornsonlWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.


(Cite as: 75 Cal.App.3d 13) 

each unit or one meter for all of the units. The water 

received by the buildings will be approximately the 

same and so will the water discharged fiom the 

buildings into the sewage system.*20 

Furthermore, the exemption from the sewer charge 

of structures containing four or less dwelling units 

is not predicated on any factors relating to the 

burden on the sewer system. Thus, the four units or 

less structure is exempted fiom the sewer charge 

irrespective of the volume of water delivered to the 

structure, the volume of water discharged from the 

structure in the form of sewage, the number of 

occupants per unit, or the number of 

sewer-connected facilities per unit - factors which 

have a bearing on the burden to the system. 

I would sustain the judgment of the trial court 

holding the ordinance to be invalid. 

A petition for a rehearing was denied December 1, 

1977. Jefferson (Bernard), J., was of the opinion 

that the petition should be granted. Respondents' 

petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was 

denied January 26, 1978. Bird, C. J., Tobriner, J., 

and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition 

should be granted. 

Cal.App.2.Dist. 

Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. 

City of Los Angeles 

75 Cal.App.3d 13,141 Cal.Rptr. 794 

END OF DOCUMENT 

O 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 

Page 6 of 6 

Page 5

IR-13E Waste - SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY MIKE AGUIRRE ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?